You are probably wondering, how is it possible for two smart doctors to come to the exact opposite conclusion? Cirigliano says No they are not, and Holtorf says Yes they are.
The answer is simple, none of the medical studies that Holtorf cites are cited in Cirigliano's article. The two articles review the medical literature to answer the same question, yet they come up with two sets of totally different medical studies to support their conclusion. Why is that? Well, here is the explanation.
The ghost written Cirigliano article accepts only Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) studies as evidence. These are randomized controlled trials with a drug group and a placebo group. These are large studies funded by drug companies for FDA approval of a new drug. Since bioidentical hormones are not a new drug, they are natural substances that cannot be patented, drug companies will not spend money funding such a controlled trial. Cirigliano's article rejects all other observational, animal and basic science studies, as "not evidence".
Since there are no large RCT studies of bioidentical hormones, Holtorf cites other types of medical studies that are equally valid, such as observational studies like the French cohort study and others. Many of his cited studies are epidemiological studies which are not the gold standard, but are still published and accepted as medical evidence. Holtorf's article also includes basic science and animal studies.
Medical Ghost Writing Should Be Banned
Medical ghost writing, as we have seen in the women's hormone literature, is a form of plagiarism, scientific misconduct and fraud. It is harmful to the public and should be banned.
Acknowledgments and Financial Disclosures: I disclose that I am the author of this entire article with no editorial assistance from writers paid by any unnamed drug company with an ax to grind. I do not receivedfinancial compensation from anydrug company.
For the original article, and references :Click Here.
Disclaimer click here: www.drdach.com/wst_page20.html
The reader is advised to discuss the comments on these pages with his/her personal physicians and to only act upon the advice of his/her personal physician. Also note that concerning an answer which appears as an electronically posted question, I am NOT creating a physician -- patient relationship. Although identities will remain confidential as much as possible, as I can not control the media, I can not take responsibility for any breaches of confidentiality that may occur.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
