Collapses the incidence of breast cancer by reducing the use of hormones in menopause

Controlling the use of hormones in menopause can dramatically reduce the incidence of breast cancer.

Thanks to the work of a famous female group (Woman's Health Intiative) and control of nearly a million women through verification of breast cancers arise as a consequence of hormone therapy in menopause at the end of 2002 was launched by the health authorities a notice of a possible real risk of getting breast cancer following hormone replacement therapy as advertised.

For the first time in history and within a very large population, 68% of women who were using hormones stopped taking them almost simultaneously, and after one year only, in 2003 he found himself with a reduction of 11% of number of new breast cancer. In late 2004 the incidence fell another 11%, for an overall drop in just these two years for which data are available for almost 25% of cases. Means 1 / 4 of breast cancer less than we are used, a decrease occurred in just two years. The trend of decline seems confirmed also for more recent years.

The work was published a few days ago in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (Clarke CA et al, J Clin Oncol 2006 Nov 20; 24 (33): E49-50) and even with all due caution comes as a real "bomb" conceptual.

It is obvious that as a result of these findings, the use of soy phytoestrogens and use of natural therapy is reclaimed, but recently all we could see by the example of Cimicifuga that the trend of structures related to the drug is to blame and counteract the development of any medical practice natural (such as herbal medicine) that move along lines of thought different from those encoded by the allopathic school pharmacology.

And faced with these data resurfaces bewilderment. Hormones for menopause are being pushed and recommended as beneficial, useful and necessary and in the past were even recommended for their alleged positive side effects (later proved false) as the improvement of the incidence of stroke, heart attacks and cancers of the colon ( Today we know that but also increase the incidence of these diseases).

As late as 2001 an article in the American EJ Bieber reread with great reluctance the possibility that some studies suggest the possible negative effects of hormones. As always, if perhaps more battles commercial health at work which showed an increase in cancers, were contrasted in which this work could not be seen, and the industry continues to move in the push to consume.

As in the case of Vioxx, the men responsible for surveillance of drug doses (as representatives of the FDA) have remained silent to observe the sisters, mothers and daughters of their neighbors suffer from breast cancer without doing anything more to endorse the claims of manufacturers. But these controllers has never been sick a woman's own family to be able to think of a more careful reflection? to a more robust? an opposition to the "corporations" drug?

Obviously not, or should we think that the strength with which some pharmaceutical manufacturers are able to condition monitoring and assessment is clearly much stronger than any reason to protect the health of citizens and people in general.