"Couple Awarded $1.5M in Hormone Lawsuit"

http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=106&sid=1047477

(Associated Press report)

"Eva" <EvaDStructionNOT@NOTverizon.net> wrote in news:1Qxvh.5496$635.3544
@trndny05:

>
> http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=106&sid=1047477
>
> (Associated Press report)
>
>
>

I'm no fan of Wyeth, but IIRC the increase in the incidence of breast
cancer among women who took Premarin was 26%. Basically, that means that
of the women who took it and got breast cancer, 4 out of 5 would have
gotten it anyway. How did the jury decide that she was the one in five?

Anyway, if this stands, Wyeth might just as well go out of business.
Paying out $1.5 mil *plus* punitive damages to every woman who took HT
and got breast cancer will finish them off anyway.

Chak

--
If I had to live my life again, I'd make the same mistakes, only sooner.
--Tallulah Bankhead

On Jan 29, 9:16 pm, Chakolate <chakolateDeathToSpamm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "Eva" <EvaDStruction...@NOTverizon.net> wrote in news:1Qxvh.5496$635.3544
> @trndny05:

I would not shed any tears if Wyeth had to discontinue the
"manufacture" of Premarin. The thought of all those thousands of
mares, imprisoned in stalls and hooked up to catheters for most of
their lives, has haunted me ever since I first heard of it. And then
there's the fate of the foals, all of whom are taken from their
mothers immediately at birth, then usually slaughtered. No woman
could take Premarin and call herself an animal lover, especially when
there are so many good, cheap alternatives that work just as well.
Les


>
>
>
> >http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=106&sid=1047477
>
> > (Associated Press report)
>
> I'm no fan of Wyeth, but IIRC the increase in the incidence of breast
> cancer among women who took Premarin was 26%. Basically, that means that
> of the women who took it and got breast cancer, 4 out of 5 would have
> gotten it anyway. How did the jury decide that she was the one in five?
>
> Anyway, if this stands, Wyeth might just as well go out of business.
> Paying out $1.5 mil *plus* punitive damages to every woman who took HT
> and got breast cancer will finish them off anyway.
>
> Chak
>
> --
> If I had to live my life again, I'd make the same mistakes, only sooner.
> --Tallulah Bankhead

"sage hen" <desertnymph@cwo.com> wrote in message
news:1170185048.890893.166220@p10g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
> On Jan 29, 9:16 pm, Chakolate <chakolateDeathToSpamm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> "Eva" <EvaDStruction...@NOTverizon.net> wrote in news:1Qxvh.5496$635.3544
>> @trndny05:
>
> I would not shed any tears if Wyeth had to discontinue the
> "manufacture" of Premarin. The thought of all those thousands of
> mares, imprisoned in stalls and hooked up to catheters for most of
> their lives, has haunted me ever since I first heard of it. And then
> there's the fate of the foals, all of whom are taken from their
> mothers immediately at birth, then usually slaughtered. No woman
> could take Premarin and call herself an animal lover, especially when
> there are so many good, cheap alternatives that work just as well.
> Les
>

OMG, I think I read somewhere about how the mares are treated but the
foals???? I'm not an animal lover but still would never want them
mistreated. Do you have any links?

Roseanne

On Jan 29, 9:12 pm, "Eva" <EvaDStruction...@NOTverizon.net> wrote:
> http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=106&sid=1047477
>
> (Associated Press report)

The woman took Prempro, not Premarin. Premarin has its own problems,
but in the WHI study, it was Wyeth's Prempro for which there was a 26
percent inc. in BC. (and, fwiw, 41 percent inc. in strokes, and 29
percent inc. in heart attacks.)

This was disturbing to me in that the woman is about my age and had a
similar family history of bc. Not sure this is entirely Wyeth's fault,
but perhaps the doctor should have been more cautious in prescribing a
known carcinogen to a woman with a family history of breast cancer.
However, if the doctor was typical of those we ran into 10 years ago,
he/she probably pushed the HRT aggressively.

Prempro is still Premarin, only with added synthetic progesterone.
It's unclear whether it's still as carcinogenic as Premarin alone.
What is clear is that the production of Prempro also involves the
abuse of mares and foals.
I just read a week or two ago that in previous years, all Premarin
foals were slaughtered at birth, but nowadays some are adopted out.
It's still a nightmarish fate for both mothers and babies. I'm not a
computer person but will try to scope out some proof for the
unbelieving.
Les



On Jan 31, 9:45 am, gail...@mindspring.com wrote:
> On Jan 29, 9:12 pm, "Eva" <EvaDStruction...@NOTverizon.net> wrote:
>
> >http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=106&sid=1047477
>
> > (Associated Press report)
>
> The woman took Prempro, not Premarin. Premarin has its own problems,
> but in the WHI study, it was Wyeth's Prempro for which there was a 26
> percent inc. in BC. (and, fwiw, 41 percent inc. in strokes, and 29
> percent inc. in heart attacks.)
>
> This was disturbing to me in that the woman is about my age and had a
> similar family history of bc. Not sure this is entirely Wyeth's fault,
> but perhaps the doctor should have been more cautious in prescribing a
> known carcinogen to a woman with a family history of breast cancer.
> However, if the doctor was typical of those we ran into 10 years ago,
> he/she probably pushed the HRT aggressively.

"sage hen" <desertnymph@cwo.com> wrote in message
news:1170291440.570790.57440@p10g2000cwp.googlegro ups.com...
> Prempro is still Premarin, only with added synthetic progesterone.
> It's unclear whether it's still as carcinogenic as Premarin alone.
> What is clear is that the production of Prempro also involves the
> abuse of mares and foals.
> I just read a week or two ago that in previous years, all Premarin
> foals were slaughtered at birth, but nowadays some are adopted out.
> It's still a nightmarish fate for both mothers and babies. I'm not a
> computer person but will try to scope out some proof for the
> unbelieving.
> Les

From what I've read Prempro is just as bad as Premarin.It was found that the
rate of breast cancer is higher in the synthetic estrogen/progestin group
than the estrogen alone.

Roseanne

On Jan 31, 7:00 pm, "foggydoggy" <foggydo...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
> "sage hen" <desertny...@cwo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170291440.570790.57440@p10g2000cwp.googlegro ups.com...
>
> > Prempro is still Premarin, only with added synthetic progesterone.
> > It's unclear whether it's still as carcinogenic as Premarin alone.
> > What is clear is that the production of Prempro also involves the
> > abuse of mares and foals.
> > I just read a week or two ago that in previous years, all Premarin
> > foals were slaughtered at birth, but nowadays some are adopted out.
> > It's still a nightmarish fate for both mothers and babies. I'm not a
> > computer person but will try to scope out some proof for the
> > unbelieving.
> > Les
>
> From what I've read Prempro is just as bad as Premarin.It was found that the
> rate of breast cancer is higher in the synthetic estrogen/progestin group
> than the estrogen alone.
>
> Roseanne

FYI, I looked for links about the mistreatment of mares and the
killing of foals to produce Premarin and Prempro. Wrote to PETA (a
friend had told me she saw a spread about this abuse there, but they
didn't email back. I did see a discussion about this in Susan Love's
Hormone Book. Wyeth claimed they treat the mares well, but admitted
that they spent most of their lives locked in stalls and hooked up to
catheters. Which if you know horses is cruel and unusual punishment.
The latest I've seen about the treatment of foals was that most are
still killed at birth, but animal rights groups have started an
adoption program, a hard sell considering the dedication it takes to
raise a foal from birth.
Also, I did mean to say that it was PREMPRO that had been implicated
in heart disease and cancer in the big WHI study. Natural forms
estrogen like estradiol work have not been proven to be cause these
problems.
Bottom line is, Premarin is an abbreviation for pregnant mare urine,
and you are supporting cruelty to animals when you take it. Estradiol
is very cheap and does the job!
Les

sage hen wrote:

> Also, I did mean to say that it was PREMPRO that had been implicated
> in heart disease and cancer in the big WHI study. Natural forms
> estrogen like estradiol work have not been proven to be cause these
> problems.
> Bottom line is, Premarin is an abbreviation for pregnant mare urine,
> and you are supporting cruelty to animals when you take it. Estradiol
> is very cheap and does the job!

Unfortunately, you can't assume that estradiol is safe, just
because it wasn't studied. Quite the contrary. Since the
chemical similarity between Premarin and other forms of estrogens
is very high, it would be prudent to assume them to be as
_unsafe_ as Premarin, until appropriate studies are done.

"Natural" doesn't mean "healthy." Poison ivy is a "natural"
plant, but I wouldn't advise eating it! <G>

Don't take this as a defense of Premarin. It's not.

FurPaw

--
My family values don't involve depleted uranium.

To reply, unleash the dog.

In article <1170515503.555159.7530@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.c om>,
"sage hen" <desertnymph@cwo.com> wrote:

> On Jan 31, 7:00 pm, "foggydoggy" <foggydo...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
> > "sage hen" <desertny...@cwo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1170291440.570790.57440@p10g2000cwp.googlegro ups.com...
> >
> > > Prempro is still Premarin, only with added synthetic progesterone.
> > > It's unclear whether it's still as carcinogenic as Premarin alone.
> > > What is clear is that the production of Prempro also involves the
> > > abuse of mares and foals.
> > > I just read a week or two ago that in previous years, all Premarin
> > > foals were slaughtered at birth, but nowadays some are adopted out.
> > > It's still a nightmarish fate for both mothers and babies. I'm not a
> > > computer person but will try to scope out some proof for the
> > > unbelieving.
> > > Les
> >
> > From what I've read Prempro is just as bad as Premarin.It was found that the
> > rate of breast cancer is higher in the synthetic estrogen/progestin group
> > than the estrogen alone.
> >
> > Roseanne
>
> FYI, I looked for links about the mistreatment of mares and the
> killing of foals to produce Premarin and Prempro. Wrote to PETA (a
> friend had told me she saw a spread about this abuse there, but they
> didn't email back. I did see a discussion about this in Susan Love's
> Hormone Book. Wyeth claimed they treat the mares well, but admitted
> that they spent most of their lives locked in stalls and hooked up to
> catheters. Which if you know horses is cruel and unusual punishment.
> The latest I've seen about the treatment of foals was that most are
> still killed at birth, but animal rights groups have started an
> adoption program, a hard sell considering the dedication it takes to
> raise a foal from birth.
> Also, I did mean to say that it was PREMPRO that had been implicated
> in heart disease and cancer in the big WHI study. Natural forms
> estrogen like estradiol work have not been proven to be cause these
> problems.
> Bottom line is, Premarin is an abbreviation for pregnant mare urine,
> and you are supporting cruelty to animals when you take it. Estradiol
> is very cheap and does the job!
> Les

I was under the impression that the only reason we don't know that
"natural forms" of estrogen do the same damage as synthetic forms is
that the studies haven't been done (or completed?) yet. They "haven't
been proven to cause these problems" but they haven't been proven NOT to
cause these problems. Frankly, I'd be astounded if there were any
difference.

Priscilla

sage hen <desertnymph@cwo.com> wrote:

> Prempro is still Premarin, only with added synthetic progesterone.
> It's unclear whether it's still as carcinogenic as Premarin alone.
> What is clear is that the production of Prempro also involves the
> abuse of mares and foals.
> I just read a week or two ago that in previous years, all Premarin
> foals were slaughtered at birth, but nowadays some are adopted out.
> It's still a nightmarish fate for both mothers and babies. I'm not a
> computer person but will try to scope out some proof for the
> unbelieving.
> Les

Here's what the ASPCA has to say about it:
<http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pro_horsepremarin>

--
Keera in Norway * Think big. Shrink to fit.
http://home.online.no/~kafox/

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:51:21 +0100, thinkbig.shrinktofit@online.no
(Keera Ann Fox) wrote:

>sage hen <desertnymph@cwo.com> wrote:
>
>> Prempro is still Premarin, only with added synthetic progesterone.
>> It's unclear whether it's still as carcinogenic as Premarin alone.
>> What is clear is that the production of Prempro also involves the
>> abuse of mares and foals.
>> I just read a week or two ago that in previous years, all Premarin
>> foals were slaughtered at birth, but nowadays some are adopted out.
>> It's still a nightmarish fate for both mothers and babies. I'm not a
>> computer person but will try to scope out some proof for the
>> unbelieving.
>> Les
>
>Here's what the ASPCA has to say about it:
><http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pro_horsepremarin>

and the Canadian SPCA umbrella organization

http://cfhs.ca/info/the_beginning_of_the_end_for_pmus/

Most of the PMU farms are in Canada. I saw the horses out in the
fields when we drove on the backroads of Manitoba one summer. It was
pretty, but so are fields of flax and canola, and a much better use of
the land imo.

Kathryn

On Feb 3, 7:51 am, Priscilla Ballou <vze23...@verizon.net> wrote:
> In article <1170515503.555159.7...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.c om>,
> "sage hen" <desertny...@cwo.com> wrote:

Yes, I did not actually claim that estradiol is safe, only that it
hasn't been proven as dangerous as Premarin. I agree that it most
likely has negative side effects too. My main point is that it's
easier on the conscience since its manufacture doesn't involve cruelty
to animals.
Les


>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 31, 7:00 pm, "foggydoggy" <foggydo...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
> > > "sage hen" <desertny...@cwo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1170291440.570790.57440@p10g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > > > Prempro is still Premarin, only with added synthetic progesterone.
> > > > It's unclear whether it's still as carcinogenic as Premarin alone.
> > > > What is clear is that the production of Prempro also involves the
> > > > abuse of mares and foals.
> > > > I just read a week or two ago that in previous years, all Premarin
> > > > foals were slaughtered at birth, but nowadays some are adopted out.
> > > > It's still a nightmarish fate for both mothers and babies. I'm not a
> > > > computer person but will try to scope out some proof for the
> > > > unbelieving.
> > > > Les
>
> > > From what I've read Prempro is just as bad as Premarin.It was found that the
> > > rate of breast cancer is higher in the synthetic estrogen/progestin group
> > > than the estrogen alone.
>
> > > Roseanne
>
> > FYI, I looked for links about the mistreatment of mares and the
> > killing of foals to produce Premarin and Prempro. Wrote to PETA (a
> > friend had told me she saw a spread about this abuse there, but they
> > didn't email back. I did see a discussion about this in Susan Love's
> > Hormone Book. Wyeth claimed they treat the mares well, but admitted
> > that they spent most of their lives locked in stalls and hooked up to
> > catheters. Which if you know horses is cruel and unusual punishment.
> > The latest I've seen about the treatment of foals was that most are
> > still killed at birth, but animal rights groups have started an
> > adoption program, a hard sell considering the dedication it takes to
> > raise a foal from birth.
> > Also, I did mean to say that it was PREMPRO that had been implicated
> > in heart disease and cancer in the big WHI study. Natural forms
> > estrogen like estradiol work have not been proven to be cause these
> > problems.
> > Bottom line is, Premarin is an abbreviation for pregnant mare urine,
> > and you are supporting cruelty to animals when you take it. Estradiol
> > is very cheap and does the job!
> > Les
>
> I was under the impression that the only reason we don't know that
> "natural forms" of estrogen do the same damage as synthetic forms is
> that the studies haven't been done (or completed?) yet. They "haven't
> been proven to cause these problems" but they haven't been proven NOT to
> cause these problems. Frankly, I'd be astounded if there were any
> difference.
>
> Priscilla- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -