Gary Brecka

Now, the numbers, there was a slight increase in the number of breast cancer, non-fatal breast cancer cases diagnosed in that treatment group, but it was not statistically significant.

So

Why do we do statistics if you're going to ignore when the statistics tell you it's a difference attributable to noise in the data, not a true association?

Now, there's been lots of criticism of the type of progesterone used called MPA, which is not a type commonly used in hormone therapy today.

Now we have bioidenticals, right?

That's right, and some people say, well, that slight increase may have been attributed to that type of progesterone.

What was hardly ever discussed was that if you were on estrogen alone in the study, that is, you had your uterus removed, in which case doctors generally do not recommend taking progestin or progesterone, and so they're on estrogen alone, well, they had a 22% reduced risk

of breast cancer.

Sort of a weird twist of irony.

Now, I did some research and I had found out that in the meeting of the scientists before they announced that hormone therapy causes cancer, there were dissenting scientists who felt that they got ambushed.

They were handed the final publication.

They were showing up

at a meeting at the Sofitel in Chicago for what they thought was a regularly scheduled meeting to review how the study was going.

There were investigators from around the country.

They convened.

They thought this was a check-in meeting.

And at the meeting, they were told, hey, you can throw out the agenda.

We have a finding.

And they said, we found it causes breast cancer.

And they were handed a final written manuscript.