Critique of Georgi/Mercola/Ray Peat

[TNT]

Georgi Dinkov was interviewed by Mercola recently, and among other things, they discussed the dangers of estrogen and serotonin. I thought cool -- more people are being introduced to Ray Peat's work. Then this article came out critiquing the claims:

Mercola & Guest's Analysis - WRONG on Estrogen

Two men very wrong, on a very female hormone. Feel free to pass forward.

drlindseyberkson.substack.com

What do you guys think? Is this critique valid?

 

[Izzybelle]

Georgi Dinkov was interviewed by Mercola recently, and among other things, they discussed the dangers of estrogen and serotonin. I thought cool -- more people are being introduced to Ray Peat's work. Then this article came out critiquing the claims:

Mercola & Guest's Analysis - WRONG on Estrogen

Two men very wrong, on a very female hormone. Feel free to pass forward.

drlindseyberkson.substack.com

What do you guys think? Is this critique valid?

Resistance by the indoctrinated is to be expected.

 

[Regina]

Georgi Dinkov was interviewed by Mercola recently, and among other things, they discussed the dangers of estrogen and serotonin. I thought cool -- more people are being introduced to Ray Peat's work. Then this article came out critiquing the claims:

Mercola & Guest's Analysis - WRONG on Estrogen

Two men very wrong, on a very female hormone. Feel free to pass forward.

drlindseyberkson.substack.com

What do you guys think? Is this critique valid?

 

[haidut]

Georgi Dinkov was interviewed by Mercola recently, and among other things, they discussed the dangers of estrogen and serotonin. I thought cool -- more people are being introduced to Ray Peat's work. Then this article came out critiquing the claims:

Mercola & Guest's Analysis - WRONG on Estrogen

Two men very wrong, on a very female hormone. Feel free to pass forward.

drlindseyberkson.substack.com

What do you guys think? Is this critique valid?

I responded to her "critique" by email through several people who are in contact with her, and have not heard back anything yet. Her main point seems to be that estrogen is not carcinogenic and that the designation as a carcinogen was due to the WHI studies, and that the carcinogen designation has been reversed by NIH due to "re-analysis" (read: manipulation) of WHI data. Be that as it may, there is the fact that WHO also declared estrogen a known human carcinogen (in 2005, independently of NIH) and that status still stands. The WHO decision was not based only on the WHI studies but on global data, submitted by over 100 countries over several decades. There is also a mountain of other evidence for estrogen's carcinogenicity, some of which is listed below.
Estrogen a more powerful breast cancer culprit than we realized — Harvard Gazette
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/1999/20908lbl.pdf
Endometrial Cancer Prevention (PDQ®).
Link Between Melanoma and Estrogen Could Lead to New Therapeutic Approach
Estrogen May Play Role in Melanoma Recurrence
Estrogen hikes ovarian cancer risk
High levels of estrogen in lung tissue related to lung cancer in postmenopausal women
Estrogen plays a role in expansion of liver metastases in non-sex-specific cancers
Even "non-carcinogenic" estrogens can cause cancer
Estrogen, not HPV, causes cervical cancer; progesterone can stop / reverse it – To Extract Knowledge from Matter
EZH2 Mediates Proliferation, Migration, and Invasion Promoted by Estradiol in Human Glioblastoma Cells
Is Estradiol a Genotoxic Mutagenic Carcinogen?1
Combined estrogen-progestogen contraceptives and combined estrogen-progestogen menopausal therapy - PubMed
Endogenous estrogens as carcinogens through metabolic activation - PubMed
Estrogen contributes to the onset, persistence, and malignant progression of cervical cancer in a human papillomavirus-transgenic mouse model - PubMed
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2914219/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006291X23004102
Estrogen and its metabolites are carcinogenic agents in human breast epithelial cells - PubMed
Unbalanced estrogen metabolism in ovarian cancer - PubMed
Estrogen treatment enhances hereditary renal tumor development in Eker rats - PubMed
Inhibition of Estrogen-induced Renal Carcinoma in Syrian Hamsters by Vitamin C1
Estrogen enhances the proliferation and migration of ovarian cancer cells by activating transient receptor potential channel C3 - Journal of Ovarian Research
Environmental exposure to xenoestrogens and oestrogen related cancers: reproductive system, breast, lung, kidney, pancreas, and brain - Environmental Health
Europe PMC
Estrogen promotes tumor progression in a genetically defined mouse model of lung adenocarcinoma
Estrogen receptors promote NSCLC progression by modulating the membrane receptor signaling network: a systems biology perspective - Journal of Translational Medicine
Europe PMC
Loss of Estrogen Inactivation in Colonic Cancer
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/01.ATV.21.1.6
Estrogen Aggravates Tumor Growth in a Diffuse Gastric Cancer Xenograft Model
https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2018.36.4_suppl.85
Estrogen Signaling in Livers of Male Mice With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Induced by Exposure to Arsenic In Utero
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD014869/epdf/full

Hormone Replacement Therapy – The Silver Bullet That Misfired

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) had gained a positive image due to results from the Nurses Health Study, and other cohort trials, but randomized clinical trials wiped out many of its presumed benefits. In 1998 the results of a large clinical trial challenged a...

link.springer.com

The fact that the studies above cover so many different types of cancer, and point to both ability of estrogen to both cause cancer de-novo and also increase its growth/spread after it has already formed speaks (to me at least) volumes about whether estrogen is a carcinogen or not. How doctors like the one who published this "critique" can ignore so much evidence is simply beyond me, and is one of the reasons I no longer have interest in participating in "debates" with such hacks. Every single time I engaged in such debates so far, the doctor on the other side quickly decided that the evidence is indeed overwhelming, and inevitably resorted to ad-hominems and comments along the lines of "come on now, who are you going to believe - me or a layman"....as if the evidence I am presenting is not legit peer-reviewed research performed by other doctors, but somehow concocted by me out of thin air.
Perhaps the best summary of the estrogen's nefariousness, aside from Ray's writings, is the review paper published by that Harvard lawyer, which got so-well scrubbed by the censorship apparatus that it can now be found only on this forum.

Massive Fraud Was Used To Sell The Public On The Safety Of HRT (estrogen)

Ray wrote in one of his articles about the concerted, wide-scale fraud that has been perpetuated for decades by the pharma industry to convince the public that estrogen is safe and thus pave the way for mass-scale HRT with that deadly steroid. He has a link in one of his articles to a study by a...

raypeatforum.com

Isn't the fact that the pharma/medical industries engaged in decades-long fraud to push estrogen on the public and go to great lengths to silence any opposition evidence, and censor this paper above, enough evidence of just how "good" estrogen is for health? As the saying goes, never in the known history of the world, have the people performing censorship (let alone conspiracy and fraud) been the good guys.
@Izzybelle @Regina

 

[Regina]

I responded to her "critique" by email through several people who are in contact with her, and have not heard back anything yet. Her main point seems to be that estrogen is not carcinogenic and that the designation as a carcinogen was due to the WHI studies, and that the carcinogen designation has been reversed by NIH due to "re-analysis" (read: manipulation) of WHI data. Be that as it may, there is the fact that WHO also declared estrogen a known human carcinogen (in 2005, independently of NIH) and that status still stands. The WHO decision was not based only on the WHI studies but on global data, submitted by over 100 countries over several decades. There is also a mountain of other evidence for estrogen's carcinogenicity, some of which is listed below.
Estrogen a more powerful breast cancer culprit than we realized — Harvard Gazette
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/1999/20908lbl.pdf
Endometrial Cancer Prevention (PDQ®).
Link Between Melanoma and Estrogen Could Lead to New Therapeutic Approach
Estrogen May Play Role in Melanoma Recurrence
Estrogen hikes ovarian cancer risk
High levels of estrogen in lung tissue related to lung cancer in postmenopausal women
Estrogen plays a role in expansion of liver metastases in non-sex-specific cancers
Even "non-carcinogenic" estrogens can cause cancer
Estrogen, not HPV, causes cervical cancer; progesterone can stop / reverse it – To Extract Knowledge from Matter
EZH2 Mediates Proliferation, Migration, and Invasion Promoted by Estradiol in Human Glioblastoma Cells
Is Estradiol a Genotoxic Mutagenic Carcinogen?1
Combined estrogen-progestogen contraceptives and combined estrogen-progestogen menopausal therapy - PubMed
Endogenous estrogens as carcinogens through metabolic activation - PubMed
Estrogen contributes to the onset, persistence, and malignant progression of cervical cancer in a human papillomavirus-transgenic mouse model - PubMed
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2914219/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006291X23004102
Estrogen and its metabolites are carcinogenic agents in human breast epithelial cells - PubMed
Unbalanced estrogen metabolism in ovarian cancer - PubMed
Estrogen treatment enhances hereditary renal tumor development in Eker rats - PubMed
Inhibition of Estrogen-induced Renal Carcinoma in Syrian Hamsters by Vitamin C1
Estrogen enhances the proliferation and migration of ovarian cancer cells by activating transient receptor potential channel C3 - Journal of Ovarian Research
Environmental exposure to xenoestrogens and oestrogen related cancers: reproductive system, breast, lung, kidney, pancreas, and brain - Environmental Health
Europe PMC
Estrogen promotes tumor progression in a genetically defined mouse model of lung adenocarcinoma
Estrogen receptors promote NSCLC progression by modulating the membrane receptor signaling network: a systems biology perspective - Journal of Translational Medicine
Europe PMC
Loss of Estrogen Inactivation in Colonic Cancer
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/01.ATV.21.1.6
Estrogen Aggravates Tumor Growth in a Diffuse Gastric Cancer Xenograft Model
https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2018.36.4_suppl.85
Estrogen Signaling in Livers of Male Mice With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Induced by Exposure to Arsenic In Utero
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD014869/epdf/full

Hormone Replacement Therapy – The Silver Bullet That Misfired

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) had gained a positive image due to results from the Nurses Health Study, and other cohort trials, but randomized clinical trials wiped out many of its presumed benefits. In 1998 the results of a large clinical trial challenged a...

link.springer.com

The fact that the studies above cover so many different types of cancer, and point to both ability of estrogen to both cause cancer de-novo and also increase its growth/spread after it has already formed speaks (to me at least) volumes about whether estrogen is a carcinogen or not. How doctors like the one who published this "critique" can ignore so much evidence is simply beyond me, and is one of the reasons I no longer have interest in participating in "debates" with such hacks. Every single time I engaged in such debates so far, the doctor on the other side quickly decided that the evidence is indeed overwhelming, and inevitably resorted to ad-hominems and comments along the lines of "come on now, who are you going to believe - me or a layman"....as if the evidence I am presenting is not legit peer-reviewed research performed by other doctors, but somehow concocted by me out of thin air.
Perhaps the best summary of the estrogen's nefariousness, aside from Ray's writings, is the review paper published by that Harvard lawyer, which got so-well scrubbed by the censorship apparatus that it can now be found only on this forum.

Massive Fraud Was Used To Sell The Public On The Safety Of HRT (estrogen)

Ray wrote in one of his articles about the concerted, wide-scale fraud that has been perpetuated for decades by the pharma industry to convince the public that estrogen is safe and thus pave the way for mass-scale HRT with that deadly steroid. He has a link in one of his articles to a study by a...

raypeatforum.com

Isn't the fact that the pharma/medical industries engaged in decades-long fraud to push estrogen on the public and go to great lengths to silence any opposition evidence, and censor this paper above, enough evidence of just how "good" estrogen is for health? As the saying goes, never in the known history of the world, have the people performing censorship (let alone conspiracy and fraud) been the good guys.
@Izzybelle @Regina

It would be difficult to over-estimate the ignorance and hubris spewing from this dangerous hack.

 

[TNT]

Resistance by the indoctrinated is to be expected.

 

[TNT]

I responded to her "critique" by email through several people who are in contact with her, and have not heard back anything yet. Her main point seems to be that estrogen is not carcinogenic and that the designation as a carcinogen was due to the WHI studies, and that the carcinogen designation has been reversed by NIH due to "re-analysis" (read: manipulation) of WHI data. Be that as it may, there is the fact that WHO also declared estrogen a known human carcinogen (in 2005, independently of NIH) and that status still stands. The WHO decision was not based only on the WHI studies but on global data, submitted by over 100 countries over several decades. There is also a mountain of other evidence for estrogen's carcinogenicity, some of which is listed below.
Estrogen a more powerful breast cancer culprit than we realized — Harvard Gazette
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/1999/20908lbl.pdf
Endometrial Cancer Prevention (PDQ®).
Link Between Melanoma and Estrogen Could Lead to New Therapeutic Approach
Estrogen May Play Role in Melanoma Recurrence
Estrogen hikes ovarian cancer risk
High levels of estrogen in lung tissue related to lung cancer in postmenopausal women
Estrogen plays a role in expansion of liver metastases in non-sex-specific cancers
Even "non-carcinogenic" estrogens can cause cancer
Estrogen, not HPV, causes cervical cancer; progesterone can stop / reverse it – To Extract Knowledge from Matter
EZH2 Mediates Proliferation, Migration, and Invasion Promoted by Estradiol in Human Glioblastoma Cells
Is Estradiol a Genotoxic Mutagenic Carcinogen?1
Combined estrogen-progestogen contraceptives and combined estrogen-progestogen menopausal therapy - PubMed
Endogenous estrogens as carcinogens through metabolic activation - PubMed
Estrogen contributes to the onset, persistence, and malignant progression of cervical cancer in a human papillomavirus-transgenic mouse model - PubMed
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2914219/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006291X23004102
Estrogen and its metabolites are carcinogenic agents in human breast epithelial cells - PubMed
Unbalanced estrogen metabolism in ovarian cancer - PubMed
Estrogen treatment enhances hereditary renal tumor development in Eker rats - PubMed
Inhibition of Estrogen-induced Renal Carcinoma in Syrian Hamsters by Vitamin C1
Estrogen enhances the proliferation and migration of ovarian cancer cells by activating transient receptor potential channel C3 - Journal of Ovarian Research
Environmental exposure to xenoestrogens and oestrogen related cancers: reproductive system, breast, lung, kidney, pancreas, and brain - Environmental Health
Europe PMC
Estrogen promotes tumor progression in a genetically defined mouse model of lung adenocarcinoma
Estrogen receptors promote NSCLC progression by modulating the membrane receptor signaling network: a systems biology perspective - Journal of Translational Medicine
Europe PMC
Loss of Estrogen Inactivation in Colonic Cancer
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/01.ATV.21.1.6
Estrogen Aggravates Tumor Growth in a Diffuse Gastric Cancer Xenograft Model
https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2018.36.4_suppl.85
Estrogen Signaling in Livers of Male Mice With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Induced by Exposure to Arsenic In Utero
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD014869/epdf/full

Hormone Replacement Therapy – The Silver Bullet That Misfired

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) had gained a positive image due to results from the Nurses Health Study, and other cohort trials, but randomized clinical trials wiped out many of its presumed benefits. In 1998 the results of a large clinical trial challenged a...

link.springer.com

The fact that the studies above cover so many different types of cancer, and point to both ability of estrogen to both cause cancer de-novo and also increase its growth/spread after it has already formed speaks (to me at least) volumes about whether estrogen is a carcinogen or not. How doctors like the one who published this "critique" can ignore so much evidence is simply beyond me, and is one of the reasons I no longer have interest in participating in "debates" with such hacks. Every single time I engaged in such debates so far, the doctor on the other side quickly decided that the evidence is indeed overwhelming, and inevitably resorted to ad-hominems and comments along the lines of "come on now, who are you going to believe - me or a layman"....as if the evidence I am presenting is not legit peer-reviewed research performed by other doctors, but somehow concocted by me out of thin air.
Perhaps the best summary of the estrogen's nefariousness, aside from Ray's writings, is the review paper published by that Harvard lawyer, which got so-well scrubbed by the censorship apparatus that it can now be found only on this forum.

Massive Fraud Was Used To Sell The Public On The Safety Of HRT (estrogen)

Ray wrote in one of his articles about the concerted, wide-scale fraud that has been perpetuated for decades by the pharma industry to convince the public that estrogen is safe and thus pave the way for mass-scale HRT with that deadly steroid. He has a link in one of his articles to a study by a...

raypeatforum.com

Isn't the fact that the pharma/medical industries engaged in decades-long fraud to push estrogen on the public and go to great lengths to silence any opposition evidence, and censor this paper above, enough evidence of just how "good" estrogen is for health? As the saying goes, never in the known history of the world, have the people performing censorship (let alone conspiracy and fraud) been the good guys.
@Izzybelle @Regina

Thanx, Georgi!

 

[RealNeat]

It's just a matter of time until she discovers Ray extensive work, it's just a waiting game, reading that article you can tell that she's on full defense/ ad hominem attack mode, that usually precedes the next phase, which is curiosity and then inevitably a raypeatforum account...

 

[Dolomite]

Georgi Dinkov was interviewed by Mercola recently, and among other things, they discussed the dangers of estrogen and serotonin. I thought cool -- more people are being introduced to Ray Peat's work. Then this article came out critiquing the claims:

Mercola & Guest's Analysis - WRONG on Estrogen

Two men very wrong, on a very female hormone. Feel free to pass forward.

drlindseyberkson.substack.com

What do you guys think? Is this critique valid?

That is really pitiful. Even my father, who was not a doctor, knew estrogen caused cancer. He mentioned it in passing one day in 2008. That women’s health initiative information has been buried for a lot of doctors. Thanks, @haidut , for your explanation and attempts to discuss things with closed minded people.

 

[Peater]

Georgi Dinkov was interviewed by Mercola recently, and among other things, they discussed the dangers of estrogen and serotonin. I thought cool -- more people are being introduced to Ray Peat's work. Then this article came out critiquing the claims:

Mercola & Guest's Analysis - WRONG on Estrogen

Two men very wrong, on a very female hormone. Feel free to pass forward.

drlindseyberkson.substack.com

What do you guys think? Is this critique valid?

Just from that one sentence I can tell she's putting feminism before science, biasing her own thinking. "Men? Discussing a FEMALE hormone? How VERY dare they"

 

[charlie]

, reading that article you can tell that she's on full defense/ ad hominem attack mode

Yeh its the same reaction I get when I tell them "vitamin A" is toxic.

What if Dr. Berkson and @haidut and Peat are all wrong? What if cancer is nothing more than toxins and not caused by this complicated soup of hormones and such that the mainstream Rockefeller researchers are telling us? Maybe estrogen is just at the scene of the toxicity crime?

 

[Steed]

Anyone promoting estrogen as a health or anti aging solution either cannot read or should not talk/give advice. The science in estrogen is painfully clear.

 

[charlie]

Anyone promoting estrogen as a health or anti aging solution either cannot read or should not talk/give advice. The science in estrogen is painfully clear.

Is it though? What if estrogen is there to help? Since we know that estrogen divides cells, maybe it is there to make the sack(tumor) that holds the toxins in bigger?

 

[Steed]

Is it though? What if estrogen is there to help? Since we know that estrogen divides cells, maybe it is there to make the sack(tumor) that holds the toxins in bigger

Yes. No.

 

[charlie]

Yes. No.

Well I propose that toxicity causes cancer, not estrogen. And #toxicbiletheory easily explains this.

 

[InChristAlone]

Toxic bile or blocked bile or sick gallbladders can cause estrogen to keep being recirculated which would put a strain on the liver and tissues. I wonder how many people with breast cancer have good flowing bile?

I don't think I could call estrogen a carcinogen. Without it women wouldn't be able to grow breasts or have children. Not to mention Ray seemed to enjoy high estrogen women. His paintings are of voluptuous women. Those are not low estrogen women! As women get older their breasts keep growing their hips hold more fat, etc. You can't thank progesterone for that.

 

[haidut]

I don't think I could call estrogen a carcinogen. Without it women wouldn't be able to grow breasts or have children.

In acute situations it can be a life-saver, spurring cell-division and growth to heal a wound, enlarge the uterus to prep for pregnancy, etc. During pregnancy (a semi-chronic "condition"), it is kept in check by massive amounts of progesterone. A woman produces 500mg+ progesterone daily in the 3rd trimester of pregnancy. Even a minor relative deficiency in progesterone production, results immediately in spontaneous abortion, and/or eclampsia/pre-eclampsia. Outside of those scenarios, when chronically elevated or even at "normal" levels but in the context of lack of progesterone (e.g. during menopause), it is very much a carcinogen. See below link.

Is Estradiol a Genotoxic Mutagenic Carcinogen?1

Abstract. The natural hormone 17β-estradiol (E2) induces tumors in various organs of rats, mice, and hamsters. In humans, slightly elevated circulating est

academic.oup.com

 

[UG Krishnamurti]

Well I propose that toxicity causes cancer, not estrogen. And #toxicbiletheory easily explains this.

In short, how would you explain toxic bile theory and what are simple steps one could do to test and than improve that condition? Eating more fiber? Flushing liver/gallbladder?

Thanks.

 

[Pete Rey]

What if cancer is nothing more than toxins and not caused by this complicated soup of hormones

@haidut is this an accurate statement? Do you believe cancer is caused by hormones?

I feel like there is a lot of rhetorical grandstanding going on and personally that's the reason I'm resistant to investing more time and energy into it. This was one of the greatest things about Ray. You could tell that he really didn't care if he persuaded anyone or not. He just let ideas speak for themselves.

I watched a livestream from the Nutrition Detective and he was very vocal about his disdain for Ray, not only his theory but as a person. No disrespect to anyone's spiritual path. Having a strong faith alone extends life and health so far be it from me to criticize that. But facts can be bent to support anyone's ideology, especially when a crusade has been declared.

I would love to see just a summary of facts presented in a similar manner to what Georgi does.

Seems to me we all believe a massive change is coming. Great awakening, Fourth turning, whatever you want to call it. Cycles of history. And I think we're all on the same page that terrain theory in general is philosophically sound. So I don't see why any of this should be used as part of the debate.

 

[haidut]

@haidut is this an accurate statement? Do you believe cancer is caused by hormones?

I feel like there is a lot of rhetorical grandstanding going on and personally that's the reason I'm resistant to investing more time and energy into it. This was one of the greatest things about Ray. You could tell that he really didn't care if he persuaded anyone or not. He just let ideas speak for themselves.

I watched a livestream from the Nutrition Detective and he was very vocal about his disdain for Ray, not only his theory but as a person. No disrespect to anyone's spiritual path. Having a strong faith alone extends life and health so far be it from me to criticize that. But facts can be bent to support anyone's ideology, especially when a crusade has been declared.

I would love to see just a summary of facts presented in a similar manner to what Georgi does.

Seems to me we all believe a massive change is coming. Great awakening, Fourth turning, whatever you want to call it. Cycles of history. And I think we're all on the same page that terrain theory in general is philosophically sound. So I don't see why any of this should be used as part of the debate.

See my responses #4 and #17 above. Some toxins (e.g. soot) can certainly cause cancer on their own, but I think the evidence in regards to estrogen (and to a lesser degree, cortisol) is hard to argue with.