Female hormones

Women are misinformed about their hormones, to the detriment of their health,
while drug companies reap huge profits at their expense.

For over 300 years, beginning in the 13th century and continuing well into the 16th century, the Inquisition was a reign of terror for the vast majority of people living throughout Europe and Scandinavia. The political, economic and religious forces of that time joined together to consolidate their power by eliminating those whom they perceived as impeding their ultimate objectives.

The unfortunate target of their efforts were the keepers of the healing arts and the ancient spiritual and cultural wisdoms. Historians debate the exact toll of such a hellish time - whether it was several hundreds of thousands or as many as nine million people - but what is undebatable is that the vast majority of the victims were women. In fact, the Inquisition is now regarded as a period of genocide against women, which successfully divested women of their power, self-respect, wealth, healing arts, and prominence and influence in their communities.

The Inquisition guaranteed that the Church fathers were the indisputable spiritual authorities. It was also successful in enshrining medical knowledge securely in the realm of men, since the Inquisition decreed that only trained medical doctors could now practice the healing arts and, needless to say, medical schools were barred to women (for that matter, so was any form of education).

What a relief that such a violent and misogynous era ended long ago. Or did it? Unfortunately, it appears that some traditions linger on. Women of today are still prey to vast political and economic interests, with dire consequences to their health, financial independence and personal power. Perhaps the Inquisition didn't end at all but just took on a more subtle and devious form.

Women are certainly big business to the medical and pharmaceutical interests. According to John Archer, author of Bad Medicine, about 600,000 hysterectomies are performed every year in the USA, and about 45,000 in Australia. () In 1994, it was estimated that 45,000 Australian women were taking hormone replacement therapy (HRT). () Many women are presently encouraged to remain on HRT for the rest of their post-menopausal lives.

According to Dr. Stanley West, noted infertility specialist, chief of reproductive endocrinology at St. Vincent's Hospital, New York, and author of The Hysterectomy Hoax, about 90 per cent of all hysterectomies are unnecessary. Gynecological consultants to Ralph Nader's Public Health Research Group reached a similar conclusion in 1991 in their book, Women's Health Alert. According to Dr. West, the only 100 percent appropriate reason for performing an hysterectomy is for treating cancer of the reproductive organs. () However, hysterectomies are all too frequently offered as treatment for a variety of conditions including endometriosis, fibroids, ovarian cysts, pelvic inflammatory disease and uterine prolapse.

It is no accident that gynecologists happen to be the highest earners of all specialists. Throughout their lives, women are encouraged to be subjected continuously to various medical treatments and procedures. Natural female functions, from menstruation through childbirth and into menopause, are taken over by medical and pharmaceutical interventions. Barraged by misinformation, myths, propaganda and, in some cases, downright lies, it's no wonder that so many women are thoroughly confused about matters relating to their own bodies and their health.

The History of Hormone Replacement Therapy

Perhaps there's no topic of greater confusion to women than the highly publicized introduction of HRT for the menopausal woman. It is touted as the best thing for liberating women since the discovery of oral contraceptives - even though the statistics now show that the wide use of the Pill has given rise to health hazards such as breast cancer, high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease on a scale previously unknown in medicine. ()

Investigation into the theory of hormone replacement goes all the way back to the 1930s with the research of Dr. Serge Voronoff. His research involved implanting fresh monkey's testicles into men's scrotums, with limited effectiveness. Offshoots of his research led to the grafting of monkey ovaries in women, with rather dire consequences. After several fatalities (to both monkeys and women), the search was redirected to the use of synthetic estrogen. With the advent of World War II, research was put on hold.

Menopause didn't really come into vogue as a topic of concern for the medical profession until the 1960s. In 1966 a New York gynecologist, Dr. Robert Wilson, wrote a best seller called Feminine Forever, extolling the virtues of estrogen replacement to save women from the "tragedy of menopause which often destroys her character as well as her health." His book sold over 100,000 copies in the first year. Wilson energetically promoted menopause as a condition of "living decay." According to him, estrogen replacement was a kind of long sought after youth pill that would save poor, fading women from the horrors of age. He popularized the erroneous belief that menopause is a deficiency disease.

Women's magazines eagerly seized upon his ideas and extensively promoted his concepts. This pleased Wilson no end, since he had earlier set up The Wilson Foundation for the sole purpose of promoting the use of estrogen drugs. The pharmaceutical industry generously contributed over US$1.3 million to his Foundation. Each year he received funds from such companies as Searle, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories and Upjohn which made hormone products that Wilson claimed were effective in treating and preventing menopause. Pharmaceutical companies jumped on the bandwagon with aggressive promotions and advertising campaigns. His message hit a receptive chord: mid-life women need hormone drugs to be rescued from the inevitable horrors and decrepitude of this terrible deficiency disease called menopause.

Wilson pioneered the use of unopposed estrogen. However, there had been no formal assessment of the safety of estrogen therapy or its long term effects. Unopposed estrogen went out of vogue when it became obviously apparent that it shortened the lifetime of its users. In 1975, The New England Journal of Medicine examined the rates of endometrial cancer for estrogen consumers, concluding that the risk was seven and a half times greater for estrogen users. Women who had used estrogen for seven years or longer were 14 times more likely to develop cancer. () 

As the popularity of unopposed estrogen therapy waned, new approaches were sought. The focus was also directed away from the false claims of preserving feminine beauty and youthfulness and towards more urgent health matters. The pharmaceutical industry resurrected estrogen replacement therapy with the new 'safe' hormone replacement therapy - a combination of synthetic progesterone and estrogen which would supposedly protect menopausal women not only from cardiovascular disease but also from the ravages of osteoporosis.

Join now!

While the so-called 'experts' on women's health are reassuring women that there are no, or at least only very minor, unpleasant side effects, Dr. Lynette J. Dumble, Senior Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne's Department of Surgery at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, believes that "the sole basis of HRT is to create a commercial market that is highly profitable for the pharmaceutical companies and doctors. The supposed benefits of HRT are totally unproven." She believes that HRT not only exacerbates the presenting health problems but also contributes to the acceleration of the aging process of women. It either hastens ...

This is a preview of the whole essay