The only known cause of uterine cancer is excess estrogen due to inadequate progesterone or to estrogen replacement without the concomitant use of natural progesterone.1
C. Norman Shealy, M.D., Ph.D.
We’ve been waging the war on cancer for many decades, and what do we have to show for it? Despite the vast sums of money that are spent on developing new drugs and new technologies, casualties continue to mount. Dr. Allen Astrow, a cancer specialist at St. Vincent’s Hospital and Medical Center in New York, tells us that even with all the advances in our knowledge of the molecular mechanics of tumor formation and development, “mortality rates from cancer in the U.S. are rising.”2, 3
Once we begin to understand the reason cancer exists, we will see why the war against cancer was lost years ago and why we need to get off this battlefield. Dr. John Lee alerts us to the research of Schippers et al., which shows that “cancer cells, far from being foreign invaders, are an intimate part of ourselves, essentially normal cells in which proportionately small changes in genes have led to changes in their behavior. The treatment strategy should be to reestablish intercellular communications.” It’s called rebalancing.
I was able to understand the process of rebalancing the body a lot better after reading Dr. Richard Passwater’s research on human cancers and our environmental carcinogens. Thousands of new chemicals are added to the environment every year.4 A study by the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Idaho showed that many environmental pollutants contain estrogenic compounds that are suspected of increasing the occurrence of endocrine interference and reproductive failure in humans and other species.
According to Dr. Raymond Peat, in a personal communication, “environmental carcinogens—phenolics, aromatic-hydrocarbons, chlorinated-hydrocarbons, PCBs, dioxins, soot, even X-rays—are in general estrogenic.” Although the public is only beginning to be aware of this deadly connection, especially to breast cancer, it has been published widely in scientific journals and articles on health research.
The topic is controversial and in many respects frightening. Yes, it seems that a large number of the chemicals we encounter in our daily lives, such as pesticides, solvents, industrial contaminants, and components of detergents and plastics, actually mimic the estrogen molecules found in living organisms. Because these harmful estrogenic substances latch onto or sometimes enter our living cells, which contain receptors, they can either give the cells a greater than normal hormonal “charge” or block activity of the body’s own estrogen by jamming the receptors.
Why is this so serious? Recent studies cite the effects of such environmental contamination: a dramatically rising breast cancer rate in the United States, a possible decline in sperm quality plus low testosterone levels in men, abnormal penises and reduced motor and language skills among boys whose mothers were exposed to estrogen-like toxins, and other ills. Not only are humans threatened, but some animal populations (marine birds, panthers) are perhaps very close to extinction. Because of the estrogenic pollutants, sea gulls and alligators have been found with abnormal reproductive organs and a low reproduction rate, with nesting impulses observed among males and aggressive behavior in females.5, *
Instead of degrading like other poisons, substances such as DDT, PCBs, and dioxin accumulate over the years. Since some of these fat-soluble chemicals are sprayed on plants and eaten by animals, they especially affect those at the top of the food chain: humans. What does that bode for the next generation?
According to the journal Pediatrics published by the American Academy of Pediatrics (April 1997), “Environmental estrogens occur from the breakdown of chemicals in products ranging from pesticides to plastic wrap.”6 These in turn imitate the hormone, estrogen. We are now finding that young girls are reaching puberty earlier than ever, some even developing sexually by the time they are eight years old.7 Ovarian, breast, prostate, and testicular cancer—all hormone-driven—have increased sharply in recent years.
Now the Environmental Protection Agency and several other organizations are looking into the impact of estrogen-mimicking chemicals on both reproduction and cancer, in an attempt to either confirm or deny this compelling theory. Every day studies are brought forth that make this simpler to confirm.
For instance, from a March 21, 1998, article in Science News (“Drugged Waters: Does It Matter That Pharmaceuticals Are Turning Up in Water Supplies?”), we discover that estrogens passed on in human waste are not being removed by sewage treatment plants. As a result, they are accumulating in our water supply and are having a serious impact on the reproductive patterns of exposed wildlife (and quite possibly human life as well).8 These rather shocking results of tests on water taken from Lake Mead in Nevada showed estradiol levels to be quite high.9 Given that synthetic estrogen is one of the top-selling drugs in this country, the fact that it is a major source of environmental contamination of many of our lakes, rivers, and streams should come as no surprise.
The insidious nature of the xenoestrogens (environmental estrogen mimickers) becomes clear when they strike close to home. I myself know of a bright young college student, ironically an environmental health science major, who by the age of twenty-three had endured multiple surgical procedures and faced uncertainty about whether she would ever be able to bear children—all as a result of exposure to the pesticide Safrotin, which had been sprayed, improperly, inside her dormitory room.
Five months after an unpleasant and violent initial reaction, the hormonal effects of this neurotoxic chemical had begun their toll: midmonth bleeding, excruciating cramps, diarrhea, and urinary pain. Before finally arriving at the diagnosis of severe endometriosis, a series of doctors put this young woman through a terrible ordeal of testing, exploratory surgery, and ineffective treatment. Then they gave her undesirable options such as synthetic birth control pills to try to normalize her cycles, more surgery to determine the extent of damage to her ova, and treatment with a drug that would induce menopause.
This was an extreme example of what we are all faced with today. In 1998, for example, Science News published an alarming report about some of the estrogen-mimicking products in our environment.10 BHA (a preservative that’s added to food), BBP (which makes plastics flexible and preserves paper food-packaging materials), and DBP (found in food wraps, certain insect repellents, etc.) are just a few of the powerful pseudoestrogens that are causing endocrine disorders in both men and women. BPAs are yet another component of some plastic wraps and plastic-lined cans.
Dioxins turn up in tampons, shampoos, skin creams, and drinks from those plastic-lined cans.11 And more and more we are finding that dioxins have directly contaminated our food supply. In June 1999 the Associated Press released an announcement by the Belgian Minister of Health regarding exceedingly high levels of dioxin in chicken that had been measured at 1,000 times the “accepted” limit. This followed earlier distribution of 175,000 pounds of dioxin-contaminated animal feed to poultry, beef, and pig farms in that country.12
The Tampon Safety and Research Act provides an investigation into the dioxin in tampons. Women’s Health Advocate sums up the concerns about bleached tampons:
Chlorine is used to bleach paper pulp, which provides the rayon used in most tampons. This process produces dioxin, a probable carcinogen that’s suspected of acting like estrogen in the body.13
Author McQuade Crawford is a member of the American Herbalists Guild and Britain’s National Institute of Medical Herbalists, president of the American College of Integrative Medicine in Albuquerque, and a practicing herbalist in California. Her studies show that chlorinated compounds such as dioxin are creating a variety of endocrine and reproductive problems, causing infertility and even cancer.14 She encourages women to avoid the use of bleached feminine hygiene products, as well as reducing consumption of animal products exposed to pesticides and synthetic hormones.*
Meanwhile, many consumers are looking for unbleached, all-cotton tampons and pads (which more and more health food stores carry) or those that are bleached with hydrogen peroxide. Insist on organically produced cotton as, ironically, cotton is one of the most heavily sprayed agricultural crops.
In view of the potentially tragic health consequences, Dr. John Lee feels we should be alarmed about our exposure to these foreign estrogens (or “xenobiotics”) derived from petrochemicals. Indeed, he says there is a corresponding epidemic of progesterone deficiency among women in the industrialized nations (North America and Western Europe), influenced in part by environmental contamination and our processed food supply, whereby we do not get the progesterone in our diets that people in the less developed countries obtain from raw, natural foods.15
Referring to the fascinating work of Dr. Peter Ellison for the World Health Organization, Dr. Lee says:
The estrogen levels in America today tend to be quite a bit higher than in other countries. With menopause the fall of estrogen is greater in the U.S. and other industrialized countries than in the more agrarian “Third World” countries. Progesterone levels are remarkably stable in agrarian countries whereas, here in the U.S., women’s progesterone falls to levels quite close to zero, even lower than that found in men.16
At the March 1998 National Cancer Institute Symposium, twenty-six renowned cancer researchers explained the role of estrogen metabolites in the prelude to breast and prostate cancer.17, 18 This event, the topic of which was “Estrogens as Endogenous Carcinogens in the Breast and Prostate,” shed new light on estrogen’s effect on our health.19
In short, all of us are in danger of estrogen excess. Consider the sources: (1) Estrogen is secreted in substantial amounts by the ovaries and adrenal glands in the form of androstenedione (an estrogen precursor).20 (2) Medical doctors prescribe estrogens for numerous clinical conditions at many different stages and ages in a woman’s life cycle—for menstrual problems, infertility, PMS, birth control, and postmenopausal symptoms. A big concern is that we are thereby adding more estrogen to an already estrogenic environment, setting our bodies up for a multitude of disorders and diseases. (3) Not only are natural estrogens present in many plant foods (phytoestrogens), but if we eat meat and dairy products that are not organically produced, we may also be ingesting foods daily that contain synthetic estrogen (DES)21 or the estrogenic growth hormones that are injected into cattle and poultry. Along with feed additives, antibiotics, pesticides, and drugs, these hormones are given to animals with little or no federal regulation.22 (4) And finally, we live in a chemically saturated environment, which is a source of additional undesirable estrogen.
With the cards stacked against us like this, most of us will undoubtedly experience what Dr. Lita Lee has referred to as “estrogen overload.”23 The host of contributing factors makes it fairly easy to understand how estrogen can permeate and eventually gain the upper hand in the body, doing significant damage without its essential partner, progesterone, to balance and oppose it. Even herbal estrogens, especially when taken alone, can contribute to this type of hormonal imbalance.
Our human cells take an amazing amount of abuse (not without consequences) from artificial preservatives, colorings, and flavorings and the other chemical additives in our foods. Many of these additives, along with the preservatives and chemical wastes that end up in our food, air, and water, are now classed as xenoestrogens and are wreaking havoc in animals and humans alike.24
The link between even our body’s endogenous estrogen and cancer cannot be overlooked much longer. Studies are increasingly implicating estrogen in the development of cancer of the breast, uterus, ovaries,25 and also the prostate.26–28 Furthermore, researchers working with cell cultures are now studying the mechanisms by which estrogen metabolites can initiate cell damage by binding to DNA. Epidemiologists report that “women who have reduced amounts of the enzymes that help sop up those reactive estrogen byproducts are at higher risk for developing breast cancer.”29
All of this information should be front-page news. David Longfellow, a chemist with the National Cancer Institute and organizer of the 1998 National Cancer Institute Symposium insists that the “carcinogenic” nature of estrogen in both men and women should be a focus of our research efforts. The urgency is mounting, as each year—in the United States alone—we see approximately 240,000 new cases of breast, uterine, and ovarian cancers.30 How much longer are we going to acquiesce to the worn and dispassionate cliché about “weighing the benefits against the risks” of a hormone that is clearly creating such havoc?
Many experts have observed a direct link between ovarian,31 breast, and uterine cancer and high levels of particular estrogens in the body—specifically the estrogens known as estradiol and estrone.32 The other common estrogen, estriol, is thought by some (although the matter is controversial) to have a positive effect on postmenopausal33 or younger women. This was brought home to me by an eye-opening piece of information I came across during my search for natural hormones. The statement in Dr. Julian Whitaker’s newsletter Health & Healing still sticks in my mind:
There are three forms of estrogen: estrone, estradiol, and estriol. It was shown almost 10 years ago that estrone and estradiol were the primary cancer culprits, while estriol was actually associated with a reduced cancer incidence. Premarin is composed primarily of estrone and estradiol.34
Let’s review that comment again: Dr. Whitaker states that estriol was actually associated with a reduced cancer incidence. It now appears that this relative “reduction” in cancer makes it the “safer” estrogen. In other words, women are now supposed to believe that using a hormone that is “less risky” makes it safe.
Almost everyone, including the media, continues to focus on some type of estrogen as the cure. This is occurring due to the unfortunate fact that estrogen products still sell. Just consider the emphasis on soy that we have witnessed for over a decade now. Soy has been promoted as the safe phytoestrogen. And now the “danger of soy” is finally gaining the consumer’s awareness.35 Why the danger you may ask? Because it acts as an estrogen! It stimulates cellular overgrowth and it suppresses normal thyroid functioning just to name a few similarities. If soy can do that, why won’t estriol? Why won’t bioidentical estriol continue to add more estrogenic exposure to our already over-exposed tissues?
A very profound and relevant answer to these questions is found in an article in the periodical Science (June 7, 1996) where the authors state that estrogenic chemicals become more potent and bioactive when they are exposed to each other. Scientists at Tulane University specifically studied pesticides that are estrogenic in nature and found the following to be evident:
Using relatively weak environmental estrogens such as dieldrin, endosulfan, or toxaphene, the estrogenic potencies of chemical combinations were screened in a simple yeast estrogen system containing human estrogen receptor (hER). Combinations of the environmental estrogens in pairs “were 1,000 times as potent… as any chemical alone,” the researchers report.36
From a physiological point of view, our estrogen receptors don’t distinguish between the source of the estrogen molecule, be it bioidentical or synthetic. In our tissues, these multiple sources now act in combination with other exposures to estrogens that we can’t avoid or eliminate. Needless to say, supplementing with the so-called safe estrogen (estriol) cannot prevent its effect on our cells. Neither can it perform the many necessary physiological and vital functions that are inherent with the use of natural progesterone.
Estriol is most dominant in a woman during pregnancy when very large quantities are produced in the body, along with very low levels of the other two common estrogens. However, we need to remember that the placenta is producing copious amounts of progesterone (300 to 400 mgs/day in the third trimester) to keep the increased level of estriol in check. In contrast, most women taking HRT are not using anywhere near this quantity of natural progesterone, if any at all. Dr. Lee reports that a study of women with breast cancer found they had 30 to 60 percent less estriol in their urine than did a control group of women without cancer. Although this phenomenon could be related to the reduced liver function of most cancer patients and not to any cause-and-effect relationship, it has been surmised that supplements of estriol might block the carcinogenic effect of excess estradiol and estrone and act, in effect, as a cancer-preventive (or anticancer) agent.37 Unfortunately, the lack of agreement among scientists on this theory stems from the scarcity of research data.
The situation with endometrial cancer is similar. A study reported by the Journal of the American Medical Association showed estrone to be the principal component in the induction of endometrial carcinoma.38 And a respected researcher tells us that the only known cause of such cancer is the presence in the body of excessive quantities of certain estrogens (in particular estrone and estradiol), accompanied by low levels of estriol and unopposed by the counteraction of adequate progesterone.39, 40 Dr. Peat cautions, however, that there is evidence that estriol and other phytoestrogens can add dangerously to the body’s total estrogen load.41 An example is a Dutch study in 1988 in which estriol was shown to metabolize into a form of estrone in the uterine tissue of postmenopausal women.42
Since the last edition of the book we have discovered more information concerning the dangers of what we thought to be a safe estrogen (estriol). These studies that have cast some doubt on the safety of estriol for some women include the 1977 work of Lippmann et al., which showed estriol to stimulate the growth of human breast cancer cells.43, 44 The National Toxicology Program advisory committee evaluated the use of birth control pills in treating postmenopausal women and voted 8-1 that steroidal estrogen use was associated with endometrial and breast cancer.45
The JAMA studies also show the risk of breast cancer to increase with the use of oral contraceptives, especially in women with a family history of cancer.46 Furthermore, we have found that the majority of women who had breast cancer never had any genetic tendencies or family members with the disease. Personally, we feel that blaming the cause of a disease on “our genes” is too often an excuse so we (or our doctors) don’t have to take on responsibility for our health and well-being. And today, with all the research avail able, we can all become more knowledgeable in understanding what our body really needs. This empowerment and freedom of choice is now at our fingertips.
Some important in-vitro studies were conducted recently at the University of California, Santa Barbara. They demonstrated that test tube cancers of both the male and female reproductive systems were stimulated on a genetic level by the addition of estrogen. Specifically, the addition of estrogen “turned on” the gene known as Bcl-2, which has a stimulatory effect on cell growth, and caused these cancers to grow. On the other hand, progesterone was found to inhibit growth—via the gene p53, which when activated results in a remarkable reversal of excessive cell growth such as that found in reproductive system cancers in both men and women.47
A 1995 research review published in the American Journal of Epidemiology examined a large eight-year study at Emory University that demonstrated “the risk ratio of fatal ovarian cancer to be 72 percent greater in women who were using unopposed estrogen replacement therapy (HRT) for six years or more.” It concluded that women whose own (endogenous) estrogen levels were higher than their progesterone levels would also be at risk,48 another reminder that estrogen overload can come from many sources—all of which can potentially contribute to the body’s total saturation level of estrogen. For more information on the causes of and remedies for cancer, please see appendices D, E, and G.
It’s a sad fact that the approved and medically preferred estrogens prescribed orally to women are combinations of estrone and estradiol, or estradiol by itself;49 and these are the very forms traditionally used as supplements to combat osteoporosis.50 The grim consequences of these hormones also befall menopausal women who are on short-term supplementation during the usual five-year period of menopause. Such estrogen supplements have been shown to increase the risk of hormonal-driven cancers sixfold—with longer-term use multiplying the risk by as much as fifteen times that of nonusers. A study in Sweden also showed that women using high doses of the synthetic estrogen known as ethinylestradiol (used in lower doses in the birth control pill in the United States) had an increase in breast cancer.
Because of the known risks of the synthetic products, many doctors open to natural alternatives now believe that supplemental estrogen is not necessary as long as a woman is receiving natural progesterone. Since progesterone is a substance from which estrogen is formed—that is, a precursor of it and other hormones (cortisone, testosterone, and aldosterone)51—under normal conditions it will stimulate production of one’s own estrogen.
Why, then, are the medical doctors continuing to give us synthetic estrogens or even natural bioidentical estrogens? Why do so few physicians prescribe the wiser choice of natural progesterone instead of synthetic progestins? And how do we, the recipients of such drug treatments, make sense of this baffling approach?
I can say from my own research and experience that for those who have been through menopause or have had their uterus or ovaries removed, the need for a careful approach to estrogen supplementation seems glaringly obvious. The case seems pretty clear: breast and endometrial cancer are caused to a great extent by excessive, unopposed levels of estrogens, which we acquire from a variety of sources. Therefore the addition of progesterone would be an important factor in cancer prevention because it has been shown to stop cells from multiplying.52
When I read in an article that was buried in a 1978 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association that diethylstilbestrol, the hormone mainly prescribed for advanced cancer, “is not a steroid but is a chemical complex that acts like estrogen and is as carcinogenic as estrone,”53 I wondered why most gynecologists or other medical specialists never mention these things. As we try to understand whether or not we need more estrogen than what is already produced in our body, even during menopause, let’s hear what a prominent authority on this subject says: “One of estrogen’s relatively normal effects is to shift metabolism toward the production of more lactic acid….” The mere presence of lactic acid in the blood displaces carbon dioxide, with many harmful consequences (all of which are seen in the estrogen dominant state). Carbon dioxide is in effect our basic protection against free radical damage.54 Pretty grim prospect to think that excess estrogen can lead to free radical hypoxia (oxygen deprivation to cells).
Nevertheless, Dr. John Lee’s work on NHRT does give women this information to add to our treasury of knowledge:
The addition of progesterone enhances the receptors of estrogen, and thus [a woman’s] “need” for estrogen may not exist. If neither vaginal dryness nor hot flushes are present after three months of progesterone therapy, it is unlikely that estrogen supplements are needed…. Once progesterone levels are raised, estrogen receptors in these areas become more sensitive, and hot flushes [flashes] usually subside. The validity of the mechanism can be tested by measuring FSH [follicle-stimulating hormone] and LH [luteinizing hormone] levels before and after adequate progesterone supplementation.55
Finding all this information was enlightening. However, first I had to experiment on myself. A pragmatist by nature, I then saw my goal become clear. After I had read books, articles, abstracts, reports, and studies to find what was available on the subject and contacted Emory University, pharmacies, medical centers, and reference libraries for pertinent documentation, I started on NHRT.
During and after the six months of my experiment, I felt better than ever before, so my second goal became obvious. I wanted to reach as many other women as possible to encourage them to take action on behalf of their own health and well-being, to consider any as-yet unknown long-term effects, and to evaluate and monitor their bodies’ reponses to the treatment of their choice. In this way, they could perhaps gain as much as I, relieving not only their fears and frustrations but their mental and physical disorders as well.
Wallace Simons, R.Ph., of Women’s International Pharmacy told me that when progestins occupy the sites of progesterone receptors in target cells throughout the body it is as if these synthetic components are blocking the progesterone sites. As Dr. John Lee describes it, the body perceives that since the progesterone sites are all occupied, its own natural progesterone (assuming the woman is still ovulating) cannot be utilized, and therefore production is cut back.
Without the adequate opposition of progesterone, estrogen then becomes dominant and runs rampant. This in turn causes the body’s feedback mechanism to recognize that something is still needed in the body’s many progesterone receptors (as discussed in chapter 4). A message is sent to the ovaries to increase their own progesterone output to fill the receptors. But because these sites are unavailable, this additional progesterone cannot be used properly. The woman plunges into bodily chaos, which affects her emotions, memory, sex drive, body temperature, and other physiological functions that mirror hormonal decline.
Excessive environmental estrogens and the prescription of additional synthetic estrogens and progestins may play an underlying role in the stimulation and rapid multiplication of cells (often in breast or cervical tissues) and lead to hormone-fed cancers. Dr. Ray Peat explains another reason this happens: “The thymus gland is the main regulator of the immune system. Estrogen causes it to shrink, while progesterone protects it.” Furthermore, he says that estrogen excess actually obstructs oxygenation of the blood.56 This is significant in view of Dr. Otto Warburg’s finding that “normal cells use oxygen-based reactions as their source of energy, but cancer cells can form from cells not receiving adequate oxygen.”57 The body becomes overwhelmed and run down by the resulting imbalance, and the immune and circulatory systems are weakened.
In an important study reported by Johns Hopkins University in the American Journal of Epidemiology, women were first measured for their estrogen and progesterone levels and then placed in two separate groups to monitor their susceptibility to cancers. The findings proved quite interesting:
A test was run for 40 years. They found when the “low progesterone” group was compared to the “normal progesterone” group, the women in the low progesterone group had [approximately] 5½ times the risk of breast cancer.58
A further conclusion was that the “low progesterone” participants encountered a tenfold increase in deaths from all types of cancer, compared with the “normal progesterone” participants. This should be headline news! However, according to Dr. John Lee, these important test results were not distributed or further publicized. Why? Can you imagine the thousands of women who might have avoided the dreaded disease of cancer, and even the difficulties of menopause, through natural prevention? Instead, women were given little hope—or choice—by their doctors except the radical methods of radiation, chemotherapy, and/or surgery.
There is a much simpler and saner way: balance the hormones so the body’s own defense system kicks in, stopping disease in its tracks before it gets started. Indeed, progesterone alone seems to be the hormone of choice for most conditions. If, however, estrogen supplementation seems unavoidable, some women have found that several specific botanical sources have come to their aid. Among them are adaptagenic herbs, which exert a balancing action on hormone metabolism—lowering levels if too high and raising them if too low. They contain progestagenic and/or estrogenic substances. This information can be found in chapter 6. These are listed in a chart, along with other herbs that have been traditionally used to address hot flashes and night sweats during the transition of menopause. These, of course, are most effective in harmony with natural progesterone cream in helping to neutralize any excess or correct a deficiency of some of our other hormones.59–61
Is it any great mystery that more and more women are succumbing to cancer at such a rapid rate? Just look at the statistics, which speak for themselves: Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in women in the United States. According to Morbidity and Mortality, the report published by the Centers for Disease Control, the incidence of breast cancer increased 52 percent between 1950 and 1990.62 Ninety thousand new cases are diagnosed annually, and 37,000 women per year will die of it.63
If natural progesterone therapy were given as much commercial time as is mammography for preventing breast cancer, women would certainly have a greater opportunity to learn the true meaning of prevention of disease. And when it comes to progesterone, it seems reasonable that what’s good for the development and health of the embryo (progesterone being the dominant hormone) would also be a good equalizer for women going through the many changes and stresses in their lives. To understand why this is, take a look at Dr. Lee’s response to a question asked of him during an interview by Ruth Sackman, president of F.A.C.T. (Foundation for Advancement in Cancer Therapy):
We know that a woman is protected from having breast cancer if she has multiple pregnancies. In multiple pregnancies you have long periods of time where progesterone is the dominant hormone. In breast-feeding the ovaries do not start raising estrogen. So if a woman combines pregnancies with some time of breast-feeding, her breasts will be much protected against the estrogen effects.64
Dr. Lee’s work with cancer patients who at the same time were suffering from osteoporosis has laid the foundation for a transformation in how today’s women will approach menopause. The lesser-known hormones have been quietly written about for years. But women at large, who don’t have ready access to medical journals, have not been made aware of the implications. Fortunately, however, Dr. Lee discovered the importance of natural hormones as far back as 1981. For more than fourteen years he observed the results of progesterone therapy in his patients and saw absolutely no return of their cancers. By making known to us his lifesaving findings, Dr. Lee has given women worldwide the benefit of his efforts.
Barbara Joseph, M.D., not only a survivor of breast cancer but also an obstetrician/gynecologist, relates some astonishing facts that are worth noting. In seeking the truth, she found, as many of us know, that the helpful information needed to fight this deadly disease is not accessible to most women. It is out there if we search for it but, as she says, “has been either downplayed or ignored by the medical profession.”65
Approximately 80 percent of the women who get breast cancer have no inherited tendencies. Studies show that the woman who gives birth to children, breast-feeds, and also has been breast fed as a child “decreases her risk of breast cancer.”66 Also, abortions that take place during the first-trimester of pregnancy will “increase breast cancer risk by an overall odds ratio of 1:3.”67–71 Increasingly we are learning that diet, environment, and hormonal imbalance can bring about abnormalities in our cells.72 What we eat, drink, and breathe, as well as our exposure to radiation and toxic chemicals in household products and personal care items, can affect our genes. Dr. Joseph says with conviction that radiation “is a risk factor for developing breast cancer…. The younger you are at the time of radiation the more likely it is that radiation, itself, will cause another cancer.”73 There is plenty of medical documentation to substantiate that an accumulation of radiation over the years (such as from routine X-rays of the teeth, chest, breast, and spine) can be linked to breast cancer, as well as to thyroid disorders and other potential diseases.74, 75 (See also appendix D, which discusses mammography and breast cancer.)
This may be the time to bring up a very important point. Many readers who have had breast cancer, and who have educated themselves and now want to use natural progesterone with their doctors’ blessing, are going to run into a very common brick wall. If a cancer patient has undergone breast biopsy, more than likely she has also had the standard estrogen and progesterone receptor assay. This test is used to measure the quantity of hormone receptors on the tumor cells and then, theoretically, to serve as a guide to the advisability of hormone treatment of any kind. If the results show that the number of progesterone receptors is high, most doctors will not prescribe progesterone. They’re unsure of how to interpret the test results.
After getting this same response from several doctors, even the more open-minded ones, one patient took matters into her own hands and wrote to the company in California that had run her tests, asking for the medical abstracts on which the evaluation was based. The only articles available turned out to be over a decade old and seemed to conclude that more study was definitely needed.76–78 The laboratory did, however, admit that the assays are performed using synthetic progestins—leading one to wonder just how much value they hold! The woman’s gynecologist was also very surprised to learn this.
Obviously she is not alone, because Dr. John Lee is asked about this dilemma all the time. He wrote to her, “Like many other things in life, we are forced to make decisions despite incomplete knowledge…. The available knowledge concerning the significance of hormone receptor status is still a bit murky, [and] the testing procedure itself involves some uncertainties.” First of all, he pointed out, “One cannot assume that tumor cells are all alike.”
Dr. Lee, in his explanation to the frustrated woman, said that progesterone receptors (PgRs) “do not develop in breast cells (or tumor cells) unless estrogen is present in good quantities. The very presence of a high number of ERs [estrogen receptors] and PgRs is a good sign, in the sense that the tumor cells are more like fully differentiated normal cells.”
Estrogen acts to increase cell proliferation. Progesterone, on the other hand, acts to induce cell maturation and differentiation. Therefore, said Dr. Lee, “the presence of PgRs allows the hypothesis that the addition of progesterone makes the tumor cells more mature and more differentiated, creating a lower level of malignancy among them. The authors of the papers [on the ER/PgR assay] fail to consider the different actions of the hormones involved.”
So his advice to the doctor of the breast cancer surgery patient is this: “From all the evidence I’ve seen, even if … the receptor sites are there for progesterone, the patient is a perfect candidate to use progesterone…. That’s the only way the progesterone could ever work. Whereas if it’s estrogen-site positive, then she should not have estrogen because it causes the cell to multiply. What does progesterone do? It causes [the cell] to stop multiplying.”79
According to Dr. Lee, “My long experience in using natural progesterone in patients with a past history of breast cancer treated by surgery alone, and the finding that none of them have shown late metastases or recurrences, leads me to believe that natural progesterone poses no increased risk to such patients … [and is] quite probably a benefit.” He concluded, “If the PgR test is negative, the cell will be unaffected by progesterone. If [it] shows a good quantity of PgRs, supplemental progesterone may make the tumor cells less malignant.”
And now, let’s take a look at some risky practices associated with either the cause or the treatment of hormone-related cancers, and the forces that are at play. On the one hand we have the environmental, synthetic estrogens and the bad estrogens that could dominate the body (in Dr. Lee’s conviction these are the estrogens that are “the sole cause of fibrocystic breast disease [and] the only known cause of cancer of the uterus”80). But on the other hand, to bring about balance, we have plant-derived progesterone and what may or may not turn out to be “good” estrogens—such as estriol and other forms that come from plants. What follows, however, is what we’re up against if not given the choice of natural hormone replacement therapy.
Hormone deficiency is a fact of life that we must address in order to understand the problems that may begin at childbearing age. The slow decline of progesterone, such an essential hormone, is overwhelming enough; but when there is a sudden halt, it can be devastating. A complete hysterectomy, in which the ovaries are removed, can create numerous problems, such as adrenal and pancreatic disorders (e.g., diabetes) and other side effects, including vaginal dryness and sudden hot flashes.81
Estrogen is traditionally prescribed at this time, but as Dr. Lita Lee comments, “This seems such a dichotomy to me, since estrogen excess and/or progesterone depletion is one of the primary causes of problems leading to hysterectomy (excessive bleeding, fibroids, endometriosis, and cancer). The more research I read, the less inclined I am to think that women need supplemental estrogen even after menopause.”82
If the doctor prescribes synthetic estrogen, it won’t be long before one or more of the following conditions inevitably arises: abdominal cramps, interruption of periods, bloating, breast tenderness and enlargement, cystitis, high blood pressure, endometriosis, gallbladder disorders, hair loss, elevated blood fats, jaundice, depression, nausea and vomiting, sustained vaginal bleeding, decreased carbohydrate tolerance, skin outbreaks, blood clots in the legs, unwanted weight loss or gain, or vaginal yeast infections.83
Any woman who develops these problems has really been mistreated fourfold by the doctor prescribing the estrogen: (1) It is unopposed by natural progesterone, (2) synthetic estrogen can in the long run cause problems worse than the original complaints, (3) Provera and other imitations of progesterone, if prescribed, exaggerate the symptoms even further still, and (4) all of the above conditions not only accelerate the aging process but open up an environment favorable to cancer.
When such symptoms appear, some action may be necessary before a more severe stage of development, such as a tumor, occurs. We need to watch and listen for “signals,” be armed with proper information, and be prepared to make changes before it’s too late. Research shows that postmenopausal women with either benign or malignant ovarian tumors register low progesterone levels prior to surgery.84 What do all these studies tell us? It seems that the use of progesterone before and after surgery may prepare us for dealing with stress and promote more efficient healing.
Women of all ages, from premenopause to postmenopause, are now under pressure to use designer drugs to prevent breast cancer, and recently we have heard much about a drug called Tamoxifen. This is a synthetic hormone, a “nonsteroidal antiestrogen,” and is related to the carcinogenic hormone DES. It has been used since 1977 to treat advanced breast cancer but is now believed to have many harmful side effects, some of which are similar to those of estrogen, which can promote more tumors. Nevertheless, doctors are prescribing Tamoxifen for use in hormone replacement therapy. In one study almost half of the Tamoxifen recipients “complained of ‘persistent vasomotor, gynecologic, or other major side effects.’ ”85
The women enrolled as volunteers in the clinical trials of Tamoxifen as a breast cancer deterrent were apparently informed of a statistically known increased risk of endometrial cancer.86 In February 1996, a review by the International Agency for Research on Cancer—based in Lyon, France, and composed of scientists from various countries—concluded definitely “that there is sufficient evidence to regard Tamoxifen as a human carcinogen that increases a woman’s risk of developing … cancer of the endometrium, the inner lining of the uterus.”87
Is it any wonder that author Sherrill Sellman’s research explains Tamoxifen to be a “Major Medical Mistake,”88 and shows that by taking Tamoxifen as prescribed, women are at further risk for developing cancer.89–91 Several studies show that Tamoxifen, anti-depressants, certain antibiotics, and cardiac medications can all cause risk of arrhythmia and even cardiac death.92, 93 In May 1995, the California State’s Carcinogen Identification Committee voted unanimously to add Tamoxifen to its list.94
A study that is not readily available to the public (Veronesi, 1998) shows that tamoxifen is causing blood clots, strokes, and high triglyceride levels.95 In another study (Powles, 1998), “four cases of endometrial cancer occurred in the tamoxifen group compared to one in the placebo group.”96 The British journal The Lancet has reported two recent three- to four-year studies that demonstrated no evidence of any difference in breast cancer rates from the control group versus those women using tamoxifen.97, 98 This overlooked information seems to contradict the shorter (only two-year) U.S. study. Women need to realize that the shorter the study time, the less reliable the conclusion. Dr. John Lee confirms that Tamoxifen increases “the risk of endometrial cancer and blood clots, including fatal blood clots in the lung.”99 Other researchers confirm these same dangers100–102 and even show it to create a slightly higher risk for ocular disorders as well as uterine cancer.103, 104
Tamoxifen has also been linked to liver cancer, eye disease, and depression. “Despite that,” says Dr. Marcus Laux, “there’s talk of selling this to millions of women at high risk as a ‘preventive’!”105 No wonder Dr. Lee says that other countries view our giving tamoxifen to postmenopausal women as “another American joke.”106
Of course, it’s impossible to keep up with all the new synthetic hormones and drugs that continue to be approved for today’s market. Appendix B, for example, lists some of the numerous terms that apply to synthetic estrogens and progestins. Certainly, great caution should be used when taking synthetic or conjugated estrogens. As one of the most often prescribed, Premarin, is described this way in the physician information sheet: “Premarin is a mixture of estrogensulfates blended to represent the average composition of material derived from pregnant mare’s urine (Pre-mar-in). It contains estrone, equilin, 17a-estradiol, equilenin, and 17a-dihydroequilenin.”107 In fact, says Dr. Marcus Laux, “Premarin is the number-one best-selling drug in the country,”108 and contains synthetic additives and “foreign estrogenic elements … that we believe [are] dangerous and potentially cancer producing.”109
So how can some doctors and pharmacists honestly say that Premarin is natural? The authors of Women on Menopause write that Premarin “cannot be natural to humans, although it is to horses.”110 As it is not bioidentical to our human estrogen, we shouldn’t be too surprised that we eventually see side effects and even tumor growth as a result of the synthetic components of this drug, not to mention its inevitable contribution to estrogen overload.
Maggie Fox, health and science correspondent, states in Reuters (January 22, 1998) that the breakdown of the synthetic version of Premarin can react in an unusual way with DNA and that such damage to DNA can cause cancer. “If this reaction were to occur with DNA in breast cells, and that damage is not repaired, mutations could result, leading to the initiation of the carcinogenic process in the breast.” Dr. Peat explains this occurrence in another way, as he tells us that estrogen increases the formation of a nitric oxide free radical. This has numerous harmful effects ranging from damaging DNA to damaging the mitochondria.111
Studies continue to prove that the “prolonged, uninterrupted action of estrogen … is profoundly harmful … [as it’s] … the prolonged shock-like state that contributes to the degenerative diseases, which typically begin with a sort of diabetes, an inability to use glucose for energy because of the accumulation of too much of the wrong kind of fat”112 stimulated by the storage of our excess estrogenic molecules in these very fat cells.
And then there are the imitation progesterones, such as the commonly prescribed Provera (methoxyprogesterone acetate). Majid Ali, M.D., calls this progestin a “synthetic molecule that does not fit well with the natural order of hormonal rhythms.”113 Thus, introducing it along with Premarin seems like adding fuel to an already hazardous fire. In fact, in a seminar presentation Norman Shealy, M.D., cautioned that Provera and all the other progestins actually lower DHEA levels, as does Premarin.
When a patient reacts badly to one of these compounds, the drug is put aside and one of the many other synthetic substitutes is prescribed instead. Whenever you have a prescription filled, ask your pharmacist for a copy of the package insert that is prepared for the doctor and the patient. The warnings and contraindications concerning the new drug assigned to you will be clearly stated. See appendix B or refer to the Physicians’ Desk Reference (PDR) and other books available at your library or bookstores to confirm whatever side effects you should be aware of from any medications you are taking.
Women are now paying more attention to the cautions about dangerous side effects. Concerned about their own possible reactions to these drugs, they are looking around for alternatives.
Synthetic estrogen, to begin with, is prescribed by doctors for many situations, such as cramps, acne, irregular periods, birth control, infertility, menopause, postmenopause, and osteoporosis. Precautions come with all drugs, but with the typical estrogen package, the warnings on the inserts are so small that it’s easy for your vision to fade following the first few sentences. However, it’s essential to read on. Here is an example from the literature for the synthetic hormone Premarin:
Endometrial Cancer. There are reports that if estrogens are used in the postmenopausal period for more than a year, there is increased risk of endometrial cancer (cancer of the lining of the uterus). Women taking estrogens have roughly 5 to 10 times as great a chance of getting this cancer as women who take no estrogens. … Estrogens can cause development of other tumors in animals, such as tumors of the breast, cervix, vagina, or liver, when given for a long time.114
Estrogen incites cell multiplication, and at high levels it starts activating the formation of cysts and tumors. With regard to the synthetic Premarin, The People’s Pharmacy tells us that five out of fourteen of the women who are prescribed it for menopausal problems are increasing their risk of cancer of the uterine lining (endometrial carcinoma).115 And of course, the longer we take estrogen, the higher is our risk for acquiring such cancer.
Progestin therapy together with estrogen is often recommended by your medical doctor, but even so, as the “Information for the Patient” by Mead Johnson Laboratories says:
The possible risks include unhealthy effects on blood fats (especially a lowering of HDL cholesterol, the “good” blood fat which protects against heart disease risk), unhealthy effects on blood sugar (which might worsen a diabetic condition), and a possible further increase in the breast cancer risk which may be associated with long-term estrogen use.116
Even if we do everything right in the way of avoiding harmful radiation and synthetic hormones, the picture is not complete and we are unlikely to succeed in our effort to avoid “diseases of civilization” such as cancer unless we adopt an otherwise healthy lifestyle. In My Healing from Breast Cancer Dr. Barbara Joseph urges, “We need to buy and eat organic food whenever possible. This nourishes us, keeps carcinogenic chemicals out of the body and at the same time makes a powerful political and economic statement. Health is not achieved by going for yearly checkups, getting Pap tests or scheduling mammograms.”117 (See appendix D.)
How true! Only when our bodies are provided proper nutritional support can substances such as progesterone achieve their full impact on the system. Any approach to cancer prevention or control must embrace the entire person—mind, body, and spirit. We should choose health care providers who will try to help us reestablish internal balance at deeper levels so that the body can heal itself as it is programmed to do.
A more complete discussion of cancer, mammography, nutrition, and other aspects of natural cancer therapy is beyond the scope of this book. However, it is vitally important that we become aware of the dangers of blindly following standard allopathic procedures, especially mammograms. It is suggested that the reader refer to the selection of books in appendix D. In particular, Dr. Ralph Moss’s book Cancer Therapy: The Independent Consumer’s Guide to Non-Toxic Treatment and Prevention covers many of these subjects in greater detail.
This revolutionary test has been found to be 95 percent accurate on the first administration and 99 percent accurate on repeat analysis for identifying cancer anywhere in the body. Dr. Samuel Bogoch, M.D., Ph.D., discovered this diagnostic technique in 1974. Frank D. Wiewell, the executive director of People Against Cancer, tells us that this simple blood test is a breakthrough in that it works for all types of cancer cells and does so up to nineteen months, in some cases, before they are detected by any other method.
Dr. Marcus Laux points out that 90 percent of breast lumps are found by self-examination. Because of this fact, he recommends that you insist on an AMAS (Anti-Malignin Antibody in Serum) test before agreeing to any kind of X-ray or invasive procedure such as needle biopsy or aspiration.118 This diagnostic method is superior to other tests, such as mammograms or diagnostic ultrasound, in that it can detect malignancy anywhere in the body (except for last-stage terminal cancer) almost two years earlier119 than more conventional assessments. It can be given as part of an annual check-up and provides “early detection, particularly with breast and ovarian cancers, which can be difficult to detect until they are advanced,”120 says Dr. John Lee.
With an accuracy rate of 95 to 99 percent, the AMAS test has been used to monitor large numbers of breast cancer patients. Unfortunately this test is still not known or used by many doctors despite decades of research, published peer-reviewed scientific literature, and thousands of positive doubleblind clinical experiments by researchers. This is pretty sad considering that the test was already approved for marketing by the FDA in 1977 and is covered by many insurance carriers, including Blue Cross/Blue Shield and Medicare. This is yet another reason why we must courageously demand that this test be made widely known and available before inferior or risky tests are administered.
You or your doctor can call Oncolab, one of the laboratories that will perform this assay, at (800) 922-8378. This organization can provide literature and special test kits. The cost is approximately $135. Due to the thousands of people who have saved their lives through this early testing, Dr. Bogoch will probably receive the Nobel Prize for his incredible discovery that has the potential for saving many more lives in the future.
A friend of mine decided to pursue the results from a CAT scan as well as the AMAS. She had the CAT scan done for her own peace of mind—as another source of information to either confirm or deny the AMAS blood test results. She was happy to find that there were no indications of the cancer having spread to other organs. The CAT scan will report on whether the primary tumor disappeared as it shows the physical structure, size, shape, etc. It is always comforting to be knowledgeable about what is going on in your body, and sometimes this means that we should look at the range of tests available in order to determine if they are all in agreement with each other or not.
Early detection is important because it provides the patient more time to seek out, study, and then utilize their choice(s) of natural alternatives in fighting cancer and keeping it in remission. Natural therapies for preventing and combating cancer are numerous and we have listed them under different categories in appendix D. These essential health care approaches can range from improving dietary lifestyles to addressing hormonal, neurological, and nutritional deficiencies.
We all need to pass the word on to friends and family members about this information. In the end we will be the ones who are playing the active role in the revolution in the war against cancer. We can’t count on the powerful organizations that have a vested interest in drugs and medical technology to turn the tide.
You may have also heard about the tumor marker CA-125. This simple blood test is considered a good indicator of ovarian cancer (stage II through IV).121 Unfortunately, it produces 95 percent false negatives for early stage I ovarian cancer. Nevertheless, another friend, Carolyn Benivegna, insisted upon it when the medication her doctor prescribed for a diagnosis of “irritable bowel syndrome” had no effect on her distended abdomen.
When she was subsequently hospitalized to have five pounds of fluid extracted, cancer cells were discovered. At this point, she asked for this inexpensive blood test (the CA-125), which ultimately identified her cancer as “essentially ovarian cancer.” This news was shocking to Carolyn, as she had undergone a hysterectomy several years before. After having had this procedure, she states, “I thought I did not have to worry about getting any of the female reproductive cancers since I no longer have my ovaries or uterus!”
While the CA-125 correctly diagnosed Carolyn’s disease, John Bernard Henry, M.D., in Clinical Diagnosis & Management cautions that sometimes CA-125 levels can become significantly elevated during the menstrual period and in patients with acute pelvic inflammatory disease or endometriosis.122 Nevertheless, this test is often used to help identify ovarian cancer and as a follow-up after ovarian cancer surgery. Again, it can’t be emphasized enough that as a basic screen Dr. Lee suggests a yearly blood test to include the AMAS (anti-malignin antibody in serum) test as a check for the presence of malignant cancers.123
Hearing the personal stories of the “incurable” helps us to see clearly the merits of prevention and to understand that the whole truth concerning health is made up of a variety of natural choices. However, it seems evident from diverse studies that more research should be done, not only for women but also for men. To illustrate, Choices in Healing describes a case history in which a man with prostate cancer was given all the best conventional procedures, including chemotherapy. Nothing seemed to help, and he became quite weak. However, his doctor prescribed specialized hormone therapy, by means of which he recovered.124
This story was interesting but did not leave much of an impression on me until one day when I was having a casual conversation with the owner of our neighborhood health food store concerning the many benefits of natural hormone supplementation for women. During our discussion, a man in the store overheard us and asked, “Can natural progesterone help with male as well as female problems?”
The question does need a response, especially in light of the published statistics we have listed in appendices D, E, F, and G.
Author Sandra Coney surmises that the sea of environmental estrogens in which we find ourselves might explain “the rise in male prostate cancer paralleling the rise in female breast cancer.”125
Furthermore, Al Sears, M.D., explains: “As a man ages, his testosterone decreases while his estrogen increases, partly due to a conversion of testosterone to estrogen. One recent study found that estrogen levels in an average 54-year-old man are higher than those of an average 59-year-old woman! And the problem compounds itself. Lower levels of testosterone make it more likely that you’ll be overweight. And studies show that fat cells generate the aromatase enzyme that converts testosterone to estrogen. It’s a vicious cycle of decreasing testosterone and increasing estrogen.”126 More information can be found on this subject in a popular guidebook entitled Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide, with chapters written by 350 leading health care professionals and scientists. The book presents a wealth of effective treatment options. One of the personal accounts, written by a medical doctor, would certainly be of interest to the man who asked the question about men and progesterone:
Topical application of natural progesterone may prove beneficial in the treatment of prostate conditions. The doctor reports working with twelve men, all in their late seventies, who were suffering from osteoporosis. As it has been well established that natural progesterone, applied topically, can relieve osteoporosis, the physician suggested that the men systematically massage it into their skin on a daily basis. All of them began to experience relief from their condition, and later called to tell [the doctor] that, after three months, … they were also experiencing an improved urine flow, with less pressure on their prostate glands and noticeable decrease in nightly urination.127
The physician who treated these men did not choose to have his name publicized. He preferred to remain anonymous rather than be associated with natural alternatives in healing and then be ridiculed by those of his peers who focus on orthodox medical standards and who use only prescription drugs to treat their patients. Sadly, this attitude is what creates the greatest obstacle for the many patients who desperately wish to obtain natural products from their medical doctors.
Perhaps when this doctor retires and no longer fears being discriminated against, he will write a book for the large numbers of men who suffer from prostate enlargement and its unpleasant symptoms. The good news that natural progesterone and herbal remedies can actually reverse many prostatic disorders would certainly be a relief to the ten million men in the United States who are afflicted with impotence (often a side effect of an enlarged prostate), of whom only 200,000 actually seek medical help.128, 129
Dr. C. Norman Shealy, noting that women after the age of about fifty are not deficient in estrogen but in progesterone, theorized that this hormone must also decline in men as they age. Studies confirm this. Dr. John Lee’s investigation found that in older men not only do progesterone levels decline, but their testosterone converts into dihydrotestosterone (DHT), which can stimulate the prostate gland to grow.130 He says that levels of estradiol in aging males are the same or higher than those in postmenopausal females because of the decline in testosterone and its conversion to DHT. Fortunately, “progesterone inhibits the conversion of testosterone to DHT”131 This is especially important in consideration of the fact that “DHT is a far more potent stimulant of prostate cell growth than testosterone.”132
Dr. Lee advocates that “whatever we can do to avoid or oppose those estrogens will help us prevent prostate disease…. Men synthesize progesterone in smaller amounts than women do, but it is still vital. And yes, I believe it may be important in the prevention and/or treatment of enlarged prostate (BPH) and prostate cancer.”133 A question we often get during our lectures concerns whether men benefit from natural progesterone? Progesterone is not just a hormone produced by women. Men also produce it. However, it doesn’t decline as readily in men as it does in women. Estrogen dominance is induced in men also if they work around environmental toxins or if their diet is highly estrogenic (consuming soy products or meats not free of hormones additives and antibiotics). In an article by James South, M.A., on progesterone for prostate health we are given more crucial documentation on this subject.134 For instance, M. Krieg, along with his researchers, reports that estrogen creates a cellular response in the prostate gland on a biochemical level.135 Another study goes on to implicate the negative impact of estrogen overload in men as contributing to conditions such as benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH), better known as prostate enlargement, with all of its complications.136 S. Boehm and coworkers are investigating the value of estrogen suppression as a therapeutic strategy in the treatment of BPH.137
On this subject, let me share a little anecdote. I was asked to speak about The Estrogen Alternative to a homeopathic group who meet regularly in Philadelphia. There was an ex-Marine sitting in the front row. It didn’t faze him at all that he was the only man in a room full of women. I later learned that he had tried everything for his prostate cancer. When his wife began using progesterone cream to keep her cancer in remission, he also began to use it. He found it was the only therapy that brought his PSA levels back to normal and that it was also keeping his cancer in remission.
Supplementing with a natural transdermal progesterone cream seems a safer and more natural approach when seeking preventive care. Some advocate the use of natural testosterone cream, but this may then unfortunately convert into dehydrotestosterone, which could only aggravate any problems. Dr. Raymond Peat also reports that not only has progesterone been used successfully to treat benign prostatic enlargement, but “in cases of specific progesterone deficiency in men, small doses can cure impotence.”138 As we have previously mentioned, progesterone is not just a “female hormone,” a healthy man will also produce progesterone in his testicular tissue as well as his adrenals.139
Concerning men who suffer impotence after undergoing a vasectomy, Dr. Peat speaks out on how small doses of progesterone can possibly restore normal potency. “This is because damage to the vas deferens can specifically, but temporarily, suppress progesterone production.” Dr. Peat not only recommends supplementing progesterone for this situation but for other disorders ranging from circulatory problems such as migraines and strokes to arthritis, epilepsy, dementia, and cancer.140
Years ago when Dr. Shealy could not find any progesterone studies in men he started using natural progesterone on his older male patients. The progesterone apparently caused one patient’s DHEA hormone level to double. His libido soared, and he felt better than he had in years. In fact, Dr. Shealy discovered that the majority of men who used the natural progesterone cream showed a marked increase (60 to 100 percent) in their DHEA.141 This is important news, since DHEA seems to spark the metabolism of both men and women and helps balance the entire glandular system. More research on the connection between these two hormones is definitely in order.
But one more point before we leave the subject of hormone imbalance in men. A story from Dr. Peat’s From PMS to Menopause: Female Hormones in Context tells about a sizable settlement awarded to a widow because her husband had mistakenly been given “a female sex hormone” and suffered several strokes and died.142 It’s ironic that the newspaper story he quoted would focus on the woman’s monetary settlement rather than the real issue—the dangers of estrogen therapy. Regardless of our gender, Dr. Peat makes clear that an overload of estrogen can lead to heart disease, strokes, and a host of other serious conditions.143
The possibility that estrogen dominance will precipitate strokes is often subtly downplayed in this world of overmedication. The important lesson to be learned here, however, is that this story authenticates the studies that clearly show synthetic hormones (estrogen and progestins) to be a cause of many cardiovascular disorders.144–146 Telling the public anything different is, quite frankly, playing a game of Russian roulette with people’s health, and quite possibly their lives.
In appendix D you will find an extensive list of specific minerals, vitamins, herbs, and other plant sources that have been proven to be effective as natural cancer therapies. Studies also stress that a low-fat, high-fiber diet aids in fighting prostate cancer. Men with this disorder normally have low testos terone levels along with high estrogen levels. The typical American high-fat (omega 6 fatty acids), low-fiber diet is causing this dangerous ratio of high estrogen relative to low levels of testosterone and progesterone, which in turn is promoting prostate cancer.147 On the other hand, biological studies stress that omega 3 fatty acids can inhibit growth in the prostate gland.148 For documentation that proves how the low-fiber/high-fat diet is becoming a major cause of prostate disease, take a look at the incredible number of studies listed in appendix F.
Speaking of hormones, we should mention one that has become a popular item in the newspapers, magazines, talk shows, health stores, and drugstores. Melatonin, a hormone secreted by the pineal gland, has been reported to inhibit cell division and “block the growth of breast tumors in laboratory animals.”149 It is suspected that one’s level of melatonin may be an early predictor of some types of cancers, “since women with ER [estrogen-receptor]-positive breast cancer and men with testosterone-dependent prostate cancer have lower levels of melatonin than those without the disease.”150
Mice given melatonin in their water at night never developed terminal cancer, which often affects the particular breed studied. The mice that didn’t get the melatonin lost neuromuscular coordination, their immune and thyroid functions declined, and they died of cancer.151
If you do decide that melatonin is a supplement you would like to try, be aware of possible side effects. These appear to be related to the timing of its use as when it is ingested seems to be a key factor in preventing estrogen from becoming dangerously high.152 Researchers have found melatonin injections in the morning to be risky because given at that time they stimulated tumor growth. However, when given in the evening they retarded cell proliferation.153
When I began looking into natural means of ridding poisons from my body and counteracting the toxic surroundings that are increasingly difficult to avoid, it was a comfort to become acquainted with like-minded medical doctors who are getting off the track of medicating the symptoms of disease and getting on the track of preventing the cause of disease. My hat goes off to them for thinking of the patient’s needs first.
Stuart Berger, M.D., advises that when we choose a medical doctor, we should “avoid powerful ways that our medical system and its illnesscentered view of medicine keep us unhealthy … and actually raises our risk of medical problems.”154 Medical doctors, like everyone else in this world, should be held accountable for their actions. However, we also need to be personally accountable by keeping in tune with our bodies and learning about natural substitutes for medication. A drug may be essential in cases of acute disease, but prolonged use of a prescription drug often covers up the underlying cause.
Dr. Lorraine Day faults medical science for attempting to blame cancer and other diseases on genes, thus taking away our personal responsibility. She states—and I can vouch for this from personal experience—that often doctors will tell their patients it’s O.K. to eat anything they want!155 She points out that they may know little about nontoxic therapies because they offer less profit potential and do not receive funding for the hugely expensive studies required for approval by the FDA.156
Let’s reflect for a moment on the divergent philosophies. Our distinctive choices in health care may produce entirely different conclusions: (1) Masking the symptoms (temporarily avoiding disease and/or surgery through medication) is focusing on the disease. The cause of the illness is still festering—but since medication may slow down the need for immediate surgery, the medical field calls this prevention. (2) Aiding the body to avoid disease or to heal itself through good nutrition and natural therapies is focusing on health.
We should recognize abuses. If some of our gynecologists could have a taste of their own medicine (unnecessary needle biopsies, hysterectomies, mammograms, toxic synthetic estrogens or progestins, Tamoxifen, Evista, etc.), they might be more inclined to respect their patients’ rights to natural choices and would give higher priority to knowing what will harm the body and what will heal. It could be that we who have to live with illnesses and the side effects of drug treatment need to be the ones to make a change: to become fit in order to be survivors. It is up to us to reshape the public’s attitude toward health and disease.
With a little curiosity and effort we, too, can learn not only how to avoid the hazards of certain modern technology but also how to counter the depletion of our energy by the continual use of toxic drugs. The suffering that results today from the many drug-driven diseases is often unnecessary. We deserve more than this and so do our families.
A phenomenal healing potential exists within the human body. Once released, the life force can manifest itself in a degree of wellness that many of us don’t even realize is possible. Admittedly, learning how to harness this on our own can be time-consuming and trying. But once we find the right professional to work with us, we’ll discover that implementing what we instinctively know to be true is truly living. By striving to achieve a harmonious synchronization of the body’s systems, we’ll enable the many parts to work together to create a healthier, disease-defying whole.
For specific advice on natural hormone replacement therapy, please see chapter 7. It tells you how to make wise choices, understand the doctorpatient relationship, and confidently communicate your needs. Self-help advice and valuable resources, including names of recommended books, pharmacies, and manufacturers, are found in appendix F (Clinical Studies and Research Reports) and appendix G (Sources of Natural Progesterone).
* To read more about this, see Thoe Colborn’s “Developmental Effects of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in Wildlife and Humans” in The Journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Vol. 101, No. 5, October 1993.
* For information on meats that are free of antibiotics, hormones, growth stimulants, herbicides, and pesticides, see appendix E.