Re: Newly diagnosed
From: Victoria (anonymous@obgyn.net)
Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:39:09 -0400
> From: =?iso-8859-2?q?Zalányi Sámuel ?= <zalanyi.samuel@drotposta.hu>
> Subject: Re: Newly diagnosed
> I would refrain from recommending anything without knowing the exact hormone values
>
> Sam (Ob/Gyn,RE)
I'm reproducing this post here. I'm wondering if the FDA would be interested in this. From the website, and you can find some of the references in my posts below, I would think they would.
--
Victoria
> From: Victoria <nichollsvi@cox.net>
> Date: 2002/07/25 Thu PM 12:38:03 EDT
> To: womens-health@obgyn.net
> Subject: Progesterone
>
> See the following of my posts (including letters from the FDA to companies) and from Quackwatch.com in regards to natural progesterone. I would also read Dr. Barrett's comments on http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/quacksell.html and http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/spotquack.html (#13, #16, #18, #19, #23, #24). I'm trying to find out about a comment made on Quackwatch.com that Dr. Lee owned Aviary? labs (before selling it to an 'ally') and that he had a product line of his own.
>
> http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/QA/wyc.html
>
> http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/wildyam.html
> In September 2000, the FDA warned the company owners (Roger J. and Debra L. Peeples) that it was illegal to suggest that their "Miracle Wild Yam Cream" was useful in treating or preventing osteoporosis, symptoms of menopause, depression, premenstrual
> syndrome, breast cancer, postpartum depression, ovarian cysts, fibrocystic mastitis, infertility, or other diseases and conditions. In February 2002, the Illinois Attorney General charged the company and owners with violating the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Illinois Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
>
> In premenstrual syndrome, for example, double-blind controlled trials have demonstrated that progesterone supplementation is no better than a placebo. Also blatantly false is the claim that synthetic progestins are dangerous whereas natural progesterone is harmless. Progesterone in any form may cause side effects.
>
> The more blatantly erroneous claim is that the Mexican yam, Dioscorea villosa, from which the cream is supposedly made is a source of progesterone. It is not. In fact, the main hormonally active substances present in the plant would probably be estrogenic. Extracts of D. villosa do have significant amounts of the substance diosgenin. The plant is therefore very useful because in the lab -- not in the human body -- diosgenin can be used to synthesize steroid hormones including progesterone. Indeed, it was this discovery that led to the first commercially available oral contraceptives. The progesterone listed among the ingredients in Wild Yam Cream may very well have been derived in this way via the test tube from naturally occurring diosgenin. But that, of course, isn't mentioned in the product literature.
>
> Also left unmentioned is the fact that, once introduced into the body by any effective means (including through the skin), the progesterone molecule can be metabolized to a wide variety of other compounds including estrogens, androgens, and even corticosteroids. Indeed, all of these vital hormones are the products of the continuous production of progesterone and its physiologic conversion of in the ovaries, testes, and adrenal glands. Part of the usefulness of synthetic progestins, on the other hand, is that they are not subject to these biochemical pathways but are able to exert their desired effects until metabolized and excreted.
>
> Thus, not only is there little reason to suppose that Wild Yam Cream would be helpful for the medical conditions for which it is being promoted, but it doubtful that it ever could be as useful as synthetic progesterone.
>
> http://forums.obgyn.net/womens-health/WHF.0207/0786.html
> http://forums.obgyn.net/womens-health/WHF.0207/0826.html
> http://forums.obgyn.net/womens-health/WHF.0207/1966.html
>
> Victoria