27-09-2014, 11:41 PM
As you said earlier, E3 breaks down into many chemicals, one of which is carcinogenic, it's true. E1 according to scientist consensus is carcinogenic, most sources say it. The paper also assumes that E1 is safer than E2, because it is weak, its not necessarily a contradiction, but it is a big assumption. E3, however is safe compared to estradiol. The 3 hormones may have their problems and may possibly aggravate cancer, but E3 is just way safer than E2.
The paper may have a conflict of interest because it's by pharmaceutical company. It may not be wrong, but it's its choice of words and the assumptions it makes. Also, I think it said estriol is discouraged from being prescribed in the US, while saying its more accepted in Europe. An estriol prescription isn't necessary
This is WebMD's UK website on it http://drugs.webmd.boots.com/drugs/drug-182-Estriol.aspx . Note BootsWebMD is also commercial (and European).
The paper may have a conflict of interest because it's by pharmaceutical company. It may not be wrong, but it's its choice of words and the assumptions it makes. Also, I think it said estriol is discouraged from being prescribed in the US, while saying its more accepted in Europe. An estriol prescription isn't necessary
This is WebMD's UK website on it http://drugs.webmd.boots.com/drugs/drug-182-Estriol.aspx . Note BootsWebMD is also commercial (and European).