An Open Letter to Lynne McTaggart and Dr Ellen Grant
Dear Ms McTaggart and Dr Grant
So What You’re Telling Me is: I Should Be Dead
I was astonished to read your cover story in the May issue of WDDTY, ‘Cancer in a cream’ and I am certain that you are expecting a huge mail bag as a result. It quite clearly concludes that I, as a woman who was diagnosed with an invasive carcinoma of the breast in 2001; who declined conventional offerings of drugs and radiotherapy and opted for a hormone balancing regime that included natural progesterone cream; will have been feeding the cancer to ‘spread with the speed of an abscess’. (I have to admit that the comparison, or metaphor, of an abscess with cancer is a difficult one to get my head around as I was under the distinct impression that an abscess is a collection of pus in a cavity or pocket, which seems like a pretty immobile and confined concept to me?)
So with this said, I remain open to finding a new perspective on the hormone progesterone because according to this article it would seem that my life depends upon it! Therefore, I have observations and questions for Dr Grant as, to me, there were some sweeping statements with little or no qualification or elucidation.
Xenoestrogens
Dr Grant expounds that xenoestrogens are from petrol fumes, well, yes ……. As many WDDTY readers know, xenoestrogens, also called organochlorides, encompass a wide variety of pesticides and other chemicals that have been created and introduced into our environment, cleaning products, food wrappings, cosmetics, etc. This oestrogenic increase in our environment is affecting even the wild animals by disrupting mating procedures and increasing the number of congenital defects. (1) Their impact should not be marginalised or dismissed out of hand as it is certainly adding to our oestrogenic load.
Female Sex Hormone – Progesterone
Dr Grant’s emphasis of progesterone as a female sex hormone implies that this hormone has feminising characteristics and applies only to females, which it does not. Endogenous progesterone is a primary precursor of our adrenal cortical hormones (including testosterone and oestrogen) and is made by the adrenal glands in both men and women. It is not just secreted by the corpus luteum at ovulation when, or if, ovulation occurs. As we know, post menopausal women no longer ovulate and have to rely on their adrenal production of progesterone but it should also be clarified that their ovaries continue to produce between 40 – 60% of the oestrogen and testosterone they produced pre-menopause. This confirms that progesterone levels fall dramatically at menopause whilst endogenous oestrogen levels are diminished but, as mentioned above, added to exogenously by environmental xenoestrogens. So according to Dr Grant diminished cancer risks here, which doesn’t correspond with breast cancer statistics because most cancers occur post menopause!
‘Natural’ Progesterone
Dr Grant’s assertion that natural progesterone is called ‘natural’ because it is derived from plant sources is perhaps a rather credulous definition as my understanding, which I believe is the generally accepted one, is that it is called ‘natural’ because it is actually bio-identical or human-identical at the molecular level. It is, therefore, not an approximation of the ‘compound the female ovary produces’.
However, synthetic or patented cousins such as the ones mentioned at length in the latter half of Dr Grant’s article (MPA, levonorgestrel, etc) are not identical, molecularly they are quite different. For example, progesterone and testosterone differ only by the molecular fragment attached at C-17 at the tip of the D ring and yet we don’t confuse the identity of progesterone and testosterone! The seven most commonly prescribed synthetic progestins are synthesised from the 21-carbon nucleus of progesterone (C-21) and the other five from the 19-carbon nucleus of nortestosterone (C-19), of course both of these formulations are not found naturally and are therefore patentable, unlike natural progesterone. They are patented and classified as progestins because as a compound they are able to sustain the secretory endometrium. They do not have the same far reaching effects as progesterone, which is an integral part of the corticosteroid cascade.
Also, if one refers to the IARC Monographs, oft quoted by WDDTY, we find no reference of progesterone as a listed carcinogen (5). What we do find is:
• xenoestrogens/organochlorides and Tamoxifen (an oestrogen agonist and antagonist), oestrogen therapy and oestrogens, nonsteroidal and steriodal, oral contraceptives, MPA, progestins and progestogen-only contraceptives listed as far back as 1987.(3)
So carcinogenic news about the use of the synthetic approximations of our endogenous progesterone (and oestrogens) is not new!
Endogenous Progesterone is Dangerous!
I am completely unaware of any studies, epidemiological or otherwise, that suggest that the cancer statistics for pregnant women are worse than for any other group, quite to the contrary in fact.. Is Dr Grant aware of a study published in the Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (Pregnancy, progesterone and progestins in relation to breast cancer risk (2005; 97(5): 441-450)).(3) Campagnoli et al state the following:
‘… recent findings suggest that both the production of progesterone during pregnancy and the progesterone endogenously produced or exogenously administered outside pregnancy, does not increase BC risk, and could even be protective. The increased BC risk found with the addition of synthetic progestins to estrogen in HRT seems in all likelihood due to the fact that these progestins (medroxyprogesterone acetate and 19-nortestosterone-derivatives) are endowed with some non-progesterone-like effects which can potentiate the proliferative action of estrogens."
I would also like to add to this another study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology (1981 Aug; 114(2):209-17)(4) where Cowan et al looked at Breast Cancer Incidence in Women with a History of Progesterone Deficiency. In this study of 1083 women, those who showed progesterone deficiency were estimated to have an elevated risk of pre-menopausal breast cancer of 5.4 times.
I would certainly welcome any substantiation of this statement about the dangers of endogenous progesterone during pregnancy as it is very inflammatory it should be rigorously substantiated by any responsible health writer.
I would also like to query that if this is the case, why is it that hormone treatment (such as oopherectomy/chemical or radiotherapy ablation) is not part of standard medical protocol for all fertile female cancer patients?
This leads on the comment about progesterone-induced immuno-suppression. Yes, pregnancy is characterised by many hormonal changes and a healthy level of progesterone is essential for implantation and maintenance of a successful pregnancy. The blocking of progesterone by a progesterone receptor antagonist is known to cause abortion, confirming the important role that progesterone plays in pregnancy. However, to suggest that during pregnancy increased levels of progesterone alone are responsible for the substantial immunological and endocrinological changes that occur is, I would suggest, somewhat over-simplistic and very reductionist in viewpoint. But perhaps Dr Grant can enlighten me here?
I am aware that this letter is getting very long in length so I shall make a generalisation about the second half of the article by saying a few things about the studies quoted and referenced ….
• Like the conference title mentioned at the end of the article (Full title actually reads: Why does progesterone (the Pill and HRT) cause more breast cancer than oestrogen? This was not accurately communicated and should be deemed misleading, adding to the confusion that this article has undoubtedly created), the studies quoted seem to be about synthetic progestins and progestogens found in the Pill and HRT which bear no relationship to the complex nature of human progesterone’s role within the body. Therefore, there is no comment.
• Dr David Zava, world-renowned biochemist and breast cancer specialist, has this to add:
‘What the readers will not appreciate is that the articles suggesting that progesterone may be harmful are performed on isolated breast cancer cells in test tubes fed with cow blood and massively large amounts of insulin. I know, I did these types of experiments for many years. While they help reveal interesting cellular biochemistry, they are far from the reality of cellular physiology. These tissue culture cells have no surrounding normal cellular matrix of connective tissue, no vascularization, no innervation, no immune system, etc. etc. Dr. Grant is way off base when she extrapolates in vitro findings to real life clinical effects of progesterone.’
• I also add some questions with regard to the American breast cancer patient mentioned who was rubbing on OTC progesterone cream.
o Can it be validated that the progesterone cream being used was indeed progesterone and not wild yam (progesterone cannot be synthesised from wild yam by the body, which is why it is done in the laboratory with the addition of hydrochloric acid and warm water). Was the cream a reputable cream because it is an unregulated industry, a user should always go for a reputable brand, preferably one that has been clinically studied, such as Pro-Gest, which is the only one that I trust.
o Were the woman’s bio-available levels of oestradiol and progesterone assayed? In spite of noting her unregulated self-treatment she may have been using the product ineffectively or her levels of oestradiol may have been constantly fed through endogenous means (ie. was she overweight or even obese?) and/or exogenously through her workplace (she may have been working at a filling station or even as an aromatherapist – lavender is known to be oestrogenic.), for example.
Overall, this article has shaken my confidence in the veracity and integrity of WDDTY publications, which is very disappointing and I know that I am not alone with this viewpoint.
I will welcome any clarification of the issues and questions raised at your earliest convenience. This would be appreciated because I am also aware of the fear and confusion that this has generated in women of all ages.
Yours in anticipation
Alyssa Burns-Hill, MSc, FRSH, MIHPE, MCIM
Hormone Health Specialist
Hormones Health Expert: the Complementary Medical Association and Today’s Therapist
www.bio-vitality.com - the UK’s leading hormone health company – tax-free shopping!
References
1 IARC Monographs:
Oestrogen therapy, postmenopausal (Vol. 72; 1999)
Oestrogens, non steroidal (Suppl 7; 1987)
Oestrogens, steroidal (Suppl. 8, 1987)
Oral contraceptives, combined (Vol 72, 1999)
Oral contraceptives, sequential (Suppl 7, 1987)
Tamoxifen (Vol 66; 1996)
PCBs (Vol 18, Suppl 7; 1987)
Medroxprogesterone acetate (Vol 21, Suppl 7; 1987)
Progestins (Suppl 7; 1987)
Progestogen only contraceptives (Vol 72; 1999)
2 Raloff, J (1994) Are Environmental Hormones Emasculating Wildlife? Science News 14: 24-27
3 Campagnoli et al (2005) Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Pregnancy, progesterone and progestins in relation to breast cancer risk 97(5): 441-450.
4 Cowan et al (1981) American Journal of Epidemiology Breast Cancer Incidence in Women with a History of Progesterone Deficiency 114(2):209-17)
5 Hunt, K., Robb, G., Strom, E., Ueno, N., (2001). M D Anderson Cancer Care Series: Breast Cancer. New York: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.