FDA removed black box warning for HRT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is still a very dangerous move- it still needs a warning. There are women who now believe that HRT has no connection whatsoever with cancer, that bioidentical hormones are actually a new thing- that they are better than "older synthetic" hormones and that everything is just perfectly safe, but actually it's just a marketing term. And that just isn't true! Hormones are still a risk/ benefit medication and there's a lot of nuance regarding this.

Women are working longer, living longer, and want to remain relevant longer. That's all good. But menopause happens earlier than everyone expects and we all know it ages us.Everyone has piled on this as if older women were lied to. They weren't. They are still hormones.

HRT is huge industry. It's not a panacea.

Are you a medical researcher? Are you a male?

Obviously no doctor prescribes HRT without going over the risks. Mine ran multiple tests as well, so we had all the data points.

But you know what, for the first time in my life, my cholesterol and triglycerides were high---cholestrol went from 150/160 for the last 10+ years and during first 1.5 years of menopause went up consistently to over 238. No diet changes (except for the better---even cleaner eating than before and more fruits and veggies). 6 months after HRT, it's going back down. Triglycerides had been around 60-70, went up to 140 and are also back down.
So I'll weigh the cardiovascular benefits with the other risks and make my choice.

Also, have family history of osteoporosis, so far I am still good, but doctor says this choice will help prevent it (certainly much more than not taking HRT).

So yes it's not a panacea, but most doctors and researchers now believe the health benefits for most people outweigh the small risks. I'm already seeing the health benefits and will be thrilled to see it continue.

Sorry, this will not prevent osteoporosis. And no, most doctors do not now believe the risks outweigh the benefits. At all.

I don't think that is correct. Studies of various strengths of estadiol show bone building capacity. Even the tiniest of patch doses have been shown to increase density. Can it reverse osteoporosis? That seems to be the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t trust anything RFK jr or trump says. This FDA is currently SUS so I’m seeing this as a red flag. If they promote it, I should not consider it.
If it was legitimately safe, Melania should have made the announcement. Woman to women.
I’ll wait until we have actual medical experts back in the FDA before I trust their advice.

Wow - you would have given it more credence out of Melania’s mouth? That’s moronic.

HRT has enabled me to sleep through the night regularly for the first time in a year. Game changer.

And has increased your risk of stroke and cancer.

Well, my thyroid stopped working in my 20s and I need thyroid replacement hormone for the rest of my life to function because my body doesn’t make thyroid hormone anymore. Does that raise my risk of stroke and cancer? I don’t know, maybe. But I’d rather die than live half dead. I don’t see how it’s different with progesterone and estrogen.

You don’t see how thyroid hormones and estrogen/progesterone are different? Ok.

Why are estrogen/progesterone sacrosanct? One hormone is okay but not the other?

I had intense throwing up level menstrual cramps as a teen. BC was the miracle solution. Yet, those cramps were natural. Should I have just suffered?

Ffs. Nobody said any hormone is “sacrosanct.” The point is that your thyroid failing in your 20s is totally different from menopause in your 50s. To compare the two is nonsensical.

Is it more nonsensical than posting cherry-picked facts about potential risks while deliberately ignoring the data that suggest HRT lowers all-cause mortality?

All medical societies say that there are risks.

PP. My point is that there are also risks to NOT using HRT, because loss of estrogen affects (profoundly) so many bodily systems -- heart, metabolism, vascular health, bones, joints, brain function, more. You can't weigh the risks of HRT against some perfect ideal. You have to weigh the risks of HRT to the very real risks of letting a hormone that's critical for wellness across multiple systems suddenly drops to near-zero.

It be much, much easier if the decision were a simple "risk vs. no-risk." Unfortunately, that's not how it is. You're evaluating (as one always is in medical decisions) one set of risks against another set of risks.

“Critical to wellness”? GMAFB.

If it were so critical then why do humans go through menopause in the first place.

We do have a normal, healthy baseline, which is going through menopause without medical intervention.

So much fearmongering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t trust anything RFK jr or trump says. This FDA is currently SUS so I’m seeing this as a red flag. If they promote it, I should not consider it.
If it was legitimately safe, Melania should have made the announcement. Woman to women.
I’ll wait until we have actual medical experts back in the FDA before I trust their advice.

Wow - you would have given it more credence out of Melania’s mouth? That’s moronic.

HRT has enabled me to sleep through the night regularly for the first time in a year. Game changer.

And has increased your risk of stroke and cancer.

Well, my thyroid stopped working in my 20s and I need thyroid replacement hormone for the rest of my life to function because my body doesn’t make thyroid hormone anymore. Does that raise my risk of stroke and cancer? I don’t know, maybe. But I’d rather die than live half dead. I don’t see how it’s different with progesterone and estrogen.

You don’t see how thyroid hormones and estrogen/progesterone are different? Ok.

Why are estrogen/progesterone sacrosanct? One hormone is okay but not the other?

I had intense throwing up level menstrual cramps as a teen. BC was the miracle solution. Yet, those cramps were natural. Should I have just suffered?

Ffs. Nobody said any hormone is “sacrosanct.” The point is that your thyroid failing in your 20s is totally different from menopause in your 50s. To compare the two is nonsensical.

Is it more nonsensical than posting cherry-picked facts about potential risks while deliberately ignoring the data that suggest HRT lowers all-cause mortality?

All medical societies say that there are risks.

PP. My point is that there are also risks to NOT using HRT, because loss of estrogen affects (profoundly) so many bodily systems -- heart, metabolism, vascular health, bones, joints, brain function, more. You can't weigh the risks of HRT against some perfect ideal. You have to weigh the risks of HRT to the very real risks of letting a hormone that's critical for wellness across multiple systems suddenly drops to near-zero.

It be much, much easier if the decision were a simple "risk vs. no-risk." Unfortunately, that's not how it is. You're evaluating (as one always is in medical decisions) one set of risks against another set of risks.

“Critical to wellness”? GMAFB.

If it were so critical then why do humans go through menopause in the first place.

We do have a normal, healthy baseline, which is going through menopause without medical intervention.

So much fearmongering.

Yes. I think that regulating insulin uptake, preventing cells from sticking to vascular walls, minimizing the thickening of arteries, slowing plaque buildup in arteries, supporting bone-building osteoblasts while restraining bone-destroying osteoclasts, and minimizing inflammation throughout the body all count as critical to wellness.

If you think that’s hyperbolic, you do you. But the data are pretty clear.

[Anonymous]

I was all for HRT. I started taking it last year and this year I got diagnosed with hormone positive breast cancer with no family or genetic history. I’m not anti HRT even now but I do wonder if the timing was suspicious? I’m pretty bummed that not only can I never use it again but now I have to be on a hormone blocker for at least 5 years.

[Anonymous]

I will still use topical vaginal estrogen.
I don’t know. I sort of wish I hadn’t used it at all, but I’ll never know if it caused it or what. I had no genetic markers for cancer but maybe I was just susceptible to it and didn’t know. Or maybe it had nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was all for HRT. I started taking it last year and this year I got diagnosed with hormone positive breast cancer with no family or genetic history. I’m not anti HRT even now but I do wonder if the timing was suspicious? I’m pretty bummed that not only can I never use it again but now I have to be on a hormone blocker for at least 5 years.

I'm so sorry. That's really hard.

Must be strange to read this discussion.

Sending out love and healing thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is still a very dangerous move- it still needs a warning. There are women who now believe that HRT has no connection whatsoever with cancer, that bioidentical hormones are actually a new thing- that they are better than "older synthetic" hormones and that everything is just perfectly safe, but actually it's just a marketing term. And that just isn't true! Hormones are still a risk/ benefit medication and there's a lot of nuance regarding this.

Women are working longer, living longer, and want to remain relevant longer. That's all good. But menopause happens earlier than everyone expects and we all know it ages us.Everyone has piled on this as if older women were lied to. They weren't. They are still hormones.

HRT is huge industry. It's not a panacea.

Are you a medical researcher? Are you a male?

Obviously no doctor prescribes HRT without going over the risks. Mine ran multiple tests as well, so we had all the data points.

But you know what, for the first time in my life, my cholesterol and triglycerides were high---cholestrol went from 150/160 for the last 10+ years and during first 1.5 years of menopause went up consistently to over 238. No diet changes (except for the better---even cleaner eating than before and more fruits and veggies). 6 months after HRT, it's going back down. Triglycerides had been around 60-70, went up to 140 and are also back down.
So I'll weigh the cardiovascular benefits with the other risks and make my choice.

Also, have family history of osteoporosis, so far I am still good, but doctor says this choice will help prevent it (certainly much more than not taking HRT).

So yes it's not a panacea, but most doctors and researchers now believe the health benefits for most people outweigh the small risks. I'm already seeing the health benefits and will be thrilled to see it continue.

Sorry, this will not prevent osteoporosis. And no, most doctors do not now believe the risks outweigh the benefits. At all.

I don't think that is correct. Studies of various strengths of estadiol show bone building capacity. Even the tiniest of patch doses have been shown to increase density. Can it reverse osteoporosis? That seems to be the question.

Again, will you be on HRT until death? No. At some point you cannot rely on this for something like osteoporosis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t trust anything RFK jr or trump says. This FDA is currently SUS so I’m seeing this as a red flag. If they promote it, I should not consider it.
If it was legitimately safe, Melania should have made the announcement. Woman to women.
I’ll wait until we have actual medical experts back in the FDA before I trust their advice.

Wow - you would have given it more credence out of Melania’s mouth? That’s moronic.

HRT has enabled me to sleep through the night regularly for the first time in a year. Game changer.

And has increased your risk of stroke and cancer.

Well, my thyroid stopped working in my 20s and I need thyroid replacement hormone for the rest of my life to function because my body doesn’t make thyroid hormone anymore. Does that raise my risk of stroke and cancer? I don’t know, maybe. But I’d rather die than live half dead. I don’t see how it’s different with progesterone and estrogen.

Having had hormone positive breast cancer and a double mastectomy, I beg to differ.

Then you are not a good candidate for HRT. Just like anyone who has had cancer or has a family risk for cancers.

But for many people, it's a viable solution to the problem and the benefits outweigh the risks

The risk is cancer. So, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s still not good for some women right? I have family history of ovarian and uterine and colon and have been told it would be unsafe for me.

And it is. You certainly wouldn't take HRT with a family history of cancer. No one said there wasn't a causation of HRT and cancer. There absolutely is. It's just now it’s being rebranded.

Just like there are plenty of other causes of Cancer. Being obese, no exercise, eating crap foods, drinking alcohol, sugar, drinking sweet drinks (hello Starbucks grande any drink), etc. It's about making informed choices. Many people have way more "cancer causing risks" that they do nothing about and don't worry about. Talk to your doctor and make an decision

These are false equivalences. Would you smoke now even though you could get lung cancer other ways as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was all for HRT. I started taking it last year and this year I got diagnosed with hormone positive breast cancer with no family or genetic history. I’m not anti HRT even now but I do wonder if the timing was suspicious? I’m pretty bummed that not only can I never use it again but now I have to be on a hormone blocker for at least 5 years.

I'm sorry you have to experience this. It happened to my sister as well, she started HRT at 50, and less than a year later she was diagnosed with hormone positive breast cancer. Also no family history and BRCA negative. She's undergoing treatment now, and fortunately doing well.

Best wishes!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is still a very dangerous move- it still needs a warning. There are women who now believe that HRT has no connection whatsoever with cancer, that bioidentical hormones are actually a new thing- that they are better than "older synthetic" hormones and that everything is just perfectly safe, but actually it's just a marketing term. And that just isn't true! Hormones are still a risk/ benefit medication and there's a lot of nuance regarding this.

Women are working longer, living longer, and want to remain relevant longer. That's all good. But menopause happens earlier than everyone expects and we all know it ages us.Everyone has piled on this as if older women were lied to. They weren't. They are still hormones.

HRT is huge industry. It's not a panacea.

Are you a medical researcher? Are you a male?

Obviously no doctor prescribes HRT without going over the risks. Mine ran multiple tests as well, so we had all the data points.

But you know what, for the first time in my life, my cholesterol and triglycerides were high---cholestrol went from 150/160 for the last 10+ years and during first 1.5 years of menopause went up consistently to over 238. No diet changes (except for the better---even cleaner eating than before and more fruits and veggies). 6 months after HRT, it's going back down. Triglycerides had been around 60-70, went up to 140 and are also back down.
So I'll weigh the cardiovascular benefits with the other risks and make my choice.

Also, have family history of osteoporosis, so far I am still good, but doctor says this choice will help prevent it (certainly much more than not taking HRT).

So yes it's not a panacea, but most doctors and researchers now believe the health benefits for most people outweigh the small risks. I'm already seeing the health benefits and will be thrilled to see it continue.

Sorry, this will not prevent osteoporosis. And no, most doctors do not now believe the risks outweigh the benefits. At all.

What are you talking about? That’s the only thing it’s clinically indicated for other than hot flashes. It mentions it in the drug efficacy information (at least bone density).

Are you planning on staying on HRT from the age of 50 to 92? So, no.

I probably will use vaginal estrogen until I am 92, because UTIs are so common, and so serious, for older women.

56 and never had one. Never had a yeast infection either.

I have no issues with sex. No dryness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t trust anything RFK jr or trump says. This FDA is currently SUS so I’m seeing this as a red flag. If they promote it, I should not consider it.
If it was legitimately safe, Melania should have made the announcement. Woman to women.
I’ll wait until we have actual medical experts back in the FDA before I trust their advice.

Wow - you would have given it more credence out of Melania’s mouth? That’s moronic.

HRT has enabled me to sleep through the night regularly for the first time in a year. Game changer.

And has increased your risk of stroke and cancer.

Well, my thyroid stopped working in my 20s and I need thyroid replacement hormone for the rest of my life to function because my body doesn’t make thyroid hormone anymore. Does that raise my risk of stroke and cancer? I don’t know, maybe. But I’d rather die than live half dead. I don’t see how it’s different with progesterone and estrogen.

Having had hormone positive breast cancer and a double mastectomy, I beg to differ.

Then you are not a good candidate for HRT. Just like anyone who has had cancer or has a family risk for cancers.

But for many people, it's a viable solution to the problem and the benefits outweigh the risks

The risk is cancer. So, no.

And NOT taking HRT raises your risk of colorectal cancer.

Like it or not, there is no risk-free path. I wish there were.

I wish you peace, which is what I suspect you are seeking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is still a very dangerous move- it still needs a warning. There are women who now believe that HRT has no connection whatsoever with cancer, that bioidentical hormones are actually a new thing- that they are better than "older synthetic" hormones and that everything is just perfectly safe, but actually it's just a marketing term. And that just isn't true! Hormones are still a risk/ benefit medication and there's a lot of nuance regarding this.

Women are working longer, living longer, and want to remain relevant longer. That's all good. But menopause happens earlier than everyone expects and we all know it ages us.Everyone has piled on this as if older women were lied to. They weren't. They are still hormones.

HRT is huge industry. It's not a panacea.

Are you a medical researcher? Are you a male?

Obviously no doctor prescribes HRT without going over the risks. Mine ran multiple tests as well, so we had all the data points.

But you know what, for the first time in my life, my cholesterol and triglycerides were high---cholestrol went from 150/160 for the last 10+ years and during first 1.5 years of menopause went up consistently to over 238. No diet changes (except for the better---even cleaner eating than before and more fruits and veggies). 6 months after HRT, it's going back down. Triglycerides had been around 60-70, went up to 140 and are also back down.
So I'll weigh the cardiovascular benefits with the other risks and make my choice.

Also, have family history of osteoporosis, so far I am still good, but doctor says this choice will help prevent it (certainly much more than not taking HRT).

So yes it's not a panacea, but most doctors and researchers now believe the health benefits for most people outweigh the small risks. I'm already seeing the health benefits and will be thrilled to see it continue.

Sorry, this will not prevent osteoporosis. And no, most doctors do not now believe the risks outweigh the benefits. At all.

What are you talking about? That’s the only thing it’s clinically indicated for other than hot flashes. It mentions it in the drug efficacy information (at least bone density).

Are you planning on staying on HRT from the age of 50 to 92? So, no.

I probably will use vaginal estrogen until I am 92, because UTIs are so common, and so serious, for older women.

56 and never had one. Never had a yeast infection either.

I have no issues with sex. No dryness.

I’m happy for you. Things do change as we get older. The scary thing is that the UTIs older women get (in part bc of the thinning of vaginal walls) are often asymptomatic or show up only as generalized symptoms — confusion, a sense of being unwell. But asymptomatic UTIs can still lead to sepsis.

I say this not to encourage you to take vaginal estrogen — that’s between you and your doctor — but more as a general PSA. UTIs in older women are not the same as when we were young.

[Anonymous]

So I have a very significant family history of bc and actually get mammo and mri alternating every six months. I also have migraine with aura (although way less in menopause). My menopause transition wasn’t that bad. As my period dwindled down I had some flooding and hot flashes but that’s ended. I maintain my weight and lift weights for bone strength.

I feel good in menopause. I have no health issues knock on wood. But then I read all this stuff in this thread and elsewhere that I am at increased risk of all these things because I don’t take HRT. I’m really not sure what to think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t trust anything RFK jr or trump says. This FDA is currently SUS so I’m seeing this as a red flag. If they promote it, I should not consider it.
If it was legitimately safe, Melania should have made the announcement. Woman to women.
I’ll wait until we have actual medical experts back in the FDA before I trust their advice.

Wow - you would have given it more credence out of Melania’s mouth? That’s moronic.

HRT has enabled me to sleep through the night regularly for the first time in a year. Game changer.

And has increased your risk of stroke and cancer.

Well, my thyroid stopped working in my 20s and I need thyroid replacement hormone for the rest of my life to function because my body doesn’t make thyroid hormone anymore. Does that raise my risk of stroke and cancer? I don’t know, maybe. But I’d rather die than live half dead. I don’t see how it’s different with progesterone and estrogen.

You don’t see how thyroid hormones and estrogen/progesterone are different? Ok.

Why are estrogen/progesterone sacrosanct? One hormone is okay but not the other?

I had intense throwing up level menstrual cramps as a teen. BC was the miracle solution. Yet, those cramps were natural. Should I have just suffered?

Ffs. Nobody said any hormone is “sacrosanct.” The point is that your thyroid failing in your 20s is totally different from menopause in your 50s. To compare the two is nonsensical.

Is it more nonsensical than posting cherry-picked facts about potential risks while deliberately ignoring the data that suggest HRT lowers all-cause mortality?

All medical societies say that there are risks.

PP. My point is that there are also risks to NOT using HRT, because loss of estrogen affects (profoundly) so many bodily systems -- heart, metabolism, vascular health, bones, joints, brain function, more. You can't weigh the risks of HRT against some perfect ideal. You have to weigh the risks of HRT to the very real risks of letting a hormone that's critical for wellness across multiple systems suddenly drops to near-zero.

It be much, much easier if the decision were a simple "risk vs. no-risk." Unfortunately, that's not how it is. You're evaluating (as one always is in medical decisions) one set of risks against another set of risks.

“Critical to wellness”? GMAFB.

If it were so critical then why do humans go through menopause in the first place.

We do have a normal, healthy baseline, which is going through menopause without medical intervention.

So much fearmongering.

When it drops to zero, women's health risks shoot thru the roof, when 2 years before they were "very healthy", so yes it is critical to much wellness for women. If you don't care to take it, nobody is forcing you. And others taking it has no impact on you (it won't give you cancer or anything if they take it).