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.

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).

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.

No “most doctors and researchers” definitely do not think the benefits outweigh the risks for “most people.”

I don’t get why the HRT boosters cannot be satisfied with the actual current medical consensus, which is that HRT for severe menopausal symptoms is likely a net benefits for most women depending on cancer/stroke risk if taken around menopause - but that the risks exist.

Because they want their TikTok likes.

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 !

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 is already extremely clear language on the label of oral contraceptives explaining the associated risk (not exclusively of stroke, but that’s the one I remember best from when I took it). The associated stroke risk is striated by age on the label. At 35, the risk of a contraceptive-associated stroke rises over the risk of death from pregnancy itself for the first time. (At that point I switched to an IUD.)

Use of oral contraceptives also dramatically lowers the risk of ovarian cancer, and that benefit appears to last for life.

Maybe work on pregnancy death rates and come back to shame women about how we choose to avoid pregnancy once you have something to show for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mark Makary has written several popular books about Medical "truths" that have been discredited. I did some scraping around the internet and his concerns seem valid. I'm glad he's moving forward to make HRT available to American women if needed.

Not all of the Trump administration is a disaster. Makary is a very small bright spot. It doesn't outweigh the other crazies in power, but take the win where you can. Biden's FDA Commissioner was an industry sycophant. Makary has some big picture ideas backed by science.

I read Makary's most recent book, Blind Spots when it first came out, and initially was very happy to see that he had a chapter on HRT. But was disappointed when his attitude towards HRT was essentially, "eh, what's a little breast cancer? It's treatable!"

Bizarre. especially given Makary’s attitude towards COVID vaccines and hyping the side effects.

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.

Well that is because pregnancy poses a much bigger cardiac and stroke times that hormonal BC. But sure, if not taken to prevent pregnancy, then women should be informed of that different risk-benefit calculation. I took hormonal birth control for many years when my primary goal was to prevent pregnancy with full knowledge of the risks and benefits. But I will not be taking HRT unless my menopause symptoms (so far mild) get much worse.

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.

No “most doctors and researchers” definitely do not think the benefits outweigh the risks for “most people.”

I don’t get why the HRT boosters cannot be satisfied with the actual current medical consensus, which is that HRT for severe menopausal symptoms is likely a net benefits for most women depending on cancer/stroke risk if taken around menopause - but that the risks exist.

Anonymous wrote:Mark Makary has written several popular books about Medical "truths" that have been discredited. I did some scraping around the internet and his concerns seem valid. I'm glad he's moving forward to make HRT available to American women if needed.

Not all of the Trump administration is a disaster. Makary is a very small bright spot. It doesn't outweigh the other crazies in power, but take the win where you can. Biden's FDA Commissioner was an industry sycophant. Makary has some big picture ideas backed by science.

I read Makary's most recent book, Blind Spots when it first came out, and initially was very happy to see that he had a chapter on HRT. But was disappointed when his attitude towards HRT was essentially, "eh, what's a little breast cancer? It's treatable!"

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just talked about this yesterday with my ob/gyn. That label and study that caused it created unnecessary misery for many women.

This is the right move.

I'm mid-40s and feel terrible that my mom went through menopause in the early 2000s after the study that scared everyone away from MHT. A lot of unnecessary suffering.

Have you ever thought that 25 years later the formulation is gonna be very different and now it’s safer?

+1

The old version was made out of pregnant horse urine. The new one isn’t and is bioidentical. That’s not to say there are no risks but it’s much safer.

They also have bioidentical progesterone.

“Bio identical” isn’t a thing.

She may have meant “bio equivalent “.

Which also isn't a thing.

Bio equivalent is a thing - generic drugs are bio equivalent to branded drugs. It’s just the wrong thing for this context.

In this context, that's not what it means, and again, in this context it is not a thing.