Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article fails to mention the serious ethical issues surrounding the treatment of mares and the slaughter of their foals as a byproduct of collecting their urine to produce Premarin.

Wait, what?!?

Who cares.

Anonymous wrote:This article fails to mention the serious ethical issues surrounding the treatment of mares and the slaughter of their foals as a byproduct of collecting their urine to produce Premarin.

Wait, what?!?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not finished the podcast yet but as someone with DCIS, I found it kind of frustrating that it seemed to totally ignore that not everyone can take hormones. I was totally planning to take hormones but now feel like I can't. There are a lot of people who have had DCIS or breast cancer so it is not like this is super rare. Apologies if this was later in the podcast and I missed it.

Yeah, there are some posters here who chime in as though you’re an idiot for not going the hormone route.

Because you are. Because statistically, the risk presented to most women by heart disease so vastly exceeds the risk of breast cancer across the population that advising based on a false risk to the average woman is steeped in bad science and lies.

Who is saying that woman with any form of BC must be on hormonal medication? No one.

I'm the DCIS poster. I would love to take hormones but can't (I'm on tamoxifen). Hearing about all the great things HRT does was depressing to me. I am more worried about osteoporosis than breast cancer so I'm running and weight training but I wish the fact that some women just can't take HRT wasn't ignored. There are a lot of us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article fails to mention the serious ethical issues surrounding the treatment of mares and the slaughter of their foals as a byproduct of collecting their urine to produce Premarin.

Can you explain? What is the process, and what do you see as the ethical issues?

The context would still be missing, unless PP can also produce an actual cite for stats showing the percent of prescriptions of estradiol or estrogen that include Premarin and not something else.

Anonymous wrote:This article fails to mention the serious ethical issues surrounding the treatment of mares and the slaughter of their foals as a byproduct of collecting their urine to produce Premarin.

Can you explain? What is the process, and what do you see as the ethical issues?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also found the reporting so so and the health risks definitely downplayed . Not sure what the answer is

Sure, Jan. Are you a medical researcher?

Someone's still getting her period.

I love your misogyny! You require zero pills to be as ugly as you are, so kudos.

Someone’s big mad that other women can advocate for themselves and their health with actual physicians in a slightly improved culture discussing the real impact these symptoms can have on our lives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also found the reporting so so and the health risks definitely downplayed . Not sure what the answer is

Sure, Jan. Are you a medical researcher?

Someone's still getting her period.

Anonymous wrote:I found the blaming of doctors to be too much. There are risks of hormone therapy and despite going through the risks with patients, if we prescribe them and they get breast cancer or have a stroke then they will look at doctors and say how could you have prescribed this? It’s a delicate balance and doctors aren’t all evil and trying to withhold treatment - it is just that this treatment does have risks and needs to be carefully prescribed and some doctors don’t feel comfortable giving something out that may cause harm.

You literally do not understand the basis for the article nor the appropriate use of the word “misled” in the piece. Because of the age spreads in the original WHI analysis, the vast majority of women across one if not two generations - women who were NEVER at risk from using HRT (women 5 years within full meno without certain risks) were counseled against taking safe for them medications that could have vastly improved their lives AND protected against heart disease, certain cancers, and osteoporosis— ALL of which present much greater risk to most women than breast cancer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also found the reporting so so and the health risks definitely downplayed . Not sure what the answer is

Really? I have found that if anything the negatives have been overstated. For most women it is completely safe. This hasn’t been the messaging over the past 10 years.

This is the actual truth. The other responses are just noise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not finished the podcast yet but as someone with DCIS, I found it kind of frustrating that it seemed to totally ignore that not everyone can take hormones. I was totally planning to take hormones but now feel like I can't. There are a lot of people who have had DCIS or breast cancer so it is not like this is super rare. Apologies if this was later in the podcast and I missed it.

Yeah, there are some posters here who chime in as though you’re an idiot for not going the hormone route.

What are you talking about? Name the time stamps of posters that are implying women are idiots for not using HRT. We’ll wait.

I found the blaming of doctors to be too much. There are risks of hormone therapy and despite going through the risks with patients, if we prescribe them and they get breast cancer or have a stroke then they will look at doctors and say how could you have prescribed this? It’s a delicate balance and doctors aren’t all evil and trying to withhold treatment - it is just that this treatment does have risks and needs to be carefully prescribed and some doctors don’t feel comfortable giving something out that may cause harm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not finished the podcast yet but as someone with DCIS, I found it kind of frustrating that it seemed to totally ignore that not everyone can take hormones. I was totally planning to take hormones but now feel like I can't. There are a lot of people who have had DCIS or breast cancer so it is not like this is super rare. Apologies if this was later in the podcast and I missed it.

Yeah, there are some posters here who chime in as though you’re an idiot for not going the hormone route.

Because you are. Because statistically, the risk presented to most women by heart disease so vastly exceeds the risk of breast cancer across the population that advising based on a false risk to the average woman is steeped in bad science and lies.

Who is saying that woman with any form of BC must be on hormonal medication? No one.

Anonymous wrote:I also found the reporting so so and the health risks definitely downplayed . Not sure what the answer is

Sure, Jan. Are you a medical researcher?

Anonymous wrote:And furthermore, but not writing about the controversy, the NYT is committing a lie by omission. The author portrays Premarin as a miracle, downplaying or omitting the negatives. Crappy reporting, IMO.

I’m the PP who mocked the response and will do so forever. Please cite chapter and verse in the Dominus article in the NUT extolling Premarin specifically. You cannot, because it isn’t there. Learn. to. read.

As much or more to the point, I sure do hope you and the other daft little things here consume absolutely no dairy if forced animal pregnancy troubles you, and that you consider those in the horse world are far more likely than those outside of it to be guilty of any form of equine abuse.

Anonymous wrote:I have not finished the podcast yet but as someone with DCIS, I found it kind of frustrating that it seemed to totally ignore that not everyone can take hormones. I was totally planning to take hormones but now feel like I can't. There are a lot of people who have had DCIS or breast cancer so it is not like this is super rare. Apologies if this was later in the podcast and I missed it.

Yeah, there are some posters here who chime in as though you’re an idiot for not going the hormone route.