[SarahSchilling]

I've read that paper before, actually. I don't particularly care for how the author hides behind the reasoning that because PM isn't estradiol, that it doesn't share the same risks associated with estradiol until proven otherwise. It reminds me of how chemical corporations get around safety regulations by slightly tweaking the molecular structure of a known carcinogen, then hide behind the reasoning that although this new compound performs exactly the same beneficial task, it is not the same compound as before and therefore does not share the toxicity of its predecessor.

It's not exactly the same as my analogy, but basically if a substance has the same benefits on the human body, I think the same risks should be assumed UNTIL proven otherwise.



It also throws out the boogeymen of Ethinyl estradiol and premarin in order to prove its case, which is par for the course in these kinds of herb biased papers. Also the mention of years of time tested use in Thailand, while ignoring the fact that the use by the majority of the population is done at extremely low dosages.



Then it concludes by encouraging readers to seek out research on PM that, quite frankly, does not exist.

It's times like these I wish AbiDrew was still around lol..

Ugh, I'm better off staying in comedic mode.