Hey Everyone,
I saw this this morning, and wanted to share!
"Bayer Schering Pharma, the pharmaceutical giant that makes the YAZ contraceptive pill, claims that they have developed the first ‘natural’ birth control pill in the world. They have already launched the pill, Qlaira, in the UK after doing tests with it on 3,000 women.
Instead of using synthetic hormones, like those that are found in other contraceptive pills, Qlaira uses bioidentical oestrogen hormones from natural plants, which is identical to the estrogen in the body. "
There's a bit more if you follow the link, including this sequence of sentences: "Although bioidentical hormones are boasted as safer than synthetic hormones, there is some scientific evidence that supports the theory. In January, Suzanne Somers appeared on The Oprah Winfrey show, crediting bioidentical hormones with helping her get through menopause." I thought that was pretty hilarious.
Anyway, this will be an interesting development to keep an eye on. I wonder if there is potential for less side effects, since the hormones are identical to those in our own bodies. I would guess maybe not, actually...since we get "side effects" from our own hormones too (PMS, pregnancy symptoms). But I certainly don't know.
So what do y'all think? Would you be more likely to use a "natural" hormonal birth control?
I saw this this morning, and wanted to share!
"Bayer Schering Pharma, the pharmaceutical giant that makes the YAZ contraceptive pill, claims that they have developed the first ‘natural’ birth control pill in the world. They have already launched the pill, Qlaira, in the UK after doing tests with it on 3,000 women.
Instead of using synthetic hormones, like those that are found in other contraceptive pills, Qlaira uses bioidentical oestrogen hormones from natural plants, which is identical to the estrogen in the body. "
There's a bit more if you follow the link, including this sequence of sentences: "Although bioidentical hormones are boasted as safer than synthetic hormones, there is some scientific evidence that supports the theory. In January, Suzanne Somers appeared on The Oprah Winfrey show, crediting bioidentical hormones with helping her get through menopause." I thought that was pretty hilarious.
Anyway, this will be an interesting development to keep an eye on. I wonder if there is potential for less side effects, since the hormones are identical to those in our own bodies. I would guess maybe not, actually...since we get "side effects" from our own hormones too (PMS, pregnancy symptoms). But I certainly don't know.
So what do y'all think? Would you be more likely to use a "natural" hormonal birth control?
Personally, I think I've got all the hormones I need because my body makes them, not because they came to me in little pills. Even menopausal women don't always need estrogen therapy.
So, to answer your question, I'm not going to persuaded to use HBC because of bioidenticals.
Thank you for posting this! I actually was just reading about Suzanne Somers' craziness on Oprah yesterday and I was wondering how the rest of the world would be affected by it. Now I know! Looks like it's going to be another crazy health fad.
My thryoid doesn't make the hormones I need, so I have to take synthetic stuff in little pills. O:(
On-topic: I suspect, m'self, that the "bioidentical" stuff is going to be Just Another Pill To Try that may or may not give side effects. And if it works, that's really not a bad thing. More Options are good, up to the hypothetical day when someone invents the Perfect Birth Control that never has bad side effects for anyone, and has 100% success.
Molecules are molecules. It's like flavour, natural strawberry flavour from a strawb, and a synthesised version of the flavour are the same, and look at how easily people are swayed by that.
Great link though, thanks!
I was under the impression though, and I could definitely be wrong, that the HBC we use now isn't the same molecules that our body produces...I thought they were slightly different, in which case you might expect the bioidentical molecules to impact us slightly different...but I don't really know.
Also, the way they are metabolized when taken orally is a stress on the liver, which leads to the problem of blood clots/strokes. This is true of bioidentical hormones as well, but the molecule is one that the body is designed to metabolize, whereas these foreign estrogenic substances are not.
*shrug* That's all I got.
(Disclaimer: I am not a biochemist/endocrinologist/doctor of any kind)
All that said... I am definitely in agreement that being on Oprah is no reason for people to run out and switch their HBC. If it's working for you, no need to mess with it.
Premarin = PREgnant MARe urINe. "Conjugated equine estrogens"... very potent stuff, harvested from pregnant mares in a rather cruel way. Definitely not vegan...
It's only "natural" because it comes from another living thing versus coming from a lab. Premarin is not entirely bioidentical, though it is apparently over 50% estrone, which does occur naturally in humans. However, estrone doesn't really do much on its own unless it gets converted to estradiol. The remainder of Premarin is estrogens that are specific to horses.
I still think Big Pharma's full of shit though, they think women are stupide enough to clamour for anything 'natural', or 'organic', with 'bioidentical' being the latest buzzword to add to an ever growing list. Give me ethical over 'natural' any day.
There's an article here. It's from 2006, so maybe things have changed, but the authors state:
In truth, there is no scientific evidence to back claims for 'bioidentical hormones' that they have any advantage over conventional therapies, but there is evidence that they may sometimes be dangerous1. So-called 'bioidentical' hormones are claimed to be synthesized from many of the same sources as traditional HRT, e.g. yams. The hormone made by the 'bioidentical' manufacturer is often claimed to be 'natural' and, in advertisements, it is inferred that the identical estradiol, produced by the regulated pharmaceutical industry from the same yam source, is somehow different and not natural. Great play is often made of pharmaceutical estrogens produced from non-vegetable sources, e.g. equine estrogens, but there is little mention that these estrogens are mostly converted in the human into human estrogens.
It seems to me that they're conflating the suitability of saliva testing for hormone levels with the efficacy of bioidentical hormones procured from compounding pharmacies.
Great play is often made of pharmaceutical estrogens produced from non-vegetable sources, e.g. equine estrogens, but there is little mention that these estrogens are mostly converted in the human into human estrogens.
Great play is made because it's cruel to harvest pee from pregnant horses like that. And most HBC doesn't use equine estrogens anyway... it's almost universally ethinyl estradiol, which DOES NOT get converted into anything resembling endogenous 17-beta estradiol.
I feel like the source is being emphasized a lot...when the real issue is whether or not the hormones are really identical to our own...but I'm not sure, and can't find a really solid answer anywhere.
The supposed benefit of bioidentical hormones comes from the fact that it's the same kinds of hormones your body is designed to use. Whether there really are any advantages will take a lot of testing to find out, but unfortunately, there's little financial incentive for pharmaceutical companies to do this. My personal feeling is that they likely can't be any worse than the other kinds. *shrug*
I know it's Wikipedia, but they have an article up here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioidentic
on bioidentical HRT. Obviously, HRT and HBC are somewhat different subjects, but the article does a decent job of clarifying the bioidentical aspect of things as well as the controversy, which seems to be centered around compounding pharmacies rather than factory-produced bioidentical hormone pills.
When I am able to find a non-biased, authoritative medical source that recognizes the benefits of "bio-identical hormones," then I will gladly refer to that source; it seems that there is little out there.
I think that's a little different than what you're asking, though. For me, it wouldn't be that I perceived bioidentical hormones to be more natural or better than the contraceptive formulations currently available. It would simply be because it was something new and different than what I'd already tried.
I'm perfectly happy with Microgestin, and it's only a $5 copay with my insurance. Unless this new thing had more to back it up AND was similarly cheap, I've no need to change.