Talk:Progestogen

This article shows exactly why...
This article shows exactly why wikipedia should be written by experts and not mischievous idiots who probably gain financially by pushing quack medicines such as 'natural' progesterone, a substance long discredited and, like all progestagens including endogenous human progesterone, linked to certain side effects making its use unnecessary in women who have had a hysterectomy. The unsafe drugs cited are indeed unsafe enough to have been withdrawn from the market: unlike progestagens which have been in the combined OCP / Pill for many generations, thereby benefitting millions ?billions of women from the burden of repeated pregnancies.

Acceptable risk means just that: is you get in a car you have a 1 in 200 chance of having an accident and if you have one a one in 30 chance of dying, but cars are not withdrawn from the market. Progesterone and its synthetic congeners have about a one in 3000 chance of causing one of its more serious side effects over a lifetime of use (for example a blood clot in the legs) and that has been considered an acceptable risk by the FDA and several generations of American women. So get your facts straight.

I will not even begin to address the hoplessly illogical and contradictory 'arguments' put forward in favour of 'natural' versus 'synthetic' progestagens: suffice it to say that all occupy/stimulute/agonise the progesterone receptor; thereby initiating progesterone's effects in varygin degree, none of which are particularly 'beneficial' to anyone or anything except: one; the estrogen-prepared uterus/endowmtrium, and two: preganacy. The rest is bullshit. And no, I don't work for a drug company, and no, unlike some of the writers of this article, I do not make money hawking the stuff in any form.

--

Well, well. It's plain that you need numerous anti-psychotics which you have clearly forgotten to take. If that's not the case, then you must just be a small, mean-spirited individual with too much time on your hands.

Your first statement shows that you completely miss the point of Wikipedia - precisely that it is not written by 'experts' but rather by anyone who has something valuable to contribute. It is essentially self-regulating by nature.

You say that natural progesterone has been 'long discredited' - where's your citation, and what's your motivation? If you're not being paid in some way to suppress information that could save the lives of countless women, you certainly have bee in your bonnet about something or you wouldn't wax personal and nasty with no provocation.

We're not talking laetrile or some other snake oil here. Natural hormone therapy is legitimate, and it saves lives. It has been thoroughly researched and the evidence for its effectiveness - as well as evidence showing the dangers of estrogen plus progestin - continues to mount. What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Breast Cancer by John Lee, MD and David Zava, PhD should be required reading for every woman who cares about her health, so that she is in a position to make an informed choice. Which is also the purpose of my edits to this article.

My facts are quite straight, thank you - I think the early termination of the estrogen-progestin arm of the Women's Health Initiative speaks volumes, and I don't make a cent from the sale of natural hormones.

_________

Do you deal on a daily basis with the terms like aromatisation? stepped ion channel? partial agonism? racemic mixture? steroid nucleus (look it up)? If you do not then you have no business writing about progestagens. In fact you are not contributing anything 'valuable' - simply obfuscatory, biased, unscientific and uninformed trash. Wikipedia should be written by those who actually know what they are talking about. Do you know that in ethical (look it up) circles it is considered unethical for doctors to sell drugs directly to patients as it has long been held that it is impossible to remain objective about something you make a direct profit from? This is why doctors charge for consultations; then write prescriptions which are then filled by pharmacists - like separation of church and state(look it up) this is held to be the more ethical position. As such, Dr Lee (and other medico's who sell substances they have a personal stake in selling) is acting unethically. You say progestins are good and natural and then say they are harmful in some way? "How long halt ye between two opinions?" (look it up). As a long-term scientist (look it up) I have to agree with the first contributor to this talk page.

--

My goal is to make sure this article presents both sides of a controversial topic, whereas before it represented only one. You are so busy attempting to appear erudite - Ambrose Bierce defined erudition as "dust shaken out of a book into an empty skull", to save you the trouble of looking it up - that you are ignoring the basic facts. Natural progesterone is good and healthy, artficial progestins - not the same thing - are not. Dr. Lee makes no money from the sale of natural hormones, being peacefully dead, and the medical professionals I associate with, all of whom have alphabet soup after their names, duly accorded by accredited medical institutions do not either - in the time-honored tradition that you mention, they also charge for consultations and write prescriptions which are then filled by compounding pharmacists.

Knowing all the nomenclature doesn't automatically mean your position is unassailable. My only goal is to make sure this article is complete. Since the article now carries a call for experts, there is a good chance that someone whose credentials you might find harder to impeach, and yet who is not bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical machine, may well step up to the plate. We can hope.

erudition and the politics of stupidity
When an ill-educated person encounters a learned one whose opinions do not match their own, they tend simply to disparage the learning of their opponent. Like race, it is impossible to defend against this. Note that Sacha Baron Cohen (who makes fun mostly of Americans, and thereby hangs a tale - they are too easy a target) is Jewish and makes Jewish jokes: thus it was all very well for Ambrose Bierce (a very erudite man) to make fun of erudition. It is not OK for you, however. As far as alphabets behind the name (this erudition apparently only impresses you in the case of your friends) - I can match it with anyone - but then of course all that spaghetti means nothing to you: it is all just dust when it comes from anyone with different opinions to your own. As far as erudition goes: allow me to quote a few erudite things which you would well to look up. "Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goette selbst vergebens" and "get ye wisdom" and "cast not thy pearls before swine, lest they trample them into the dirt". Having had enough of being trampled by swine in my life, I leave the field to you and your fellow combatants. Hopefully sense will eventuall prevail. Looking at the early versions of the article - it is quite plain you had no intention of 'presenting a balanced view' but were simply proseletyzing for the commercially-interested viewpoint of one MD and his colleague, who travelled the world selling yam diosgenins to naive women and made a fortune in so doing. I will however take issue with the first entry in this page: progesterone (and progestagens) does has some subtle beneficial effects on bone and so on which mean that in small judicious amounts it is probably not a bad thing in HRT formulations.

Some thoughts about this discussion
• First of all, I would like to say that the book in question, What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Breast Cancer, may not meet Wiki standards as a good source. According to the guideline suggesting the use of a secondary source, it is preferable that the source be subject to peer review. In fairness, lots of true things are printing in sub-prime sources, but for the purposes of an encyclopedia we should try to use high quality sources (such as those subject to peer review).

• I would also say that several of the editors should consult the page on civility. I don't think it's necessary to be rude or to taunt people.

• Next I would like to propose that it is incorrect to say that progesterone is the only "natural" progestagen. I would classify pregnenolone, allopregnanolone, and 5α-dihydroprogesterone all as "natural" progestagens.

• Further, I would like to propose that we move away from the distinction between "natural" and "synthetic." I believe it is much more appropriate, and useful, to distinguish between endogenous and exogenous. For example, when talking about progesterone it makes little difference whether the progesterone was produced internally or externally, it will still do the same thing.

• One of the editors wrote:
 * I will not even begin to address the hoplessly illogical and contradictory 'arguments' put forward in favour of 'natural' versus 'synthetic' progestagens

In principle I don't disagree with this statement, but some steroids have never been observed to occur without human technology, so in some cases I do feel that it is fruitful to distinguish between things that occur without modern technology ("natural") and things that require modern technology ("synthetic").

• Last, I would like to encourage people to please sign their entries.

Ehb 22:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So... the book about breast cancer risk was a bad citation? Okay, how about citing a published study / paper from 2005... I however am clueless how to add a citation correctly... I'm referring to the link I put in the "Progesterone vs Progestin" section I added to the talk page of the "Progestin" article ... for that matter, was there ever a proposal to merge the Progestin article with this one or vice versa? --Kuzetsa (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: natural v. syntetic progesteron: Progesterone that exactly duplicates the progesterone naturally produced in the body, or "bio-identical" progesterone. IDNaa (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Can someone help me understand why Dr.John R.Lee's books is not a good source? He has plenty of references to other documentation in his books. I would expect to find such links here, as Wikipedia also should cover alternate medicine, and not only limit content to western traditional medicine. Am I wrong? IDNaa (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 15:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. When Dr. Lee cites an article in his book there's nothing to prevent him from making an honest mistake in how he interprets the article, or to prevent him from deliberately trying to advance his own position through creative interpretation of the other documents that he cites.  His book does not, in itself, have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as recommended by Wikipedia guidelines (guidelines for sources).Ehb (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And so what? Sorry but i do not get your point.IDNaa (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The point is that his book doesn't meet the standards for a good source (see above), so it shouldn't be used as a reference for a wikipedia entry.Ehb (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"citations will get you further"
I would just like to suggest to those whom are listing arguments on the talk page for this article: time would be better spent digging up "apropriate" sources to use for citations... Really, I mean no offense in suggesting that "citations will get you further", I certainly agree with arguments that it is irresponsible to claim synthetic progestins are theraputically equivilant to the "4-pregnene-3,20-dione" molecule. (or more simply: without good citations, you're inviting an edit war) --Kuzetsa (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I'll start by practicing adding citations here (with my handy-dandy Referencing for beginners) --Kuzetsa (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Templates to mark article for needing improvement. (drive-by tagging)
The documentation for mentions it is explictly meant for zero citation articles... rather than re-apply the wrong template, in the future, please use  or other apropriate templates if you still feel an article needs improved. --Kuzetsa (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops sorry about that - thanks. Zodon (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

To the writer of this article:

Wow. I have only read the first paragraph of this page and was already struck by the number gross inaccuracies. First of all, by referring to them as "progestagens", you are referring to all of the so called "natural" or endogenously produced members of the pregnane series of hormones, of which there are many. As one person already noted, progesterone, or P4, is not the only naturally occurring member of this family. There is P5, or pregnenolone, for instance, and others that have been mentioned above. You then say "all the other progestagens are synthetic..", which is a ridiculous statement, since progestagens are, by definition, natural. Synthetic hormones with progestagen-like activity are referred to as progestins.

You then comment that progestagens have anti-estrogenic activity, which is false and a major oversimplification. Progestagens and estrogens have differing actions, but there are many instances in which they are synergystic, such as during pregnancy, when both high estrogens and progestagens are both present and necessary.

The statement that really tells me that you do not know what you are talking about is this: "Progestogens differ in their potency (affinity for progesterone receptors) and side-effects. Such side-effects may be androgenic (medroxyprogesterone and most C19 progestagens), antiandrogenic (cyproterone acetate), estrogenic, glucocorticoid (some C21 progestogens), or antimineralocorticoid (progesterone)." In fact, all members of the pregnane family, which progesterone belongs to, are C21 steroids. Steroids with 19 carbons, or C19 steroids, are members of the androstane family, which all androgens including testosterone belong to. This is why C19 steroids are androgenic - because they *are* androgens, and NOT progestagens as you suggest.

I appreciate that you may wish to present both sides of the coin, here, but you are clearly missing the basic facts about progestagens, and you should not be writing encyclopedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanaking99 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not know who wrote any of those parts, but you're free to make the changes to the main page yourself. Be bold! However, I would argue that using "progestin" to indicate synthetic progesterone-like steroids is only by convention, that it is not always observed in the literature, and that there is no established consensus that I'm aware of (for example, I don't think this convention is endorsed by IUPAC or IUPHAR), so remember that only verifiable information should be included in the wiki entry :) Ehb (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Primary spelling
Primary spelling is "progestogen", not "progestagen" as per Oxford, Merriam-Webster, National Institutes of Health, etc. Facts707 (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Actually, the pubmed MeSH database prefers the term "Progestins". I consider MeSH the most authorative source for medicine related terms. PizzaMan (♨♨) 23:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Dihydro/Dehydro
In the chapter Functions/Progestogens as precursors to other steroids the article says: "In the human, the fetal adrenals produce dihydroepiandrosterone via the P5 pathway." I think there are dehydroepiandrosterone and dihydrotestosterone, but not dihydroepiandrosterone. Here, I think it should be dehydroepiandrosterona but I'm not an expert. Could somebody check this?--Miguelferig (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Google backs you up, apparently it's dehydroepiandrosterone. MindZiper (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Progesterone.
I don't really care about all this squabbling. The knowledge from Dr Lee's books have helped myself and my daughter enormously. And it was given to me by my very excellent GP. As for progesterone, progestins, progestogens. Have the definitions changed then? My understanding was that progesterone is the natural form, progestogens the manufactured in a factory form, and progestins artificial forms which differ in structure. 82.21.188.167 (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)