- Joined
- Feb 26, 2016
- Messages
- 1,290
He made that claim, yes. But it's hard to reconcile with basic physiology. Tissues are supplied with blood. Most of aromatase is located in tissues rather than the blood. Hence, the serum E2 levels are a result of tissue E2 levels. If you observe a decrease in serum E2 levels, this logically implies an (almost perfectly proportional) decrease in tissue E2 levels. At least in those whose gonadal Estrogen production is shut down.
Your idea that an AI could lower serum E2 levels while keeping tissue E2 levels almost unchanged is so ridiculous that it almost defies belief. Why do you think AIs are used in postmenopausal women with breast cancer? If, in fact, AIs didn't reliably lower tissue (here, the breast) E2 levels? (and yes, breast and tumor tissue do contain lots of aromatase: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1954167)
Also, your last sentence is a complete non sequitur.
If left to their own devices, medical practitioners come up with the wackiest shit, it's like they never went to med school. That's why we have PhDs write medical guidelines for them to follow.
This is the exact reason why AIs are poor treatment for gyno but SERMs are very effective. They block Estradiol/Estrogen at the tissue level. You can take a ton of arimidex but intracellular/tissue Estradiol levels can still be high enough to sustain breast tissue.