Jerome Burne and Bio-Identical Hormone Replacement Therapy: Parts 1 and 2 covered some difficulties with Kent Holtorf’s review article, Are Bioidentical Hormones (Estradiol, Estriol, and Progesterone) Safer or More Efficacious than Commonly Used Synthetic Versions in Hormone Replacement Therapy?, relating to a potential conflict of interest (despite a statement to the contrary) and the completeness and quality of the review. For this final examination of Jerome Burne’s Should middle-aged women be taking natural HRT?, we focus on a paper for which we had to guess the identity: Unequal risks for breast cancer associated with different hormone replacement therapies: results from the E3N cohort study. (Again, This Really Is Not Good Enough or TRINGE.) Continue reading
Tag Archives: bio-identical hormones
Jerome Burne is co-author of Food Is Better Medicine Than Drugs (FIBMTD) with
Former Visiting Professor Patrick Holford. FIBMTD has a chapter on Balancing Hormones in the Menopause -The HRT scandal vs natural control: there is a brief discussion of “Natural progesterone – a safer way with hormones”.
Progesterone is given in amounts equivalent to that normally produced by a woman who is ovulating (between 20 and 40 mg a day) and, unlike oestrogen or synthetic progestins, it has no known cancer risk – in fact…quite the opposite. [pg. 167, the reference for this bold assertion is a self-help book, not a journal paper or similar, if you were curious. And, no, no specific page reference or indication that this is a study/trial, in vitro, in vivo or animal.]
Mid-May we noticed that Burne had left a long comment, recommending his own research, on a post about The Alternative that Isn’t: Bioidentical Hormones at Science-Based Pharmacy. Gazing into our crystal ball, we anticipated that a Burne special on the topic must be in progress and so were not surprised to read today’s Should middle-aged women be taking natural HRT? in the Daily Mail. The shorthand version of the remainder of this post is:
No. Not if you are relying upon the Holftorf review to provide a comprehensive overview of the relevant evidence on efficacy and safety.
After L’Affaire Economist, (parts 1, 2, 3) HolfordWatch really wanted to be able to commend Jerome Burne for something. We have noticed that although his last few articles in the Daily Mail haven’t actually carried links to the research upon which he relies, he has provided enough detail to allow the careful reader to identify the papers. It would, of course, be good if we did not have to resort to a treasure hunt to identify the primary sources but that is probably a confluence of out-moded thinking by both journalists and newspaper.
Today, Burne gave generous amounts of detail as to one of the major sources for his claims in his article: Should middle-aged women be taking natural HRT?. HolfordWatch was poised to congratulate Burne for semi-identifying this work up until we actually read the paper that he describes as a “major review”: Are Bioidentical Hormones (Estradiol, Estriol, and Progesterone) Safer or More Efficacious than Commonly Used Synthetic Versions in Hormone Replacement Therapy?. Leaving aside the lack of appropriate rigour in the paper, we noticed that, despite his usual exquisite sensitivity in such matters, Burne seems to be overlooking the “review” author’s failure to declare what might appear, to others, as a substantial conflict of interest. Continue reading