::::::You are still playing the game of defining the subject to suit your purposes. Either "bioidentical" means "identical to endogenous hormones", i.e. that the molecule is a human hormone as the title of the article says, or it means something else that you have in mind and are keeping quite secret. It cannot be both. It would be nice if you would dispel the confusion and begin the article with your definition. Then the reader would at least know what they are reading about. As long as "bioidentical" means "identical to the human hormone" then all evidence, reviews and statements regarding molecules "identical to the human hormone" are appropriate to this article and are not WP:SYNTH nor WP:OR. For goodness sake, you list the FDA-approved bios right in the pageand you quote some studies regarding the bios (in which they are not referred to as "bios"). It is evident that you are manipulating what is "acceptable" in order to support your bias. 
 ::::::You are specifically suppressing the sources like those I have mentioned. To exclude them for what you believe to be the consensus is inappropriate and a sign of bias. Read the NPOV again, and again. You have no right to exclude evidence, reviews, and position statements that differ from your POV just because the American FDA and several other drug-company funded organizations, and all the doctors who believe in the sanctity of these organizations support your POV. A significant dissenting viewand the evidence supporting itmust be included. Don't you think that women have a right to know that a safer alternative "may" exist? What right do you have to deny them that knowledge?  
 ::::::As an exercise in the science of the issue, just try this: Find any evidence that transdermal estradiol increases blood clots, strokes or heart attacks. Find any evidence that any estrogen (bio or non-bio) accompanied by progesterone has been found to increase breast cancer. In fact, I have shown you that the evidence says otherwise. For you to say that the risks are the same is a lieplain and simpleno matter how many organizations or doctors are repeating it. Repeating lies is not good research or encyclopedic writingever. 
 ::::::Only persons unfamiliar with the workings of the FDA, drug companies, and the content of package inserts would believe that because a warning appears in the prescribing information it means that that risk has been found with that particular product. The FDA often applies warnings found for the class of drugs to any new drug in that classjust to be "safe". When it comes to female hormone replacement specifically, the results of the PremPro debacle are generalized and applied to all hormone products. This is done for legal and administrative reasons. Same with any glucocorticoid productall list the same adverse effects even if not every adverse effect has been documented with every product. To determine the actual risks one has to look at the evidence regarding that molecule, delivered into the body in that way. 
 ::::::The NPOV tag stays until you agree to abide by the definition given at the beginning of the article for "bioidentical hormone replacement therapy", and you agree to abide by the Wiki policy on NPOV. It wouldn't seem to be too much to ask, but experience has taught me differently.