I am writing in response to the recent National Academies for Science, Engineering, and Mathematics (NASEM) report on compounded bioidentical hormones, as well as David Zava’s recent report “Topical Therapy with Estradiol, Progesterone and Testosterone and Their Distribution in Saliva, Capillary Blood Serum, and Urine” (Townsend Letter, January 2021). While both had impressive graphs and charts, justifying scholarly work, I disagree with the conclusions of each.
Just because something is published, be it a NASEM report or an article in Townsend, does not mean it is true but may be grounds for further inquiry with valid observers. Both articles attempt to justify the authors’ narrow interpretation in order to convince readers of the outcome, with little willingness to include a broader discourse. With Zava’s work, perhaps the salivary information may be useful for general use in women without the significant mood issues we work with, but we have found it often inaccurate in our work.









0 Comments