Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked that in 7 pages, only one person brought up birth control pills, which have MUCH higher doses of hormones. So many women pop them like candy for decade of their lives without thinking twice. Any HRT warnings should be threefold for BC pills.

Exactly!!! Yet most of us take/took them without much concern, because they did the job we needed.

So if you took those without thinking, then the "risks of HRT" are way less, and the benefits much more, especially considering there were ways to prevent pregnancy without them (you cannot deal with loss of hormones any other way than replacing them)

Stop spreading this stuff. The risks of HRT have not been established to be “way less,” and you need to also assess the benefits of oral contraceptives differently.

Why? Oral contraceptives do not really have any "benefits" that you cannot achieve thru other means, for most people. Plenty of options for safe, non-hormonal birth control (and they are highly effective if used correctly). So if you are on oral BC just for the "I don't want to get pregnant" there are many other effective ways to manage that. Yet many of us took the risks to choose that method for a variety of reasons.

First of all this is a dumb conversation because birth control and HRT are two totally different medical interventions and have to be judged by their own risk-benefit profile.

Second of all, the risk of unintended pregnancy is higher with other forms of accessible birth control compared to hormonal, so that is part of the calculation. The risk of not taking HRT is much smaller than an unintended pregnancy.

it is similar because both come with risks. In fact, Hormonal BC comes with much higher risks. And you can successfully use other forms of BC to avoid getting pregnant.
I say this as someone who got pregnant the first time I tried (so very fertile), and also the first time I tried for future kids as well.
Yet After age 34, I never used hormonal BC, simply used condoms and spermicide. And I never had a scare, because we were diligent about use.

So both have health risks, however, HRT cannot be replaced with condoms, so our choices for improving our health and overall quality of life is non-existent without the hormones.

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.

And the research shows use of Estrogen patch along with oral progesterone lowers a woman's overall mortality. So in the end, you have more risks of dying if you don't take it (when you need it) than taking it.

In most cases, the benefits far outweigh the "risks"

As with all things medical, it really does depend on an individual’s specific risk profile (which is why you should talk to a well-informed doctor and not internet randos who happen to have opinions). Also age of HRT initiation is important, which I think is why so many doctors are actively having the conversation with women in their 50s — because there is such a thing as Too Late.

But for most women who start HRT before 60, the data does show lower overall mortality, in part because estrogen is so important to maintaining cardiovascular health.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9178928/

Yes, the lack of estrogen is when women's mortality skyrockets (compared to prior to menopause). Our risks of cardiovascular issues and strokes more than triples as estrogen decreases.

But talk to your doctor and determine what is best for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked that in 7 pages, only one person brought up birth control pills, which have MUCH higher doses of hormones. So many women pop them like candy for decade of their lives without thinking twice. Any HRT warnings should be threefold for BC pills.

Exactly!!! Yet most of us take/took them without much concern, because they did the job we needed.

So if you took those without thinking, then the "risks of HRT" are way less, and the benefits much more, especially considering there were ways to prevent pregnancy without them (you cannot deal with loss of hormones any other way than replacing them)

Stop spreading this stuff. The risks of HRT have not been established to be “way less,” and you need to also assess the benefits of oral contraceptives differently.

Why? Oral contraceptives do not really have any "benefits" that you cannot achieve thru other means, for most people. Plenty of options for safe, non-hormonal birth control (and they are highly effective if used correctly). So if you are on oral BC just for the "I don't want to get pregnant" there are many other effective ways to manage that. Yet many of us took the risks to choose that method for a variety of reasons.

First of all this is a dumb conversation because birth control and HRT are two totally different medical interventions and have to be judged by their own risk-benefit profile.

Second of all, the risk of unintended pregnancy is higher with other forms of accessible birth control compared to hormonal, so that is part of the calculation. The risk of not taking HRT is much smaller than an unintended pregnancy.

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.

And the research shows use of Estrogen patch along with oral progesterone lowers a woman's overall mortality. So in the end, you have more risks of dying if you don't take it (when you need it) than taking it.

In most cases, the benefits far outweigh the "risks"

As with all things medical, it really does depend on an individual’s specific risk profile (which is why you should talk to a well-informed doctor and not internet randos who happen to have opinions). Also age of HRT initiation is important, which I think is why so many doctors are actively having the conversation with women in their 50s — because there is such a thing as Too Late.

But for most women who start HRT before 60, the data does show lower overall mortality, in part because estrogen is so important to maintaining cardiovascular health.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9178928/

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked that in 7 pages, only one person brought up birth control pills, which have MUCH higher doses of hormones. So many women pop them like candy for decade of their lives without thinking twice. Any HRT warnings should be threefold for BC pills.

Exactly!!! Yet most of us take/took them without much concern, because they did the job we needed.

So if you took those without thinking, then the "risks of HRT" are way less, and the benefits much more, especially considering there were ways to prevent pregnancy without them (you cannot deal with loss of hormones any other way than replacing them)

Stop spreading this stuff. The risks of HRT have not been established to be “way less,” and you need to also assess the benefits of oral contraceptives differently.

Why? Oral contraceptives do not really have any "benefits" that you cannot achieve thru other means, for most people. Plenty of options for safe, non-hormonal birth control (and they are highly effective if used correctly). So if you are on oral BC just for the "I don't want to get pregnant" there are many other effective ways to manage that. Yet many of us took the risks to choose that method for a variety of reasons.

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

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.

Apparently Makary thinks doubles mastectomies are NBD as long as women can stay properly receptive to sex with men.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked that in 7 pages, only one person brought up birth control pills, which have MUCH higher doses of hormones. So many women pop them like candy for decade of their lives without thinking twice. Any HRT warnings should be threefold for BC pills.

Exactly!!! Yet most of us take/took them without much concern, because they did the job we needed.

So if you took those without thinking, then the "risks of HRT" are way less, and the benefits much more, especially considering there were ways to prevent pregnancy without them (you cannot deal with loss of hormones any other way than replacing them)

Stop spreading this stuff. The risks of HRT have not been established to be “way less,” and you need to also assess the benefits of oral contraceptives differently.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Pharma is BIG $$$.

Zero surprise here.

Wait 15-20 years ….

If you have no symptoms, zero need for it. I have zero symptoms. 56. My sister sailed through it as well. I’m not dry or hot or have any bone loss, yet the push to put all women on it today is crazy !

Nobody is pushing to just "put you on it" because you hit menopause. I went on it 2.5 years into full menopause...started with progesterone (was concerned about estrogen), and it took 3-4 months to find the right dose of progesterone. But with that, my hot flashes got better (still had them) and I could finally sleep thru the night. Amazing what 7-8 hours of continuous sleep does for your body after 2+ years of not being able to sleep.
Tried vaginal estrogen with it as well. But that didn't really solve the problem.

So made informed choice to use the patch. Guess what, I feel even better, my cholesterol is back down (had gone up almost 100 points), my hot flashes are virtually gone (maybe once a month), and I can finally have sex without massive pain and feeling like someone is cleaning my V with rough sandpaper.

So quality of life on ALL levels is way improved. Many health factors are better (heart risk is lowered greatly with cholesterol back to 160).

It's a choice I made with all the data points from 3 different doctors (one gynecologist, my primary doctor and my functional med doctor who specializes in hormonal management)

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked that in 7 pages, only one person brought up birth control pills, which have MUCH higher doses of hormones. So many women pop them like candy for decade of their lives without thinking twice. Any HRT warnings should be threefold for BC pills.

Exactly!!! Yet most of us take/took them without much concern, because they did the job we needed.

So if you took those without thinking, then the "risks of HRT" are way less, and the benefits much more, especially considering there were ways to prevent pregnancy without them (you cannot deal with loss of hormones any other way than replacing them)

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

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.

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked that in 7 pages, only one person brought up birth control pills, which have MUCH higher doses of hormones. So many women pop them like candy for decade of their lives without thinking twice. Any HRT warnings should be threefold for BC pills.

There are warnings.