Interesting article. I know its all about woman, but some interesting comments in here, and it made me wonder how much of what we are struggling with, with our doctors is because of this historical perspective.
Well, that article was interesting, but seemed like a hodge podge of meandering thoughts. I couldn't tell where the author was headed or what point he/she was trying to make.
One thing that I think is very naive that was presented in the article is this thought: "What is the real difference between synthetic hormones and bioidentical? Is there really a difference?"
Well, anyone who has read about the synthetic steroids in men knows there's a mile of difference. Liver damage, less anabolism, weird side effects - the list goes on and on. Contrast that with bioidentical testosterone which has done very well in the studies if administered reasonably. I just don't see why Western medicine continues to think they can make synthetic pharmaceuticals w/o side effects. It's just a very foolish philosophy and one of the reasons so many people have turned to alternative medical strategies.
But where were you headed?