Can someone help me figure this out? Are they saying that Pfizer has a synthetic equivalent but chooses to keep using horse urine instead?
http://www.horsecollaborative.com/premarin-still-needs-horses/?utm_source=Aweber&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=premarin&email=
[QUOTE=Laurierace;8064859]
Can someone help me figure this out? Are they saying that Pfizer has a synthetic equivalent but chooses to keep using horse urine instead?
http://www.horsecollaborative.com/premarin-still-needs-horses/?utm_source=Aweber&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=premarin&email=[/QUOTE]
Yes. It’s all about the almighty dollar since they can make much more money selling Premarin than with the generic equivalent.
Not surprising coming from the pharma industry. Yes, horses continue to suffer all in the name of greed. 
But I thought the whole argument for premarin was there were no synthetics that were as effective? Is that no longer true?
When I read this article in its initial version (it appears to since have been edited) it contained a number of inaccuracies. I don’t have a scientific answer for you, but the fact that the medical researcher cited in the article is an ophthalmologist made me question the opinions presented. It is entirely possible that he has researched this topic outside of his main field of practice, but in addition there were no scientific articles or other credible sources cited. I did not find the article convincing.
IMO, the main problem that the article should have focused on is the fact that Wyeth has moved many of its PMU contracts to India and China. Now, instead of pregnant mare urine coming from mares being raised and cared for at highly regulated ranches in the midwest and Canada, it’s coming from mares in countries where there are virtually no animal welfare regulations, not to mention much incentive to breed quality (useful) stock, and not likely to be much of a market for the resulting foals.
If anyone is interested in learning more about PMU ranches in the US and Canada, all one needs to do is look at the NAERIC website to see some of the farms and the types of horses produced.
I’m just going to say, My mother has been on Premarin. Many times her Dr. has tried to switch her over to the synthetic version. The synthetic was not effective for her at all. All of her symptoms would come back with a vengeance, so she would put Mom back on the Premarin.
I have heard that also. My intent was to try a synthetic and rejoice if it worked, but I would not have ruled out Premarin. The life of the mares is nowhere near as dire as it is painted (by the same folks who squeeze a dollar out of nursemare foals). At least not while it was in US and Canada, in the areas where land and grass are plentiful and there was ample oversight.
As as it turned out I didn’t take anything but that was just a lucky fluke.
It is mainly this paragraph that has me scratching my head. It seems like they are using the word generic in place of synthetic no?
Shortly after this approval was granted, Wyeth Ayerst announced that they held the patent on generic delta 8,9-dehydroestrone, anyway, effectively blocking out any other competition with a stamp of permanence
Here is an article that explains the situation a little better. My understanding is that Premarin is a complicated natural product. It doesn’t have just one active ingredient, it contains multiple different estrogens. Creating a synthetic product to mimic a complicated natural product with multiple different active compounds (not all well identified/understood) would potentially be very difficult.
I don’t get the impression that the patent held on delta 8,9 dehydroestrone really stands in the way of a true synthetic version of Premarin. That compound is just one of many estrogens in Premarin. It has been identified as one of the more active compounds in the Premarin, but it is not the sole active compound. As far as I know, there is not any research out there demonstrating that a medication made up solely of that compound would be a good substitute for Premarin.
As far as I can tell, the article published by HC doesn’t really bring any new information to the table. Premarin is a complicated natural product and there isn’t an equivalent synthetic version at this time.
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/InformationbyDrugClass/ucm168838.htm
For the brief period of time I took hormone replacements after my hysterectomy at age 40, the synthetic version (mine was based in plants) worked well for me. I refused to even try Premarin; my doctor initally thought I did not want to do so because it was urine-based; I explained that I had issues with the PMU industry, not that the drug came from urine. However, there are some women for whom the problems are severe and for whom only Premarin provides relief. I am sure that not all PMU farms were hotbeds of cruelty, but those that did have humane treatment failings sure sunk the ship for the entire industry in North America. The old saying that it takes one bad apple to spoil the whole barrel seems to apply here. I am glad I no longer need to take hormone replacements in any form.
I took synthetics for a couple of years, and then stopped when the research about hormone replacement came out. Some of the research showed that there simply weren’t enough benefits to take anything for me to continue. However, I have friends who tried synthetics, and nothing helped them after hysterectomies, so they went on Premarin for a couple of years. One didn’t tolerate synthetics or premarin, so she just had to go through the surgically induced menopause.
I don’t think there is a one size fits all solution to this.
Here’s an article from The Horse about equine welfare in Canada. Basically PMU ranches are strictly regulated and inspected twice a month.
http://www.thehorse.com/articles/16771/canadian-horse-welfare
Both the AAEP and the AVMA support the use of horses in the production of Premarin.
[URL=“http://www.thehorse.com/articles/12229/avma-joins-aaep-in-support-of-pmu-farm-management”]
http://www.thehorse.com/articles/12229/avma-joins-aaep-in-support-of-pmu-farm-management
[QUOTE=Laurierace;8065106]
But I thought the whole argument for premarin was there were no synthetics that were as effective? Is that no longer true?[/QUOTE]
Yes! But the anti’s will continue on their way.
Synthetics have been around forever. But the company in question did it’s best to squash them by making the argument that none of the research done on premarin could be used to advertise synthetics because… and get this… there was a constituent in horse estrogen that doesn’t exist in human estrogen and that might account for all the positive effects of HRT. Unbelievable. But true.
At this point, however, looks like the safest HRT may be the patch, which deliver synthetic estrogen.
Oh, and btw, the studies that showed issues with HRT and caused everyone so much concern were very badly flawed. Which is why you’re starting to see more studies coming out nowadays showing that HRT is FINE for the vast majority of women if they start during at menopause - as opposed to decades later which was the case of many of the women in the now infamous clinical trials.
Well, I’m now on HRT daily pills and have a pregnant mare out back. But I won’t be attempting DIY Premarin anytime soon!
[QUOTE=SportArab;8065932]
Synthetics have been around forever. But the company in question did it’s best to squash them by making the argument that none of the research done on premarin could be used to advertise synthetics because… and get this… there was a constituent in horse estrogen that doesn’t exist in human estrogen and that might account for all the positive effects of HRT. Unbelievable. But true.
At this point, however, looks like the safest HRT may be the patch, which deliver synthetic estrogen.[/QUOTE]
You can’t take two medications that contain different compounds and say that they are interchangeable without research and proof. Different estrogens (and there are many) act in different places in the body, are metabolized differently, and have different effects.
FWIW most drugs are compounds that do not exist naturally in the human body, so I don’t see what is unbelievable about an estrogen compound that doesn’t naturally occur in humans having a particular effect when given as a medication.
I do think it is pretty predictable that a drug company would do what it can to squash the competition, but unfortunately it is appropriate to consider that the research on Premarin might not apply to other similar drugs/compounds.
It’s a huge step up that Premarin is being taken today pretty much only by the very small subset of women who truly NEED it–and are therefore on the right side of the risk/benefit equation.
The problems in the past were largely caused by it being marketed as a “lifestyle” drug, to be taken by EVERYONE, ALL THE TIME, menopause to death.
It was shamelessly marketed as a perpetual-youth, sexiness, and preventative drug and in the end that did many people great harm.
If we were meant to have a full load of sex hormones in our bloodstream all our lives, evolution would have chosen that way. It should be taken ONLY if one has unbearable symptoms, the lowest dose for the shortest time possible.
Always kills me how Steroids are Bad for male bodybuilders, but its just ducky for women to be on either the Pill or HRT from puberty to grave. The marketing is not the science, believe me!
Lady E-Comparing the steroids used by male body builders and athletes to female hormone therapy is comparing apples and oranges and bananas.
There are so many different hormones that just basing an argument on the word hormone is unknowledgeable.
No one says you need to take HRT. But I don’t like women being scared away from them by flawed studies.
[QUOTE=2foals;8065995]
You can’t take two medications that contain different compounds and say that they are interchangeable without research and proof. Different estrogens (and there are many) act in different places in the body, are metabolized differently, and have different effects.
FWIW most drugs are compounds that do not exist naturally in the human body, so I don’t see what is unbelievable about an estrogen compound that doesn’t naturally occur in humans having a particular effect when given as a medication.
I do think it is pretty predictable that a drug company would do what it can to squash the competition, but unfortunately it is appropriate to consider that the research on Premarin might not apply to other similar drugs/compounds.[/QUOTE]
OK, it’s hormone REPLACEMENT therapy, we’re talking about here. That was a totally bogus and cynical argument to make. If they had been marketing Premarin as horse estrogen from mare pee, how many women do you think would have signed on. Women thought they were replacing the hormones their ovaries were no longer making.
