Terri, Ah, have you hit on a nerve! Because you are right! You haven't heard from the medical profession to dispute the HERS video---and, Terri, that is because they can't! That video wasn't made without painstaking research and expert input. Experts not just in the gyn field but in human anatomy. But it goes even further than that. Start reading the gyn sites not for how quick the surgery and recovery time is or for how their robot compares...but pay attention to what they say are the adverse "complications"(really, consequences)--long and short term. My bet is that the gyn/hospital site will not address that. Oh, the site may well refer you elsewhere--elsewhere as in the gyn/hospital legally not being responsible for what is said on the recommended/referred site. Remember the old saw about "the devil being in the details?"
Terri, if nothing else, go buy an old gyn text for a few bucks and spend an hour with it. Read not what you're being told but what the experts tell each other. I've got a 1985 Te Linde's "Operative Gynecology" that notes not only the sexual dysfunction, but, post procedure rapid aging as well as discussing "the hysterectomy cripple". That is, to name but a few of the highlights.
In Colgan's "Hormonal Health," he notes that the first bcp were way too strong and that, when big pharma started getting the cancer numbers in, they quietly changed their formulas. He states that if lawsuits had proceeded, they would've dwarfed any previous litigation to date. Terri, there is an important reason that they were able to get by with this. The medical profession is very protective of its' own and of its' practices. Any member going against the grain will be severely punished-- and you typically need the medical profession to bring a med mal suit.
Which brings me to a health tip that I wanted to share. There are many environmental estrogens that are many times more powerful than are the human female hormones. For example, estrogen can be given to cows to produce more beef while other hormones can make the animals produce more milk. Yet another example is that plastics and pesticides may have estrogenic properties. "Used" pharmaceuticals can wind up in our drinking water as our water systems normally do not filter out drugs.
I firmly believe that none of this bodes well for us. Quoting again from the AARP article by Dr. Servan-Schreiber, "In far too many Americans, these defenses are breaking down. Cancer rates increased steadily for decades before beginning a slight decline in recent years. And cancers that have no screening test-lymphomas, and pancreatic and testicular cancers, for example-are still rising. While the aging of the population plays a role, it is not the sole cause: cancer in children and adolescents rose at a rate of 1 to 1.5 percent per year during the 30 years ending in 1999. Asian countries have not experienced the same trends. Yet within one or two generations, Asian Americans get some cancers at rates similar to those of Caucasian Americans."
While I believe all of this to be dangerous enough for the intact, what of the woman without the ovarian production of sex steriods to fill her hormone receptors? And, if cholesterol is a building source for the human sex steriods, then, when the ovaries aren't there to convert it, doesn't that leave these women with high cholesterol?
And, finally, to give you an example of how important these hormones truly are, Woolsey did research on monkeys that showed that after 10 days of estrogen deprivation, the dendrite spines in their brains were permanently shortened.
Last but not least, I want you to know that I am not employed by the HERS Foundation. Nope, I'm an unemployed housewife who has a long list of domestic things to do before her--including a hubby now waiting for his breakfast more than an hour. I take this time out to talk to you only because I would give the world if someone had taken the time out to talk to me. My hubby waits patiently because he understands this.
You see, he has picked up and read some of my medical literature and, "He gets it!"
Comment Reply
Terri, Ah, have you hit on a nerve! Because you are right! You haven't heard from the medical profession to dispute the HERS video---and, Terri, that is because they can't! That video wasn't made without painstaking research and expert input. Experts not just in the gyn field but in human anatomy. But it goes even further than that. Start reading the gyn sites not for how quick the surgery and recovery time is or for how their robot compares...but pay attention to what they say are the adverse "complications"(really, consequences)--long and short term. My bet is that the gyn/hospital site will not address that. Oh, the site may well refer you elsewhere--elsewhere as in the gyn/hospital legally not being responsible for what is said on the recommended/referred site. Remember the old saw about "the devil being in the details?"
April 10, 2009 - 7:40amTerri, if nothing else, go buy an old gyn text for a few bucks and spend an hour with it. Read not what you're being told but what the experts tell each other. I've got a 1985 Te Linde's "Operative Gynecology" that notes not only the sexual dysfunction, but, post procedure rapid aging as well as discussing "the hysterectomy cripple". That is, to name but a few of the highlights.
In Colgan's "Hormonal Health," he notes that the first bcp were way too strong and that, when big pharma started getting the cancer numbers in, they quietly changed their formulas. He states that if lawsuits had proceeded, they would've dwarfed any previous litigation to date. Terri, there is an important reason that they were able to get by with this. The medical profession is very protective of its' own and of its' practices. Any member going against the grain will be severely punished-- and you typically need the medical profession to bring a med mal suit.
Which brings me to a health tip that I wanted to share. There are many environmental estrogens that are many times more powerful than are the human female hormones. For example, estrogen can be given to cows to produce more beef while other hormones can make the animals produce more milk. Yet another example is that plastics and pesticides may have estrogenic properties. "Used" pharmaceuticals can wind up in our drinking water as our water systems normally do not filter out drugs.
I firmly believe that none of this bodes well for us. Quoting again from the AARP article by Dr. Servan-Schreiber, "In far too many Americans, these defenses are breaking down. Cancer rates increased steadily for decades before beginning a slight decline in recent years. And cancers that have no screening test-lymphomas, and pancreatic and testicular cancers, for example-are still rising. While the aging of the population plays a role, it is not the sole cause: cancer in children and adolescents rose at a rate of 1 to 1.5 percent per year during the 30 years ending in 1999. Asian countries have not experienced the same trends. Yet within one or two generations, Asian Americans get some cancers at rates similar to those of Caucasian Americans."
While I believe all of this to be dangerous enough for the intact, what of the woman without the ovarian production of sex steriods to fill her hormone receptors? And, if cholesterol is a building source for the human sex steriods, then, when the ovaries aren't there to convert it, doesn't that leave these women with high cholesterol?
And, finally, to give you an example of how important these hormones truly are, Woolsey did research on monkeys that showed that after 10 days of estrogen deprivation, the dendrite spines in their brains were permanently shortened.
Last but not least, I want you to know that I am not employed by the HERS Foundation. Nope, I'm an unemployed housewife who has a long list of domestic things to do before her--including a hubby now waiting for his breakfast more than an hour. I take this time out to talk to you only because I would give the world if someone had taken the time out to talk to me. My hubby waits patiently because he understands this.
You see, he has picked up and read some of my medical literature and, "He gets it!"
This Comment
Reply