Re: Re: You may want to look at more research on progesterone...

May 30, 2010

Karla,

That is a good question [the source of natural progesterone] and I

had to search. All " natural progesterone " is synthetic and comes

from chemically manipulating starting materials, formerly from

Mexican wild yams, or more recently, from soybeans. A good

information site seems to be:

http://www.henriettesherbal.com/faqs/medi-2-12-wild-yam.html

It makes me wonder how much " natural " progesterone is made from GMO soybeans.

I found the following on:

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=58149.0

" The problem really isn't soy. Natural soy wouldn't be a problem at

all. The problem is that even the FDA admits that the US population

has no clue how extensively their food supply is saturated with GMO

foods. Soy is one of them that is almost 100% GMO.

" The FDA doesn't regulate packaging of foods with regards to labels

of non-GMO or GMO free, they view it as advertising, not a health

factor. Therefor, they tell you what you can label as what, but they

don't bother to reinforce it. Your label can say that it has " no GMO "

or that it is " non-GMO " if the product you use is second-generation

GMO, that has not been recently modified. In other words, it's stll

modified, just not THIS time.

" GMO free is supposed to be made from soy/ wheat/ corn that has never

been modified. You almost never see " GMO Free, " and there's a reason

for that... our food supply is fully saturated with GMO.

" There's a myth that says that " organic " is GMO free, but this is not

true... it's only " non GMO " (2 generations removed from a direct

modification), and actually has a lot more to do with how it's grown-

natural versus chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

" Here are some studies about the dangers of GMO, which is really what

we're actually talking about here, since almost 100% of any soy,

wheat, or corn you eat will be GMO:

<http://www.soilassociation.org/Web/SA/SAWeb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b0029898\

0/94dada85ebee057180257194005ca7d0>http://www.soilassociation.org/Web/SA/SAWeb.n\

sf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/94dada85ebee057180257194005ca7d0!OpenDocumen\

t

<http://www.physorg.com/news7740.html>http://www.physorg.com/news7740.html

" (Lots of studies listed here):

<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va & aid=7277>http://www.globalres\

earch.ca/index.php?context=va & aid=7277

" SIDS anyone?

<http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20060108/ai_n15993644>http://fi\

ndarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20060108/ai_n15993644

Love this part, Bush is such a winner: " But the World Trade

Organisation is expected next month to support a bid by the Bush

administration to force European countries to accept GM foods. " Yeah,

don't get me started on the WTO.

" Second article down on the page:

<http://www.saynotogmos.org/ud2007/uaug07a.php>http://www.saynotogmos.org/ud2007\

/uaug07a.php

" The list is endless. Study after study.

" No, soy is not the real culprit here.... GMO soy, and its saturation

into nearly 100% of the soy in the US, is the culprit. "

-------------------

One last comment from me []. Our biochemistry as an organism

is quite amazing and very tough because of all the challenges that

our ancestors endured. For the healthy person cancer is extremely

difficult to get. Look at subSaharan Africa during the first half of

20th century: cancer, heart disease, and auto immune disease were

virtually unheard of. Everything changed during the mid nineteen

fifties when oil production, chemical pollution, and western ways

were introduced to Africa. Now they have cancer just like other

modern countries.

Our 21st century bodies are saturated with medical and environmental

toxins and endocrine/hormonal disrupters. We are always toying with

our exposure to these chemicals for the short-sighted benefits to

manufacturers, to the government, and to the consumer, and

concomitantly to eventual detriment of all.

For certain subsets of the population there will be a downside to

using progesterone. It will only occasionally be obvious, most

likely it will show up statistically. These statistics will be

distorted by our preconceptions and our financial interests -- they

always are. This shouldn't stop anyone from using progesterone who

wants it; as adults this should be our choice, our privilege, and our

right. Cancer patients should be made aware that this is not settled

science and there are unsettling questions about its use.

It is a sad fact of life that nature seems to protect us and nurture

us until we pass the age of reproduction, and then it turns on us --

it is out to get us. If progesterone can help forestall the

inevitable, super..!!

At 06:36 AM 5/30/2010, you wrote:

>

>excuse my ignorance, but I think that hormones come from

>mare urine.....how is natural progesterone made ?

>this is very important topic for women...

>karla

May 30, 2010

,

Â

You hit it on the head when you discussed the chemical and radiation exposure of

the modern world as responsible for rising cancer rates. The idea put forth from

some of the New Agers that one causes one's own diseases--resurrected from

ancient cultures that knew nothing of bacteria, viruses, and man-made

carcinogens--is a travesty. Certainly stress can weaken the immune system; but

it doesn't cause cancer. I remember when I was going through my fun-and-games in

the early nineties, reading the Bernie Siegel books. One of his chapters was

entitled " Why Do You Need This Disease? " A bullshit guilt trip. My personal

doctor who works out of Yale New Haven hospital remarked: " I'll never forgive

Siegel for that. "

Â

Bob Ellal

>

>excuse my ignorance, but I think that hormones come from

>mare urine.....how is natural progesterone made ?

>this is very important topic for women...

>karla

May 30, 2010

writes: <<<<<<All " natural progesterone " is synthetic....>>

,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I am glad to hear that you have an

open mind on the subject. People tell me " What Your Doctor May Not Tell You

About Breast Cancer " by Drs Lee and Zava is the most eloquent presentation on

the subject of progesterone.

1. I'm afraid those studies you sent mixed and matched progestins

(synthetic) and progesterone as well as added estrogen in for good measure. Some

studies seem to be driven by drug companies who think as long as there are

estrogen blockers like Tamoxifen are making a fortune, creating a

progesterone blocker could make a buck as well. There was one study there that

mixed

mouse organs in a blender with progesterone and apparently they turned red.

The authors extrapolated the redness was inflammation and inflammation

causes breast cancer. So we have a triple extrapolation linking

progestins/progesterone with breast cancer.

2. I need to clarify your impression " that all natural progesterone is

synthetic. "

" Synthetic progesterone " means the substance is a totally DIFFERENT

MOLECULE than natural progesterone. Synthetic progestins were invented because

natural progesterone is not patentable and thus not profitable. In this case

" synthetic " does not refer to it " coming from a factory " , it means it's a

totally different molecular entity, different than the natural molecule our

bodies make.

3 Progestins and natural progesterone BEHAVE differently in the body

because natural progesterone is the IDENTICAL MOLECULE that the body makes.

Also, in low doses, it seems that MPA (medroxyprogesterone, the synthetic used

in the Women's Health Initiative) seems to suppress the body's endogenous

protective progesterone. Studies will have to be done to verify this. This

speculation arose when women taking estrogen alone developed less breast

cancer but those taking progestins developed more than the placebo takers.

Again, I urge you to read the Lee and Zava book if you are sincerely

interested in a place to start exploring this subject. There are many studies to

share, and go over one by one, and I would be happy to do that since I have

been exploring progesterone since 1985.

But if you are not interested, I wish you well.

Lynne

In a message dated 5/30/2010 1:54:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

vgammill@... writes:

Karla,

That is a good question [the source of natural progesterone] and I

had to search. All " natural progesterone " is synthetic and comes

from chemically manipulating starting materials, formerly from

Mexican wild yams, or more recently, from soybeans. A good

information site seems to be:

_http://www.henriettesherbal.com/faqs/medi-2-12-wild-yam.html_

(http://www.henriettesherbal.com/faqs/medi-2-12-wild-yam.html)

It makes me wonder how much " natural " progesterone is made from GMO

soybeans.

I found the following on:

_http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=58149.0_

(http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=58149.0)

" The problem really isn't soy. Natural soy wouldn't be a problem at

all. The problem is that even the FDA admits that the US population

has no clue how extensively their food supply is saturated with GMO

foods. Soy is one of them that is almost 100% GMO.

" The FDA doesn't regulate packaging of foods with regards to labels

of non-GMO or GMO free, they view it as advertising, not a health

factor. Therefor, they tell you what you can label as what, but they

don't bother to reinforce it. Your label can say that it has " no GMO "

or that it is " non-GMO " if the product you use is second-generation

GMO, that has not been recently modified. In other words, it's stll

modified, just not THIS time.

" GMO free is supposed to be made from soy/ wheat/ corn that has never

been modified. You almost never see " GMO Free, " and there's a reason

for that... our food supply is fully saturated with GMO.

" There's a myth that says that " organic " is GMO free, but this is not

true... it's only " non GMO " (2 generations removed from a direct

modification), and actually has a lot more to do with how it's grown-

natural versus chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

" Here are some studies about the dangers of GMO, which is really what

we're actually talking about here, since almost 100% of any soy,

wheat, or corn you eat will be GMO:

<_http://www.soilassociation.org/Web/SA/SAWeb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00

298980/94dada85ebee057180257194005ca7d0_

(http://www.soilassociation.org/Web/SA/SAWeb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b0029898\

0/94dada85ebee057180257194005ca

7d0)

>_http://www.soilassociation.org/Web/SA/SAWeb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b002989\

80/94dada85ebee057180257194005ca7d0_

(http://www.soilassociation.org/Web/SA/SAWeb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b0029898\

0/94dada85ebee057180257194

005ca7d0) !OpenDocument

<_http://www.physorg.com/news7740.html_

(http://www.physorg.com/news7740.html) >_http://www.physorg.com/news7740.html_

(http://www.physorg.com/news7740.html)

" (Lots of studies listed here):

<_http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va & aid=7277_

(http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va & aid=7277)

>_http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va & aid=7277_

(http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va & aid=7277)

" SIDS anyone?

<_http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20060108/ai_n15993644_

(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20060108/ai_n15993644)

>_http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20060108/ai_n15993644_

(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20060108/ai_n15993644)

Love this part, Bush is such a winner: " But the World Trade

Organisation is expected next month to support a bid by the Bush

administration to force European countries to accept GM foods. " Yeah,

don't get me started on the WTO.

" Second article down on the page:

<_http://www.saynotogmos.org/ud2007/uaug07a.php_

(http://www.saynotogmos.org/ud2007/uaug07a.php)

>_http://www.saynotogmos.org/ud2007/uaug07a.php_