Talk:Wiley protocol

message: The references are 10-12 years old and a significant portion of it incorrect. There has never been a single person to come forward and claim to be "harmed" by the Wiley Protocol. To refer to it as "controversial" is pointless. All BHRT i8s controversial, HRT is controversialThe Wiley Protocol has grown for over a dozen years. Rosenthal's paper that the clinical trial was "unethical" is nonsense. There was no clinical trial. There never has been a cincal trial of any BHRT or any compounded product for that matter. The ingredients are FDA-approved. Wiley has published in peer-reviewed journals about the standardization of the Wiley Protocol, among other medical topics. The article doesn't even reference her book, Sex, Lies and Medicine that started the Wiley Protocol. Wiley was never involved with Suzanne Somers in any way and is not now. In the article, the word "unproven" is used. In a formal sense, that is true. But 15 years of experience without adverse effect deserves a little more than "unproven." Now the page for Orch-OR, a controversial and completely unproven hypothesis, never use the word unproven once, because it's proposed by Roger Penrose.  Neil Raden (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Either rewrite this page or drop it 

message: * 
* 
* 
* 
Let's go one step at at time. The statement "A patent was granted for the protocol in 2011 for the specific blend of hormones and dosing method.[4]" is incorrect. If you'd read the patent you would understand there is no "blend" of hormones. Each applicator contains just one hormone. It would be impossible to achieve the rhythmic dosinf with blended preparations. Blended preparations are used in other BHRT, but not the Wiley Protocol. Neil Raden (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: "The basic science from this study supports the evidence we have from clinical trials such as the French E3N trial, which shows that the choice so (sic) estrogen and progestogen and the mode of de/livery is important in reducing any risk of breast cancer possibly associated with long term HRT"" What HRT is controversial now? The whole premise of Wiley 15 years ago was that the method of HRT was key. No please re-write this biased and wholly incorrect article.  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140502172035.htm  Neil Raden (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote this four and a half years ago. This statement is completely wrong, and no one has fixed it. I can't I'm COI 
. 
ago. 
Neil Raden (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Research 

message: Comments from editors say that there is no source for my contention that calling the WP controversial is incorrect. All BHRT is controversial, and your own Wikipedia page confirms it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioidentical_hormone_replacement_therapy In addition WLU has steadfastly refused to allow anything confirming  about Wiley, even to the point of not allowing her peer-reviewed papers to appear on the site (what id more original source than that?) Here are eight of them.https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2049161421_Teresa_S_Wiley If someone doesn't respond to these oversights I'll have to publish them myself Neil Raden (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: New Information