User:Nraden/WP re-write

The Wiley Protocol is one of a number of controversial bioidentical hormone replacement therapies (BHRT). It was devised and advocated by T. S. Wiley. Wiley's contention is that replacing sex hormones in women to pre-menopausal levels can restore or preserve health, which is a step beyond the symptomatic treatment of conventional hormone replacement therapy which aims only to relieve the symptoms of menopause. The recreation of a pre-menopausal woman's monthly hormonal cycle is achieved by using rhythmic doses of hormones that replicate the rise and fall of hormones in a normal menstrual cycle. The preparations are prescribed by physicians and are compounded by pharmacists selected by Wiley who agree to conform to strict rules of preparation and purity.

The protocol has been criticized by some members of the medical community for lacking empirical verification for safety or efficacy. In addition there are criticisms about the dosages of the hormones used, and about Wiley's alleged lack of qualifications to design the protocol.

Specific dosing
The Wiley Protocol uses biomimedic hormones extracted from botanicals and synthesized into hormone powders, specifically estradiol and progesterone (but not estriol, a common ingredient in other BHRT compounds, which was recently banned by the FDA). Hormones are applied transdermally, using a lipid-based skin cream for topical administration. Doses of the hormones vary throughout a 28-day cycle that is designed to mimic the hormone levels and changes of a young woman who experiences regular menstruation, with each hormone cycling and peaking at separate times throughout the period.

The protocol differs from conventional hormone replacement therapy in several ways:
 * The use of plant-derived hormones that are identical to endogenous hormones found in the body, rather than the synthetic derivatives of conventional hormone replacement therapy such as premarin
 * A dose that varies over a 28-day cycle rather than remaining static
 * Topical rather than oral administration

The protocol also includes a follow-up program to monitor the serum levels of the hormones.

Wiley has stated that in her opinion, the most important aspect of the protocol is the specific schedule and levels of the hormone doses rather than their bioidentical nature.

Criticism
All BHRT has been criticized by members of the medical community for lacking proof and not being empirically verified as safe or effective, though the Wiley Protocol draws added criticism. Concerns have been raised that serum levels may not be an acceptable marker for transdermally administered hormones, that some women have experienced significant side effects while following the protocol and have stopped using it, and that the dosages used are too high and not physiologic. Wiley and Suzanne Somers have been criticized by some physicians for their advocacy of the Wiley Protocol. A group of seven doctors issued a public letter to Somers and her publisher, Crown, in which they state that the protocol is "scientifically unproven and dangerous" and cite Wiley's lack of medical and clinical qualifications. Other than her book, Ageless, Somers has not acted as a spokesperson for the protocol and was not involved in the development of the Wiley Protocol or its ongoing development.

Dangling references
Dangling references - these were hanging around the old re-write on talk:wp, possibly may be integrated in to the text (use citation templates and diberry if this is the case). WLU (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Formby, Bent; T.S. Wiley (1998). "Progesterone inhibits growth and induces apoptosis in breast cancer cells: inverse effects on Bcl-2 and p53". Ann Clin Lab Sci. 28 (6): 360-9..
 * Formby, Bent; T.S. Wiley (1999). "Bcl-2, survivin and variant CD44 v7-v10 are downregulated and p53 is upregulated in breast cancer cells by progesterone: inhibition of cell growth and induction of apoptosis". Mol Cell Biochem. 202 (1-2): 53-61..
 * R Stern; S Shuster, TS Wiley, B Formby (2001). "Hyaluronidase can modulate expression of CD44". Exp Cell Res. 266 (1): 167-76..

Tell me how to handle this, I don't know the style elements of Wikipedia well enough. In the first section, even though there is a whole section of criticism that repeats this, is "The protocol has been criticized by members of the medical community for lacking empirical verification for safety or efficacy. In addition there are criticisms about the dosages of the hormones used, and about Wiley's lack of qualifications to design the protocol." Now, in point of fact, there is no empirical evidence for the methods the critics are practicing, either. Actually, there is quite a bit of it for the WP because they are closely followed. But Wiley is the only one so far who has written doctor's manuals, pharmacisits' manuals, offers certification courses for CME's (where Wiley Protocol trained MD's provide part of the instruction - get it? Clinical cred) and gotten not one but two IRB#'s to conduct 3rd party studies. So this statement in the text is patently misleading. It leaves the claims dangling without discussion about them.

The second part, about Wiley's lack of qualifications, deserves some counterpoint. Two published books, these three pieces of original in-vitro (not statistical) studies in the molecular biology of cancer that led to the formulation of the Wiley Protocol. As for dosages, ask any doctor giving Vitamin C IV what is considered a high does. There is no consensus. Nor is there with hormones, You could say fairly that the WP is HIGHER, but high is prejorative. If the critics say there is no empirical evidence, where did the "too high" definition come from? I think that most people who make this statement don't understand the WP at all. The dosages aren't arbitrary, it's not tittration, which is what most doctors understand. It's based on metabolic tipping points. "Too little is worse than too much; too much is like noting" Wiley says. So my question is, how do you (stylistically) insert both sides of an argument into the text? I'm not making claims for the WP, but I am disputing claims that others have made with no sources. I understand the reliable source thing. Some doctor writes a letter full of these charges and it gets in the newspaper, so that's a reliable source. You know, I could walk down the street naked with "Huckabee is gay" painted on my ass, and that would get in the newspaper too. There has to be some way to balance it, though, if it's misleading or false.

Neil Raden (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

One more thing. That salutogenesis link is wrong. Wiley is not a crystal power person. Quite the opposite. This is medicine to her, not alternative medicine.