The proponents of “natural hormones” or leaders in the field of BHRT –Bio-identical Hormone Replacement Therapy toss around the word “natural” or “bio-identical” in a very casual way.

 As a woman looking for the least harmful way of ameliorating the symptoms of menopause and aging, what these “experts” are offering, on the surface, seems much better than the Standard of Care Synthetics. 

However; upon closer inspection, what’s really being offered is the already proven dangerous The Standard of Care, the only twist is -  instead of prescribing the drug (synthetic) cocktail by Wyeth-Ayerst of Premarin or PremPro, a “bio-identical” look-alike molecule synthesized from plants is substituted for our own endogenously-produced hormone molecules.  The FDA has approved bio-identical estradiol and progesterone molecules in other drug company products (see Natural Hormones Sanctioned by the Government) like pills and patches.

T. S. Wiley conjectures that it may, in fact, not just be the molecule that matters. The way the hormone molecule is received at the receptor site and the way receptors are provoked may be at least as important, if not more. The WHI proved that dosing synthetic HRT in a static, low-dose regimen was harmful to woman over 65, particularly in regard to stroke and cardiac events.
What if the static, chronic, low-dose regimen was really to blame?

No group has ever tried to dose synthetic hormones in a way that would mimic normal levels in young women, in a way that would be more bio-identical. So, we don’t know the answer to the question. But the following group of doctors did advocate using bio-identical hormone molecules dosed in a way that mimics Premarin and PremPro….how good an idea could that be in light of the WHI’s findings?