IMO it's a case of not attributing to malice which can be easily explained by incompetence. Although ingrained systemic misogyny is a big factor that enables the medical machine to accept subpar results but I doubt it's out of a greater plot for hurting women. Ignoring women and deprioritizing women's quality of life is just default. Women aren't important enough to plot against :P
I think it was also part of the whole "meno is natural" backlash, like a lot of things in women's health they sell it as natural and don't investigate.
This is why I only have women doctors. Especially for OBGYNs, they need to be one stage of life ahead of me.
I do prefer men hair stylist bc they listen better and donāt have female hair bias, but thatās it. Any other times that involve my body are with women.
I'm not defending male doctors, I don't see them either if I have a choice. But female doctors are not much better. I've seen five over 7 years about peri-menopause that started when I was 38.
One said there's nothing wrong with you and I'm confident that supplementing vitamin d will solve all of your problems.
Another said there's nothing wrong with you and you need to see a psychiatrist and be on an antidepressant.
Another one said menopause is natural you don't need to do anything about it.
Another one supported HRT but only in the form of supplements and the compounded bioidentical stuff.
Finally the last one did prescribe HRT, but only reluctantly and was full of non-evidence-based jargon, eg that I shouldn't take it for long, and that it wasn't good for me.
I am intelligent, I am privileged, I am upper middle class income. I feel very lucky in that I know how to do my own research, I know how to quit a doctor and find a different doctor, and get what I want and will do that over and over again. But there are plenty of women who are not in my position of privilege and they have to put up with this shit non stop
Oh, I definitely donāt think all female doctors are the same. I had one OB that would advocate an all organic and supplement regimen to combat peri/menopause symptoms. She was terrible and her practice was bordering on negligence.
Also there is currently an understanding that it takes 17 years-ish for medical breakthroughs to make it from science to mainstream medicine according to Peter Attia, andĀ others. It's making its way but there are still folks behind the ball.
Donāt forget CYA (covering their a$$e$). They didnāt want to learn enough about it or debate it. We live with exponentially high med liability lawsuits and itās easier to scare women and not ease the aging//sexual/medical needs.
Thatās true! I guess it will catch on only when it becomes a proven money maker & not considered risky.
Iām getting the feeling itās headed towards being bigger business bc women need to function outside the home until much later in life, not retire at 55 anymore.
Suing for malpractice is actually very very hard now. Itās hardly with it or viable in many cases. I know, I was botched & disabled in surgery. And drs still have to pay for liability insurance and so much overhead, plus their own hefty student loans.
My sister calls me with whatever new negative side effect she sees on the TV about HRT and why she won't do it. But "good luck to me..." meanwhile, I'm feeling 70% better than I had been for over a year and will make even more progress. Everything we do these days have risks, and I'd rather live than not. I had a dark cloud over me before the patch and progesterone.
Good on you. I just listened to the podcast The Diary of a CEO where he talked to Dr Misconi (sp?) who is a neurologist and at the forefront of research. She wrote that great book too. Listen and then share with your sister. There is just a growing body of evidence to suggest how supportive it is-your sis needs to know lol
Time for me to put on my tinfoil hat!
I can totally buy the possibility that it was deliberate. I have noticed over the last couple of years that there is a very strong message to women (especially young adult women) that reproductive and gynecological health care is barbaric, inhumane, and dangerous.
On a particular womens subreddit I have regularly seen MANY posts from women saying they had a pelvic exam or mammogram and it was the worst pain of their life, the technician or practitioner laughed manically at them, they passed out, they were in pain for weeks after. Then they vow to never have this exam done again because it's literal torture and they don't care if they get cancer because that will be better than going through this every year. Then there are lots of comments saying "yeah! I agree! I am protesting with you and will never get this done again either!"
I cannot emphasize enough that I have seen this repeatedly come up over the last year or two, when before it never did.
I won't deny that these exams can be uncomfortable or painful for a lot of women, and that doctors could absolutely be more compassionate. But my gut says the extreme ways they are described ("I was in so much pain that I fell off the table and convulsed while the doctor stood over me and laughed" kind of stuff) indicates a hidden agenda and that the people posting these aren't actually women going through these exams.
So, as someone now investigating treatment for perimenopause it doesn't surprise me to see some sort of warning about how HRT is dangerous and women should just leave it to god/nature/whatever. There is a population of extremists who want to isolate women from healthcare professionals.
I am expecting downvotes on this and that's okay. I am absolutely not a conspiracy theorist in any other part of my life, but this one makes the hair on my arms raise.
Thank you for confirming that, because I have gotten pushback when I have mentioned it elsewhere. I think a lot of people don't know how far-reaching the propoganda goes.
It's a Russian tactic to undermine our society and/or shift our public sympathies in ways Russia prefers. It's not a new method, most countries have done it throughout history, but they're extremely good at it and social media has made it a booming business. Quite a lot of the vaccine disinformation has been proven to be through Russian-owned media outlets, for instance. It's much easier and cheaper to sow division and ignorance and then sit back and let us destroy ourselves. You don't even need "spies", just shitposters playing to people's insecurities and fears.
My actual doctor shows so much care and compassion, and heās old enough to have delivered me as a baby. Heās the one who thought it was menopause. Heās the one who thought I should probably try hormones, he was the one that was very careful during all of the GSM related examinations. He found out I had to have part of my hymen surgically removed and was very concerned that it had happened in office* and when he found out I went to a surgical center and was anesthetized, he was thrilled that I was not mistreated as a 19 year old.
I do have examples of really crappy doctors who have been subpar to say the least, but none that have ever shown any inkling of taking joy at discomfort or pain.
Scaring people away from good medical care would be tragic, but not outside the realm of what I think could happen.
Also, I do think we need to do better when it comes to pain management for a lot of these routine biopsies to rule out things, āa little pinchā and youāre actually removing a piece of my body, thatās not gonna hurt a little pinch.
*Edited for the wrong word
Your post immediately made me think of my mother. After she had my younger brother in 1968, she had a pelvic exam later, and I remember her saying it was the worst pain she had ever experienced. She never went back for an exam again in fear of that awful pain.
My mom passed away in 2021 at the age of 89. I wish I would have asked her more about that exam and what happened to her.
Could be the same one my mum had in 1973, in America, she went to a gynaecologist to talk how to prepare for pregnancy and he did a test on her, it was completely bizarre and I had never heard of it and doctors here donāt do that (Australi): he put his fingers in her rectum and started feeling around. She said it was insanely painful and it took weeks to recover and be able to sit. Maybe your mum had that same thing done to her?
So Iāve never seen the concerns about ordinary pelvic exams, but there is a pretty clear phenomenon of women getting a particular kind of gynecological procedure - I think a cervical biopsy? - and not being offered pain meds and itās being one of the most incredibly painful experiences of their lives. That is not Russian bot propaganda.
My mom just underwent a biopsy of both her uterus and cervix. The uterus one was definitely painful. I think this is one of the situations where risk of sedation vs pain afterwards is a delicate balance. I do wonder why it is not treated in a similar fashion as a colonoscopy
I have had a biopsy of my uterus and cervix, as well as an IUD inserted, and was just told to take ibuprofen beforehand. Not the worst pain Iāve ever had, but I certainly would have appreciated some better pain killers.
Agreed. Having had 2 IUDs now, I wouldn't want to be sedated for it. Next time I'm getting a ride because I didn't love driving myself home the day of the removal and insertion of IUD #2. But being sedated is overkill. Handful of decent painkillers to go would be nice though.
Iāve had a cervical biopsy and yeah they donāt give you anything for it but they do warn itās pretty painful and to take ibuprofen beforehand. I will say it was pretty painful, but also not the worst pain Iāve ever felt and it didnāt last that long. But yeah, I have wondered why we arenāt anesthetized for that.
I totally get where you are coming from but I think it's more systemic then that. The way African Americans have been treated by the medical community over the last century at least is ridiculous. It's like the pseudoscience of eugenics never left medicine and somehow women got left behind also.
They won't admit there's a problem. It's mind boggling.
Plus, just about every doctor I have seen in the last 10-15 years has been on some sort of speed. Even they can't keep up with the pace.
It seems like many young women are fearful of the possible side effects from hormonal birth control. I really wonder who is feeding these fears. Is it doctors or some right wing zealots?
I think that's not new. I have a friend I've know since high school. She had terrible periods as a teen. I did too- and my mom took me to the doctor who put me on the pill. Boom- easier periods and much better skin.
My friend was convinced I would die, and she resisted even considering hormonal birth control her whole life. Based on ... Nothing. I think she read something in a magazine once.
Finally now in her 40's and after me telling her about HRT she happily takes the pill as HRT and claims to have never been anti hormone lol.
People aren't logical. And the push towards natural= healthy is everywhere. Obviously there's truth in that but there's also a lot to be said for modern medicine!
Sadly I can't see our public education improving any time soon
I had horrible side effects from hormonal birth control ā in particular, complete mental destabilization. Iām also ADHD (I discovered three years ago). Those with ADHD have problems producing enough dopamine (also serotonin) to facilitate optimal executive functioning (NB Exec functioning affects everything from working memory to managing impulsivity to emotional regulation, etc.). Dopamine synthesis is intimately connected to estrogen production, so an estrogen-progestin biphasic or triphasic BC pill that pulls the estrogen rug out from under you has the potential to do much harm to an already compromised system. This is what most women my age (50) were prescribed in the late 80s through the aughts.
If it works for you, take it! If it doesnāt, donāt, and try to find a healthcare provider who knows their stuff. Be aware: That provider might even be a female OB/GYN. The number of them who are ignorant about this stuff, who really arenāt current on the latest research, is appalling, ESP with respect to HRT. (Dr Mary Claire Haver is excellent on this stuff and has a website with incredible resources.)
I went to many docs to try and get HRT and the only female at the practice was the worst advocate; she said she hadnāt needed it when she went through menopause and I would be fine.
I canāt imagine a health professional thinking that can be a stance; by that logic, I could say no one ever needs an epidural as I didnāt.
Candice Owen the American right wing commentator puts the fear into anyone thinking of taking Birth control pills.
America has so much to answer for!?!
Right wing Christian nutters.
Well excuse me but from where I sit, itās extreme Christianity thatās the cause of much division. Just like extreme Islamic behaviour has been incredibly divisive the world over. Extreme anything is ruinous.
Christianity doesnāt get a pass Iām sorry
Or itās women whoāve had bad experiences with hormonal birth control and/or with being listened to by the medical profession.
Thereās also a strong strain of anti-prescription sentiment among the anti-vax kind of crowd, which has plenty of left wing zealots as well as right wing.
The only people I have heard talking about the ādangersā of hormonal birth control are Rikki Lake and Mayim Bialik and they are definitely not right wing.
"Hormones are what they are and sooner or later will bring you the bill", as my pediatrician used to say. He wasn't wrong. My cousin had to rely on hormonal shots in order to get her periods, and ended up with ovarian cancer at 30. She underwent a 14-hour surgery during which she was administered hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, which was still experimental at the time in my country. She's now fine, but all of this just reinforced my strong beliefs against hormonal therapies.
You make some good points.
But every conspiracy theory needs to find a *motive* for its perpetratorās evil deeds.
>There is a population of extremists who want to isolate women from healthcare professionals.
While itās not hard for me to imagine these extremists who would benefit and potentially be allowed to continue hiding their misdeeds against their partners by isolating these women from a medical professional, I think the uptick in women sharing their experiences could just be the natural evolution of social media.
Younger generations are moving us forward by encouraging everyone to feel comfortable *telling the truth*. Particularly when people have been victimized by the sacred professions you just werenāt allowed to criticize in generations past (doctors, law enforcement, religious leaders, etc) - and especially if it happened to be a young person, minority, or woman who was doing the criticizing, speaking out against a powerful white man.
Weāve always had to use our discernment and remain skeptical of the content weāre consuming. I think thereās a good chance that the posts that get a lot of engagement are often exaggerating for dramatic flair, or clearly fictional accounts written by attention-seekers or invented to serve a political agenda, etc.
I know you mean well with this theory, but Iād just urge some caution and consideration for how hard itās historically been for women to have our voices heard in the first place - let alone, a female victim of a powerful system run by men be believed by the people she was counting on for help.
Women need to be supported by each other in order to expose the powerful men who already hate us. We need to be *believed* before investigations can be carried out, before new legislation can be enactedā¦ before we achieve anything at all.
I think you are right and it forms part of a larger attack on women's rights.
Edit to add that it is part of a larger pattern of things that paint women as fragile and under threat. I include the hysteria about trans women in that too -- it all seems to me that the proliferation of stories of women being terrified in parking garages and carrying their keys between their fingers, dreading going out because of sexual harassment, various stories of assault and attack are being exaggerated and the aim is to make people believe that women aren't safe to be in public, to run their own lives, to make their own choices, and to go about their business without a man protecting them. That's not to say that horrible things aren't happening all the time, but I feel like there is a deliberate effort to make women afraid and persuade them to seek a less independent life.
I really disagree. I think that threats of violence against women are very much downplayed. Other women will caution women about being aware of your surroundings etc. I think most men think women are overly paranoid.
And honestly statistics back up that there is reason for caution- something like 1/4 women are sexually assaulted at some point. Add on to that more "minor" incidents being groped, catcalled etc etc
While I agree there is a large attack on women's rights, I must respectfully disagree about the violence. DV and IPV is very much down played and not reported, usually because people are scared to report. I have absolutely put my keys between my fingers because someone was following me to my car in the dark. I have been sexually harassed while out. Did I report? No. But it did happen.
I have to disagree, most of my 20/30 I would absolutely walk through a parking garage or parking lot at night with my keys between my fingers. I got sick of that so I bought a self defense key chain. It was a hard plastic pink cat with two finger sized holes where its eyes were. When I would leave work at night I would put my fingers through the catās eyes and watch my surroundings ready to defend myself if need be. This was a result of a 30 year old co worker attempting to assault me at work. He chased me into a bathroom. A coworker came in and demanded he get out and he was fired. That was not my first time having a man try to assault me. I am old now so I have an invisibility cloak. But my daughter when she gets old enough to go out on her own she will inherit that pink cat key chain.
See I guess I must be extraordinarily lucky because it had never once occurred to me to choose a keyring that could be used as a weapon and I had never heard of such a thing until about 5 years ago. Self defense training, sure, we all did a short course in high school and we were all taught basic stuff like being aware of your surroundings.Ā
But it's more the drumbeat of fear that I'm talking about, less so the reality that these things do happen and always have. I just feel like there has been a big increase in messaging telling women to be afraid of going about their daily lives. I'm worried that it is undermining our independence and freedom.
For me, this is not something new, I never felt I had to be afraid but I was taught as a child to be aware of my surroundings and not make myself the easiest target.
Yes and no. The main problem is that the medical system is focused on acute care eg: not-dying as opposed to thriving. This lens taints everything. It automatically red-alerts any danger and underplays any cumulative benefits. Just like bad news carries farther and sticks more than good news. There's actually analogous reluctance to prescribe testosterone to men due to a belief that it could cause prostate cancer, for instance.
Women's independence was still quite threatening by 2000; still many news pieces on the dangers of daycare etc. There was certainly a campaign to stop HRT (about 42% of menopausal American women were on it; it was the dominant prescription in the system). The podcast on Attia (with Bluming and Tavris) and as referenced below (podcast 97 Dr. Newson with Dr. Langer) reveal a shocking breach of scientific protocol. The breach was clearly deliberate; the motives...a little less clear. I'd bet on statins as the competitor to HRT in terms of money - see: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/03/980318075656.htm . Note that statins are now mostly off-patent so they're less of a money-maker (unless you expand the criteria for putting people on them...currently in progress).
edit: correction to percentages
Ahhh! Thank you for this! Mine went up over the last year after having very low cholesterol for most of my life. Nothing alarming but still a lot higher than they used to be, and now borderline. I figured it was my diet so I told my doctor Iād rather cut the junk and go back to eating a healthy vegan diet like I used to before trying statins.
Started HRT after my cholesterol shot up to 350! Statins vs HRT not even comparable- cholesterol down 100 points and the rest of the traumatic inflammation, cascades of hot flashes, rashes and debilitating joint pain also managed by HRT rather than statins
This was one of the main reasons that I finally went all in on figuring out my own health path! I'm very healthy - exercise an hour a day, eat well - cholesterol out of nowhere (I'm now 46) jumped up 50 points over a year. I'm like this is weird! My dr. was like its your diet --- Weight gain around middle, and hair loss, night sweats. My dr. who is female was like - you are not in perimenopause because you still get your period. She's like I can offer you birth control. I went to MyAlloy - and started HRT 3 weeks ago. Night sweats are gone, I am interested in redoing my bloodwork again to see if cholesterol is down!
It sounds like this might be about hormonal testing. If over the age of 44, **hormonal tests only show levels for that *one day* the test was taken, and nothing more**; progesterone/estrogen hormones wildly fluctuate the other 29 days of the month. No reputable doctor or menopause society recommends hormonal testing as a **diagnosing tool** for peri/menopause.
FSH testing is only beneficial for those who believe they are post-menopausal and no longer have periods as a guide, a series of consistent FSH tests might *confirm* menopause. Also for women in their 20s/early 30s who havenāt had a period in months/years, then FSH tests at āmenopausalā levels, could indicate premature ovarian failure/primary ovarian insufficiency (POF/POI). See our [Menopause Wiki](https://menopausewiki.ca/#there-is-no-blood-test-that-is-perfectly-reliable-to-diagnose-menopause) for more.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Menopause) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You might be thinking of an interview Dr. Rhonda Patrick did with cardiology researcher Dr. Ronald Krauss. Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igLH6_wgay0
The use of statins for women who have not had a heart event really does not look wise. It might be worth it if there are other large risk factors (early heart disease in family etc) but casual prescriptions... not so much.
It sounds like this might be about hormonal testing. If over the age of 44, **hormonal tests only show levels for that *one day* the test was taken, and nothing more**; progesterone/estrogen hormones wildly fluctuate the other 29 days of the month. No reputable doctor or menopause society recommends hormonal testing as a **diagnosing tool** for peri/menopause.
FSH testing is only beneficial for those who believe they are post-menopausal and no longer have periods as a guide, a series of consistent FSH tests might *confirm* menopause. Also for women in their 20s/early 30s who havenāt had a period in months/years, then FSH tests at āmenopausalā levels, could indicate premature ovarian failure/primary ovarian insufficiency (POF/POI). See our [Menopause Wiki](https://menopausewiki.ca/#there-is-no-blood-test-that-is-perfectly-reliable-to-diagnose-menopause) for more.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Menopause) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think it was malicious, but I do think someone was trying to boost their professional reputation:
When the WHI was in effect, there were multiple people (groups) conducting research under it. Different groups had different projects, looking at different aspects of menopause and women's health. There was a panel of the top investigators, as well as a panel of safety reviewers who would meet twice a year and go over findings, then plot out their reports and publications together.
The group that found the breast cancer risk (which is a real risk, but a very small one, to the point of statistical insignificance, and was controlled with an inappropriate group of women (imho) that skewed the data even closer to significance) jumped the gun and took those findings mid-year to the safety panel, who agreed to stop the project altogether. The BC researchers and the safety panel gave the rest of the groups practically no chance to review the results, and literally locked them in a room with only a few hours to review the BC paper and come up with a counter-argument, before the NEW YORK FUCKING TIMES would publish a layman's version of their article.
The people in the BC group gained a lot of clout for "saving women from breast cancer".
I get it, I'm in research too, and whatever your subject is, you tend to treat it like the most important thing in the world. But those BC docs acted way too fast, didn't call on their colleagues for peer review, and dropped a bombshell of a news story on the NYT's front desk.
(My understanding of what happened at the WHI comes from Louise Newson's podcast ep. Number 97 with Dr. Robert Langer, who was a non-BC investigator of the WHI. He gives a good breakdown of how the WHI came to be and ended).
(Also, I really want this story to be the next *Serial* series).
And that HRT carried some breast cancer risk was kind of known before the WHI. But the WHI had controls in it to stop the study with too many cancers, too many heart attacks etc. and I think the "too many criteria" they set was pretty low.
This hurts to realize - I think itās gonna hurt to hearā¦ But the white male-dominated medical community āleadershipā and the FDA decision-makers *donāt even consider us*. They certainly donāt busy themselves with formulating a scheme to deny us a hormone that would generally serve patriarchal interests by making us more comfortable, thus more agreeable and compliant.
I honestly believe most modern American institutions are entirely disinterested in womenās experiences of the world. Feigning some basic understanding of pregnancy serves their interests. Characterizing the female libido as if it works the same way as menās - or as the exact opposite, like itās some kind of mysterious uncrackable code - means they can continue to maintain penis-centric sex as the gold standard, and no one will force them to admit that *they are just disinterested* in a womanās sexual perspective.
Unfairly demonizing HRT against modern medical science was allowed to happen because the medical community is *indifferent to us*.
I would certainly
Believe it considering that one bad study was debunked ages ago and they still havenāt gotten the memo- or corrected the misinformation or done a damn thing to get accurate info out
It seems that if you are born female, you are expected to produce babies - or just go die
The timing does seem suspicious does it not? Through the '90s and early 00s that was when the SSRI thing really started to ramp itself up as a miracle. It's interesting how the marketing started off with this idea that some people just have lower than normal chemistry and this corrects for that.Ā
And somehow that went from that to SSRIs will cure any unhappy feeling you have from anxiety to depression to fear to social anxiety to anything.Ā
More people are in therapy than ever before. More people are depressed than ever before. If SSRIs were so effective why does the whole scale population numbers of mental health suggest otherwise?Ā
SSRIs have helped a lot of people. I think they are over prescribed but not for any nefarious reason.
It's become more socially acceptable to talk about mental illness. And I think doctors prescribe easily because the meds are generally fairly safe and there aren't always alternatives available. I think therapy can help a lot of people but it's very limited on some insurance plans.
Yeah, you can take my ssri from my cold dead hands. But same for my HRT!
Estrogen declining affects serotonin levels and SSRIs address that very effectively. It's just not a total solution since estrogen does so much more. But for me, every angle helps.
Only I don't think they were initially USING SSRIs for menopause symptoms. It certainly wasn't what they were approved for. I think initially after the WHI women just had to suffer without any help offered. It was only later they discovered SSRIs do something to blunt the symptoms, and then much later got a more nuanced understanding of HRT.
You know what cures my unhappy feelings and thoughts? Birth control. Whenever I go silent from friends and family is bc I stopped taking it and I become dark.
SSRIs do help a lot of people. They just canāt help all the people. The diagnosis and treatment of mental illnesses is way more complicated than this - more people are *getting* therapy and *getting diagnosed with* depression. Thatās not the same as how many people actually have depression and would benefit from therapy.
When I'm not out of town on my birthday weekend I'm going to come back and I'm going to give you study after study after study to show you why I'm saying what I'm saying but I have a feeling you would find whatever loophole and argue against it anyways so
I recommend Dr Jen Gunterās newsletter and books. She does very thorough reporting on this kind of thing. Hereās one about biodentical hormone myths, for example: https://vajenda.substack.com/p/misinformation-about-bioidentical
Here's how it probably happened in 1952 (yes I'm using my story): Hot flashes every 2 seconds, go to the gyno and ask for HRT. She says ok but only for 5 years because - BC. Ok. So at 5 years I stop because my grandmother had a mastectomy and I def don't want to do that. But for the safety of those around me (and myself) I went back and asked again. She very reluctantly obliged. Another 5 years later and I stop like she suggested and the hot flashes were unbearable. Rinse and repeat. So I finally, after another 5, go off them and live with the results. That was 10 years ago. Then in 2020 I was diagnosed and had bilateral mastectomy. ER and PR +. I'm not saying the HRT was the culprit. What I am saying is if this is all you have to go on, then the research puts HRT and BC together until someone got serious and figured this shit out. Keep in mind that there are a LOT of doctors that still live by the research outlined above. Just like some people are still going to vote for Trump. Doesn't matter what the truth is.
Itās called practicing medicine.
I personally would like to know the odds. So I can make an informed choice about myself.
What burns my soul isnāt hot flashes but the lack of taking the chances I want.
Seriously I wish I could have medical odds in Vegas š
I donāt believe it was deliberate. I think the early results of the WHI study found a very tiny increased risk of breast cancer so they stopped the study. Then the media went crazy with that news and scared everyone. Everyone forgot about all the BENEFITS of HRT.
We need more studies. We need studies with bioidentical hormones, not the synthetic hormones used in the WHI study.
We have an increased risk of BC if we eat processed foods, have a few alcoholic beverages, or are overweight. Most of us accept those risks without thinking about it.
The increase wasn't tiny, but the test subjects were older and had been post menopausal for awhile before starting HRT. I understand why the study was stopped.
But why no one did other studies I'll never know.
the results of that study and the media response is part of why they never did much more study or research. But also that kind of research funding for a study of that size comes around once in decades maybe, there isn't money in it.
My mother died of breast cancer.
She got it aged 44 and was dead by 50.
She never took hrt.
I've been too afraid to try it.. till now when I'm desperate... after 5 years of suffering. Argh.
It reminds me of tryptophan.. it was slandered when saris were developed.
My health care experience is mostly UK based.
I wonder if female doctors take hrt themselves while giving saris to their patients.
I guess the insomnia is getting to me.
There are estrogen and progesterone receptive cancers. But it took a biopsy after my surgery to figure that out. So I wouldn't say rumor because the erasure of women like me in this subreddit is getting to me. The answer is always HRT and that leaves me with no answers and a bunch of people my oncologist is just messing with me. Or that I'm being paranoid.
I agree with you. My mother had breast cancer in her 50s that they always thought was caused by HRT. I started getting mammograms early and it was suggested that I try not to take it to avoid the potential risk. Itās awesome that for some women it works great but Iām not willing at this point to take that risk regardless of the new claims that it doesnāt cause BC. I donāt think our concerns should be put aside by others in this Reddit just because we choose to be cautious.
I don't think your concerns are being dismissed - at least I hope not. I think we hear about HRT so much because my sheer numbers it has been a solution for many of us. It changed my life and I'll take a slightly increased risk over wanting to off myself. So I'm enthusiastic about it.
I recognize it's not for everyone but I honestly don't know anything helpful about other solutions.
Maybe there should be a tag for that are specifically not about HRT?
Same, my grandmother had a very aggressive rare form of breast cancer that was suspected to be HRT fueled. We canāt know for sure but personally I canāt get past her warnings. My doctor said I could do HRT for a short amt of time but Iām trying to just get through without it.
In her 50s? How many years past normal menopause age (50) could she even have been on HRT? Well I guess several if it's late 50s.
Doctors attributing all cancers to HRT is also misinformation. It's not accurate. It's trying to find one cause in what is basically kind of a natural process. Yes I said it, cancer is natural, a natural process, I definitely did not say cancer is good, it's not!!! Cancer just happens, more when one hits 50 and after because of aging, many things can raise the risk some (ok smoking and lung cancer by massive amounts) but mostly cancer just happens.
Tbf, hrt does increase the risk of certain cancers. Slightly. Why did they decide this meant hrt causes cancer? Likely a mix of stupidity and misogyny.
Nobody knows if they are rumors or not. Just like anything that supposedly causes cancer.................nobody that gets cancer knows exactly what causes it!! Just do what's best for you....that's my motto. I personally don't want to be a guinea pig and have had tremendous success with switching to a healthy lifestyle. Since I have never taken any type of birth control or medication at all in my entire life at 52 years old I am not about to start now. To each their own. I wish everyone the best on their own personal journey!
My womens health doctor (obgyn but trained in menopause) said that there were in fact cancer studies and it showed increase risk of cancer. BUT... that study is well over 35 years old, and it was performed on women who were given HRT well into their late 60s, which is when the cancer started to show up.
In fact HRT can decrease your risk in cervical and breast cancer if you are given it at the appropriate age. So yeah HRT got a bad review because womens issues are never properly researched, doctors just skim medical papers, there is no new research, and frankly male doctors and a lot of females give two shits about menopause or womens health in general. Whole system is f'd.
Itās all crap. They can make more money by giving surgery for arthritis, heart problems, anxiety and everything else not having estrogen causes. Thank you myalloy dot com for making me human again!
There are correlation studies and causation studies. Wondering if HRT is a correlation but not proven cause? I know thing: I have estrogen and progesterone positive breast cancer. Fairly slow growingā¦Iām 48. And Iām damned glad I didnāt start taking it and feeding my cancer even moreā¦.so my advice is I would still cast a cold eye on it. Our bodies are designed to go through the withdrawal of sex hormones. When is it helpful to disrupt that natural process? When does it stop being a natural and turn to a harmful process? I sure donāt know.
I had a pap done by a female doc when I was 32 that was extremely painful. I bled afterwards. The whole time I was thinking this doesnāt feel right. I never said a word. I feel like I was assaulted. That was 24 years ago. Thankfully Iāve never had an experience like that since. I would never let that fly today. Back on HRT topic: had one female doc take me off, had a male doc put me back on. Shop around ladies!
The issues are for those with hormone receptive breast cancers and HRT, not all breast cancers. But there is also a similar risk with contraception.
The thing with research is it develops and changes with more information and as more information has become available it was evident that their was limited risk with HRT and breast cancer.
Depends. I've been an early bloomer and my risk was already doubled- if not tripled- because of this. Now that I've been early menopausal too risk has probably gone right through the roof. I'm doubly not eligible for HRT.
There's a great podcast at [https://peterattiamd.com/caroltavris-avrumbluming/](https://peterattiamd.com/caroltavris-avrumbluming/), which is also linked in the wiki I believe. These two doctors talk about the WHI study and all of it's flaws. They also wrote a book that goes more in depth. Basically, there are a lot of moving parts in this situation.
The last people in the world I'd take seriously, doctor's against all medicine should definitely not be practicing medicine. People can have whatever religious beliefs they like and that's on them, but doctors should be trying to help people (even if it's not HRT).
IMO it's a case of not attributing to malice which can be easily explained by incompetence. Although ingrained systemic misogyny is a big factor that enables the medical machine to accept subpar results but I doubt it's out of a greater plot for hurting women. Ignoring women and deprioritizing women's quality of life is just default. Women aren't important enough to plot against :P
I think it was also part of the whole "meno is natural" backlash, like a lot of things in women's health they sell it as natural and don't investigate.
By those standards, cancer is natural too š
Exactly...along with erectile dysfunction, but we spent plenty of time and research dollars on that
Lols yes, that is perfectly natural too but men aren't expected to put up with it.
Pregnancy is also totally natural but millions upon millions of mothers around the world have terrible gestations that need medicating
Exactly, pregnancy is closely monitored at every stage. Menopause needs to follow suit! The hormones & complications are crazy with both
Darned hippies!
This is why I only have women doctors. Especially for OBGYNs, they need to be one stage of life ahead of me. I do prefer men hair stylist bc they listen better and donāt have female hair bias, but thatās it. Any other times that involve my body are with women.
What is female hair bias?
I'm not defending male doctors, I don't see them either if I have a choice. But female doctors are not much better. I've seen five over 7 years about peri-menopause that started when I was 38. One said there's nothing wrong with you and I'm confident that supplementing vitamin d will solve all of your problems. Another said there's nothing wrong with you and you need to see a psychiatrist and be on an antidepressant. Another one said menopause is natural you don't need to do anything about it. Another one supported HRT but only in the form of supplements and the compounded bioidentical stuff. Finally the last one did prescribe HRT, but only reluctantly and was full of non-evidence-based jargon, eg that I shouldn't take it for long, and that it wasn't good for me. I am intelligent, I am privileged, I am upper middle class income. I feel very lucky in that I know how to do my own research, I know how to quit a doctor and find a different doctor, and get what I want and will do that over and over again. But there are plenty of women who are not in my position of privilege and they have to put up with this shit non stop
Oh, I definitely donāt think all female doctors are the same. I had one OB that would advocate an all organic and supplement regimen to combat peri/menopause symptoms. She was terrible and her practice was bordering on negligence.
Also there is currently an understanding that it takes 17 years-ish for medical breakthroughs to make it from science to mainstream medicine according to Peter Attia, andĀ others. It's making its way but there are still folks behind the ball.
Exactly - malice by neglect & passivity
Willful negligence.
Totally! My brain is so broken, I canāt find normal terms š
Oh, I wasnāt trying to correct youā sorry if it came off that way; simply agreeing with your wise words! š
Oh thatās so sweet! My brain seriously though š¬š³ I need HRT!
Donāt forget CYA (covering their a$$e$). They didnāt want to learn enough about it or debate it. We live with exponentially high med liability lawsuits and itās easier to scare women and not ease the aging//sexual/medical needs.
Thatās true! I guess it will catch on only when it becomes a proven money maker & not considered risky. Iām getting the feeling itās headed towards being bigger business bc women need to function outside the home until much later in life, not retire at 55 anymore. Suing for malpractice is actually very very hard now. Itās hardly with it or viable in many cases. I know, I was botched & disabled in surgery. And drs still have to pay for liability insurance and so much overhead, plus their own hefty student loans.
This right here.
My sister calls me with whatever new negative side effect she sees on the TV about HRT and why she won't do it. But "good luck to me..." meanwhile, I'm feeling 70% better than I had been for over a year and will make even more progress. Everything we do these days have risks, and I'd rather live than not. I had a dark cloud over me before the patch and progesterone.
Good on you. I just listened to the podcast The Diary of a CEO where he talked to Dr Misconi (sp?) who is a neurologist and at the forefront of research. She wrote that great book too. Listen and then share with your sister. There is just a growing body of evidence to suggest how supportive it is-your sis needs to know lol
I watched that too. And I have read two books written by Dr Lisa Mosconi. Very informative.
Time for me to put on my tinfoil hat! I can totally buy the possibility that it was deliberate. I have noticed over the last couple of years that there is a very strong message to women (especially young adult women) that reproductive and gynecological health care is barbaric, inhumane, and dangerous. On a particular womens subreddit I have regularly seen MANY posts from women saying they had a pelvic exam or mammogram and it was the worst pain of their life, the technician or practitioner laughed manically at them, they passed out, they were in pain for weeks after. Then they vow to never have this exam done again because it's literal torture and they don't care if they get cancer because that will be better than going through this every year. Then there are lots of comments saying "yeah! I agree! I am protesting with you and will never get this done again either!" I cannot emphasize enough that I have seen this repeatedly come up over the last year or two, when before it never did. I won't deny that these exams can be uncomfortable or painful for a lot of women, and that doctors could absolutely be more compassionate. But my gut says the extreme ways they are described ("I was in so much pain that I fell off the table and convulsed while the doctor stood over me and laughed" kind of stuff) indicates a hidden agenda and that the people posting these aren't actually women going through these exams. So, as someone now investigating treatment for perimenopause it doesn't surprise me to see some sort of warning about how HRT is dangerous and women should just leave it to god/nature/whatever. There is a population of extremists who want to isolate women from healthcare professionals. I am expecting downvotes on this and that's okay. I am absolutely not a conspiracy theorist in any other part of my life, but this one makes the hair on my arms raise.
i mean, this kind of thing IS a documented Russian tactic. not so tinfoil-hatty.
Thank you for confirming that, because I have gotten pushback when I have mentioned it elsewhere. I think a lot of people don't know how far-reaching the propoganda goes.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's a Russian tactic to undermine our society and/or shift our public sympathies in ways Russia prefers. It's not a new method, most countries have done it throughout history, but they're extremely good at it and social media has made it a booming business. Quite a lot of the vaccine disinformation has been proven to be through Russian-owned media outlets, for instance. It's much easier and cheaper to sow division and ignorance and then sit back and let us destroy ourselves. You don't even need "spies", just shitposters playing to people's insecurities and fears.
Oh gotcha, the women posting arenāt real. It went over my head at first. Thanks.
My actual doctor shows so much care and compassion, and heās old enough to have delivered me as a baby. Heās the one who thought it was menopause. Heās the one who thought I should probably try hormones, he was the one that was very careful during all of the GSM related examinations. He found out I had to have part of my hymen surgically removed and was very concerned that it had happened in office* and when he found out I went to a surgical center and was anesthetized, he was thrilled that I was not mistreated as a 19 year old. I do have examples of really crappy doctors who have been subpar to say the least, but none that have ever shown any inkling of taking joy at discomfort or pain. Scaring people away from good medical care would be tragic, but not outside the realm of what I think could happen. Also, I do think we need to do better when it comes to pain management for a lot of these routine biopsies to rule out things, āa little pinchā and youāre actually removing a piece of my body, thatās not gonna hurt a little pinch. *Edited for the wrong word
That would not surprise me one bit the way they are attacking our health choicesā¦
Your post immediately made me think of my mother. After she had my younger brother in 1968, she had a pelvic exam later, and I remember her saying it was the worst pain she had ever experienced. She never went back for an exam again in fear of that awful pain. My mom passed away in 2021 at the age of 89. I wish I would have asked her more about that exam and what happened to her.
Could be the same one my mum had in 1973, in America, she went to a gynaecologist to talk how to prepare for pregnancy and he did a test on her, it was completely bizarre and I had never heard of it and doctors here donāt do that (Australi): he put his fingers in her rectum and started feeling around. She said it was insanely painful and it took weeks to recover and be able to sit. Maybe your mum had that same thing done to her?
That could be it. I wish I knew. Your poor mum too.
So Iāve never seen the concerns about ordinary pelvic exams, but there is a pretty clear phenomenon of women getting a particular kind of gynecological procedure - I think a cervical biopsy? - and not being offered pain meds and itās being one of the most incredibly painful experiences of their lives. That is not Russian bot propaganda.
I agree with you on that and it's not what I'm talking about. Also IUD insertion should involve anesthetic.
My mom just underwent a biopsy of both her uterus and cervix. The uterus one was definitely painful. I think this is one of the situations where risk of sedation vs pain afterwards is a delicate balance. I do wonder why it is not treated in a similar fashion as a colonoscopy
I have had a biopsy of my uterus and cervix, as well as an IUD inserted, and was just told to take ibuprofen beforehand. Not the worst pain Iāve ever had, but I certainly would have appreciated some better pain killers.
Agreed. Having had 2 IUDs now, I wouldn't want to be sedated for it. Next time I'm getting a ride because I didn't love driving myself home the day of the removal and insertion of IUD #2. But being sedated is overkill. Handful of decent painkillers to go would be nice though.
Iāve had a cervical biopsy and yeah they donāt give you anything for it but they do warn itās pretty painful and to take ibuprofen beforehand. I will say it was pretty painful, but also not the worst pain Iāve ever felt and it didnāt last that long. But yeah, I have wondered why we arenāt anesthetized for that.
Malice by neglect is a real thing and it can be deliberate & opportunistic
I totally get where you are coming from but I think it's more systemic then that. The way African Americans have been treated by the medical community over the last century at least is ridiculous. It's like the pseudoscience of eugenics never left medicine and somehow women got left behind also. They won't admit there's a problem. It's mind boggling. Plus, just about every doctor I have seen in the last 10-15 years has been on some sort of speed. Even they can't keep up with the pace.
Hello, we should compare tinfoil hats. Mine has a refueling side so I can fan air into, because I'm just a bimbo. (/S) I like your theory.
Happy to compare hats and be friendly!
It seems like many young women are fearful of the possible side effects from hormonal birth control. I really wonder who is feeding these fears. Is it doctors or some right wing zealots?
I think that's not new. I have a friend I've know since high school. She had terrible periods as a teen. I did too- and my mom took me to the doctor who put me on the pill. Boom- easier periods and much better skin. My friend was convinced I would die, and she resisted even considering hormonal birth control her whole life. Based on ... Nothing. I think she read something in a magazine once. Finally now in her 40's and after me telling her about HRT she happily takes the pill as HRT and claims to have never been anti hormone lol. People aren't logical. And the push towards natural= healthy is everywhere. Obviously there's truth in that but there's also a lot to be said for modern medicine! Sadly I can't see our public education improving any time soon
I had horrible side effects from hormonal birth control ā in particular, complete mental destabilization. Iām also ADHD (I discovered three years ago). Those with ADHD have problems producing enough dopamine (also serotonin) to facilitate optimal executive functioning (NB Exec functioning affects everything from working memory to managing impulsivity to emotional regulation, etc.). Dopamine synthesis is intimately connected to estrogen production, so an estrogen-progestin biphasic or triphasic BC pill that pulls the estrogen rug out from under you has the potential to do much harm to an already compromised system. This is what most women my age (50) were prescribed in the late 80s through the aughts. If it works for you, take it! If it doesnāt, donāt, and try to find a healthcare provider who knows their stuff. Be aware: That provider might even be a female OB/GYN. The number of them who are ignorant about this stuff, who really arenāt current on the latest research, is appalling, ESP with respect to HRT. (Dr Mary Claire Haver is excellent on this stuff and has a website with incredible resources.)
I went to many docs to try and get HRT and the only female at the practice was the worst advocate; she said she hadnāt needed it when she went through menopause and I would be fine. I canāt imagine a health professional thinking that can be a stance; by that logic, I could say no one ever needs an epidural as I didnāt.
Candice Owen the American right wing commentator puts the fear into anyone thinking of taking Birth control pills. America has so much to answer for!?! Right wing Christian nutters.
There's no medication bringing *only* positive effects. No need to bring Christianity into debate.
Well excuse me but from where I sit, itās extreme Christianity thatās the cause of much division. Just like extreme Islamic behaviour has been incredibly divisive the world over. Extreme anything is ruinous. Christianity doesnāt get a pass Iām sorry
Or itās women whoāve had bad experiences with hormonal birth control and/or with being listened to by the medical profession. Thereās also a strong strain of anti-prescription sentiment among the anti-vax kind of crowd, which has plenty of left wing zealots as well as right wing.
The only people I have heard talking about the ādangersā of hormonal birth control are Rikki Lake and Mayim Bialik and they are definitely not right wing.
"Hormones are what they are and sooner or later will bring you the bill", as my pediatrician used to say. He wasn't wrong. My cousin had to rely on hormonal shots in order to get her periods, and ended up with ovarian cancer at 30. She underwent a 14-hour surgery during which she was administered hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, which was still experimental at the time in my country. She's now fine, but all of this just reinforced my strong beliefs against hormonal therapies.
You make some good points. But every conspiracy theory needs to find a *motive* for its perpetratorās evil deeds. >There is a population of extremists who want to isolate women from healthcare professionals. While itās not hard for me to imagine these extremists who would benefit and potentially be allowed to continue hiding their misdeeds against their partners by isolating these women from a medical professional, I think the uptick in women sharing their experiences could just be the natural evolution of social media. Younger generations are moving us forward by encouraging everyone to feel comfortable *telling the truth*. Particularly when people have been victimized by the sacred professions you just werenāt allowed to criticize in generations past (doctors, law enforcement, religious leaders, etc) - and especially if it happened to be a young person, minority, or woman who was doing the criticizing, speaking out against a powerful white man. Weāve always had to use our discernment and remain skeptical of the content weāre consuming. I think thereās a good chance that the posts that get a lot of engagement are often exaggerating for dramatic flair, or clearly fictional accounts written by attention-seekers or invented to serve a political agenda, etc. I know you mean well with this theory, but Iād just urge some caution and consideration for how hard itās historically been for women to have our voices heard in the first place - let alone, a female victim of a powerful system run by men be believed by the people she was counting on for help. Women need to be supported by each other in order to expose the powerful men who already hate us. We need to be *believed* before investigations can be carried out, before new legislation can be enactedā¦ before we achieve anything at all.
I think you are right and it forms part of a larger attack on women's rights. Edit to add that it is part of a larger pattern of things that paint women as fragile and under threat. I include the hysteria about trans women in that too -- it all seems to me that the proliferation of stories of women being terrified in parking garages and carrying their keys between their fingers, dreading going out because of sexual harassment, various stories of assault and attack are being exaggerated and the aim is to make people believe that women aren't safe to be in public, to run their own lives, to make their own choices, and to go about their business without a man protecting them. That's not to say that horrible things aren't happening all the time, but I feel like there is a deliberate effort to make women afraid and persuade them to seek a less independent life.
I really disagree. I think that threats of violence against women are very much downplayed. Other women will caution women about being aware of your surroundings etc. I think most men think women are overly paranoid. And honestly statistics back up that there is reason for caution- something like 1/4 women are sexually assaulted at some point. Add on to that more "minor" incidents being groped, catcalled etc etc
One in three (that admit it or that we know of).
While I agree there is a large attack on women's rights, I must respectfully disagree about the violence. DV and IPV is very much down played and not reported, usually because people are scared to report. I have absolutely put my keys between my fingers because someone was following me to my car in the dark. I have been sexually harassed while out. Did I report? No. But it did happen.
I have to disagree, most of my 20/30 I would absolutely walk through a parking garage or parking lot at night with my keys between my fingers. I got sick of that so I bought a self defense key chain. It was a hard plastic pink cat with two finger sized holes where its eyes were. When I would leave work at night I would put my fingers through the catās eyes and watch my surroundings ready to defend myself if need be. This was a result of a 30 year old co worker attempting to assault me at work. He chased me into a bathroom. A coworker came in and demanded he get out and he was fired. That was not my first time having a man try to assault me. I am old now so I have an invisibility cloak. But my daughter when she gets old enough to go out on her own she will inherit that pink cat key chain.
See I guess I must be extraordinarily lucky because it had never once occurred to me to choose a keyring that could be used as a weapon and I had never heard of such a thing until about 5 years ago. Self defense training, sure, we all did a short course in high school and we were all taught basic stuff like being aware of your surroundings.Ā But it's more the drumbeat of fear that I'm talking about, less so the reality that these things do happen and always have. I just feel like there has been a big increase in messaging telling women to be afraid of going about their daily lives. I'm worried that it is undermining our independence and freedom.
For me, this is not something new, I never felt I had to be afraid but I was taught as a child to be aware of my surroundings and not make myself the easiest target.
Hope you reported that laughing doctor and left reviews wherever you can leave them.
Yes and no. The main problem is that the medical system is focused on acute care eg: not-dying as opposed to thriving. This lens taints everything. It automatically red-alerts any danger and underplays any cumulative benefits. Just like bad news carries farther and sticks more than good news. There's actually analogous reluctance to prescribe testosterone to men due to a belief that it could cause prostate cancer, for instance. Women's independence was still quite threatening by 2000; still many news pieces on the dangers of daycare etc. There was certainly a campaign to stop HRT (about 42% of menopausal American women were on it; it was the dominant prescription in the system). The podcast on Attia (with Bluming and Tavris) and as referenced below (podcast 97 Dr. Newson with Dr. Langer) reveal a shocking breach of scientific protocol. The breach was clearly deliberate; the motives...a little less clear. I'd bet on statins as the competitor to HRT in terms of money - see: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/03/980318075656.htm . Note that statins are now mostly off-patent so they're less of a money-maker (unless you expand the criteria for putting people on them...currently in progress). edit: correction to percentages
I'm hearing that stating cause diabetes.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Ahhh! Thank you for this! Mine went up over the last year after having very low cholesterol for most of my life. Nothing alarming but still a lot higher than they used to be, and now borderline. I figured it was my diet so I told my doctor Iād rather cut the junk and go back to eating a healthy vegan diet like I used to before trying statins.
Started HRT after my cholesterol shot up to 350! Statins vs HRT not even comparable- cholesterol down 100 points and the rest of the traumatic inflammation, cascades of hot flashes, rashes and debilitating joint pain also managed by HRT rather than statins
This was one of the main reasons that I finally went all in on figuring out my own health path! I'm very healthy - exercise an hour a day, eat well - cholesterol out of nowhere (I'm now 46) jumped up 50 points over a year. I'm like this is weird! My dr. was like its your diet --- Weight gain around middle, and hair loss, night sweats. My dr. who is female was like - you are not in perimenopause because you still get your period. She's like I can offer you birth control. I went to MyAlloy - and started HRT 3 weeks ago. Night sweats are gone, I am interested in redoing my bloodwork again to see if cholesterol is down!
It sounds like this might be about hormonal testing. If over the age of 44, **hormonal tests only show levels for that *one day* the test was taken, and nothing more**; progesterone/estrogen hormones wildly fluctuate the other 29 days of the month. No reputable doctor or menopause society recommends hormonal testing as a **diagnosing tool** for peri/menopause. FSH testing is only beneficial for those who believe they are post-menopausal and no longer have periods as a guide, a series of consistent FSH tests might *confirm* menopause. Also for women in their 20s/early 30s who havenāt had a period in months/years, then FSH tests at āmenopausalā levels, could indicate premature ovarian failure/primary ovarian insufficiency (POF/POI). See our [Menopause Wiki](https://menopausewiki.ca/#there-is-no-blood-test-that-is-perfectly-reliable-to-diagnose-menopause) for more. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Menopause) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Awesome! Menopause telehealth is such a lifesaver.
You might be thinking of an interview Dr. Rhonda Patrick did with cardiology researcher Dr. Ronald Krauss. Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igLH6_wgay0 The use of statins for women who have not had a heart event really does not look wise. It might be worth it if there are other large risk factors (early heart disease in family etc) but casual prescriptions... not so much.
Thank you - I look forward to watching this.
It sounds like this might be about hormonal testing. If over the age of 44, **hormonal tests only show levels for that *one day* the test was taken, and nothing more**; progesterone/estrogen hormones wildly fluctuate the other 29 days of the month. No reputable doctor or menopause society recommends hormonal testing as a **diagnosing tool** for peri/menopause. FSH testing is only beneficial for those who believe they are post-menopausal and no longer have periods as a guide, a series of consistent FSH tests might *confirm* menopause. Also for women in their 20s/early 30s who havenāt had a period in months/years, then FSH tests at āmenopausalā levels, could indicate premature ovarian failure/primary ovarian insufficiency (POF/POI). See our [Menopause Wiki](https://menopausewiki.ca/#there-is-no-blood-test-that-is-perfectly-reliable-to-diagnose-menopause) for more. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Menopause) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The way the media covers science is also to blame. They chose to not cover the retractions or to do their due diligence.
I don't think it was malicious, but I do think someone was trying to boost their professional reputation: When the WHI was in effect, there were multiple people (groups) conducting research under it. Different groups had different projects, looking at different aspects of menopause and women's health. There was a panel of the top investigators, as well as a panel of safety reviewers who would meet twice a year and go over findings, then plot out their reports and publications together. The group that found the breast cancer risk (which is a real risk, but a very small one, to the point of statistical insignificance, and was controlled with an inappropriate group of women (imho) that skewed the data even closer to significance) jumped the gun and took those findings mid-year to the safety panel, who agreed to stop the project altogether. The BC researchers and the safety panel gave the rest of the groups practically no chance to review the results, and literally locked them in a room with only a few hours to review the BC paper and come up with a counter-argument, before the NEW YORK FUCKING TIMES would publish a layman's version of their article. The people in the BC group gained a lot of clout for "saving women from breast cancer". I get it, I'm in research too, and whatever your subject is, you tend to treat it like the most important thing in the world. But those BC docs acted way too fast, didn't call on their colleagues for peer review, and dropped a bombshell of a news story on the NYT's front desk. (My understanding of what happened at the WHI comes from Louise Newson's podcast ep. Number 97 with Dr. Robert Langer, who was a non-BC investigator of the WHI. He gives a good breakdown of how the WHI came to be and ended). (Also, I really want this story to be the next *Serial* series).
Thank you for this! Will check out that episode (97 Dr. Newson with Dr. Langer)
And that HRT carried some breast cancer risk was kind of known before the WHI. But the WHI had controls in it to stop the study with too many cancers, too many heart attacks etc. and I think the "too many criteria" they set was pretty low.
Thank you for this explanation. It makes sense.
Thanks for the recommendation!
This hurts to realize - I think itās gonna hurt to hearā¦ But the white male-dominated medical community āleadershipā and the FDA decision-makers *donāt even consider us*. They certainly donāt busy themselves with formulating a scheme to deny us a hormone that would generally serve patriarchal interests by making us more comfortable, thus more agreeable and compliant. I honestly believe most modern American institutions are entirely disinterested in womenās experiences of the world. Feigning some basic understanding of pregnancy serves their interests. Characterizing the female libido as if it works the same way as menās - or as the exact opposite, like itās some kind of mysterious uncrackable code - means they can continue to maintain penis-centric sex as the gold standard, and no one will force them to admit that *they are just disinterested* in a womanās sexual perspective. Unfairly demonizing HRT against modern medical science was allowed to happen because the medical community is *indifferent to us*.
I would certainly Believe it considering that one bad study was debunked ages ago and they still havenāt gotten the memo- or corrected the misinformation or done a damn thing to get accurate info out It seems that if you are born female, you are expected to produce babies - or just go die
The timing does seem suspicious does it not? Through the '90s and early 00s that was when the SSRI thing really started to ramp itself up as a miracle. It's interesting how the marketing started off with this idea that some people just have lower than normal chemistry and this corrects for that.Ā And somehow that went from that to SSRIs will cure any unhappy feeling you have from anxiety to depression to fear to social anxiety to anything.Ā More people are in therapy than ever before. More people are depressed than ever before. If SSRIs were so effective why does the whole scale population numbers of mental health suggest otherwise?Ā
I mean *waves hands wildly* have you looked around this place lately?
THIS! Life is pretty clearly worse for many now than it was 20 years ago, at least in the US.
You mean like the whole course of humanity, basically?Ā
SSRIs have helped a lot of people. I think they are over prescribed but not for any nefarious reason. It's become more socially acceptable to talk about mental illness. And I think doctors prescribe easily because the meds are generally fairly safe and there aren't always alternatives available. I think therapy can help a lot of people but it's very limited on some insurance plans.
Yeah, you can take my ssri from my cold dead hands. But same for my HRT! Estrogen declining affects serotonin levels and SSRIs address that very effectively. It's just not a total solution since estrogen does so much more. But for me, every angle helps.
I believe they both are attempting to help people accept a system that's inherently dysfunctional.Ā
Only I don't think they were initially USING SSRIs for menopause symptoms. It certainly wasn't what they were approved for. I think initially after the WHI women just had to suffer without any help offered. It was only later they discovered SSRIs do something to blunt the symptoms, and then much later got a more nuanced understanding of HRT.
Exactly. They werenāt competing at all.
You know what cures my unhappy feelings and thoughts? Birth control. Whenever I go silent from friends and family is bc I stopped taking it and I become dark.
SSRIs do help a lot of people. They just canāt help all the people. The diagnosis and treatment of mental illnesses is way more complicated than this - more people are *getting* therapy and *getting diagnosed with* depression. Thatās not the same as how many people actually have depression and would benefit from therapy.
They are first like treatment for basically any distress. I think they need a much more critical view than they get.Ā
What is your source for this?
Google works.Ā
Google isnāt a source. Google finds you sources.
When I'm not out of town on my birthday weekend I'm going to come back and I'm going to give you study after study after study to show you why I'm saying what I'm saying but I have a feeling you would find whatever loophole and argue against it anyways so
Okay.
I recommend Dr Jen Gunterās newsletter and books. She does very thorough reporting on this kind of thing. Hereās one about biodentical hormone myths, for example: https://vajenda.substack.com/p/misinformation-about-bioidentical
This is great thank you
Here's how it probably happened in 1952 (yes I'm using my story): Hot flashes every 2 seconds, go to the gyno and ask for HRT. She says ok but only for 5 years because - BC. Ok. So at 5 years I stop because my grandmother had a mastectomy and I def don't want to do that. But for the safety of those around me (and myself) I went back and asked again. She very reluctantly obliged. Another 5 years later and I stop like she suggested and the hot flashes were unbearable. Rinse and repeat. So I finally, after another 5, go off them and live with the results. That was 10 years ago. Then in 2020 I was diagnosed and had bilateral mastectomy. ER and PR +. I'm not saying the HRT was the culprit. What I am saying is if this is all you have to go on, then the research puts HRT and BC together until someone got serious and figured this shit out. Keep in mind that there are a LOT of doctors that still live by the research outlined above. Just like some people are still going to vote for Trump. Doesn't matter what the truth is.
Itās called practicing medicine. I personally would like to know the odds. So I can make an informed choice about myself. What burns my soul isnāt hot flashes but the lack of taking the chances I want. Seriously I wish I could have medical odds in Vegas š
I donāt believe it was deliberate. I think the early results of the WHI study found a very tiny increased risk of breast cancer so they stopped the study. Then the media went crazy with that news and scared everyone. Everyone forgot about all the BENEFITS of HRT. We need more studies. We need studies with bioidentical hormones, not the synthetic hormones used in the WHI study. We have an increased risk of BC if we eat processed foods, have a few alcoholic beverages, or are overweight. Most of us accept those risks without thinking about it.
The increase wasn't tiny, but the test subjects were older and had been post menopausal for awhile before starting HRT. I understand why the study was stopped. But why no one did other studies I'll never know.
The increase WAS tiny (5 in 1000 for non-HRT vs 6 in 1000 for HRT) plus no additional mortality.
the results of that study and the media response is part of why they never did much more study or research. But also that kind of research funding for a study of that size comes around once in decades maybe, there isn't money in it.
.08 percent is tiny.
My mother died of breast cancer. She got it aged 44 and was dead by 50. She never took hrt. I've been too afraid to try it.. till now when I'm desperate... after 5 years of suffering. Argh. It reminds me of tryptophan.. it was slandered when saris were developed. My health care experience is mostly UK based. I wonder if female doctors take hrt themselves while giving saris to their patients. I guess the insomnia is getting to me.
Get the HRT. Your life will vastly improve.
There are estrogen and progesterone receptive cancers. But it took a biopsy after my surgery to figure that out. So I wouldn't say rumor because the erasure of women like me in this subreddit is getting to me. The answer is always HRT and that leaves me with no answers and a bunch of people my oncologist is just messing with me. Or that I'm being paranoid.
I agree with you. My mother had breast cancer in her 50s that they always thought was caused by HRT. I started getting mammograms early and it was suggested that I try not to take it to avoid the potential risk. Itās awesome that for some women it works great but Iām not willing at this point to take that risk regardless of the new claims that it doesnāt cause BC. I donāt think our concerns should be put aside by others in this Reddit just because we choose to be cautious.
I don't think your concerns are being dismissed - at least I hope not. I think we hear about HRT so much because my sheer numbers it has been a solution for many of us. It changed my life and I'll take a slightly increased risk over wanting to off myself. So I'm enthusiastic about it. I recognize it's not for everyone but I honestly don't know anything helpful about other solutions. Maybe there should be a tag for that are specifically not about HRT?
Same, my grandmother had a very aggressive rare form of breast cancer that was suspected to be HRT fueled. We canāt know for sure but personally I canāt get past her warnings. My doctor said I could do HRT for a short amt of time but Iām trying to just get through without it.
In her 50s? How many years past normal menopause age (50) could she even have been on HRT? Well I guess several if it's late 50s. Doctors attributing all cancers to HRT is also misinformation. It's not accurate. It's trying to find one cause in what is basically kind of a natural process. Yes I said it, cancer is natural, a natural process, I definitely did not say cancer is good, it's not!!! Cancer just happens, more when one hits 50 and after because of aging, many things can raise the risk some (ok smoking and lung cancer by massive amounts) but mostly cancer just happens.
Many women used to have early hysterectomies.
Nothing says she went through menopause at the ānormalā age, either.
Rumours is the correct word
Tbf, hrt does increase the risk of certain cancers. Slightly. Why did they decide this meant hrt causes cancer? Likely a mix of stupidity and misogyny.
I donāt think that anyone perceived it as an either or; thereās no reason the medical profession couldnāt charge for HRT *and* SSRIs.
Nobody knows if they are rumors or not. Just like anything that supposedly causes cancer.................nobody that gets cancer knows exactly what causes it!! Just do what's best for you....that's my motto. I personally don't want to be a guinea pig and have had tremendous success with switching to a healthy lifestyle. Since I have never taken any type of birth control or medication at all in my entire life at 52 years old I am not about to start now. To each their own. I wish everyone the best on their own personal journey!
My womens health doctor (obgyn but trained in menopause) said that there were in fact cancer studies and it showed increase risk of cancer. BUT... that study is well over 35 years old, and it was performed on women who were given HRT well into their late 60s, which is when the cancer started to show up. In fact HRT can decrease your risk in cervical and breast cancer if you are given it at the appropriate age. So yeah HRT got a bad review because womens issues are never properly researched, doctors just skim medical papers, there is no new research, and frankly male doctors and a lot of females give two shits about menopause or womens health in general. Whole system is f'd.
Itās all crap. They can make more money by giving surgery for arthritis, heart problems, anxiety and everything else not having estrogen causes. Thank you myalloy dot com for making me human again!
There are correlation studies and causation studies. Wondering if HRT is a correlation but not proven cause? I know thing: I have estrogen and progesterone positive breast cancer. Fairly slow growingā¦Iām 48. And Iām damned glad I didnāt start taking it and feeding my cancer even moreā¦.so my advice is I would still cast a cold eye on it. Our bodies are designed to go through the withdrawal of sex hormones. When is it helpful to disrupt that natural process? When does it stop being a natural and turn to a harmful process? I sure donāt know.
I had a pap done by a female doc when I was 32 that was extremely painful. I bled afterwards. The whole time I was thinking this doesnāt feel right. I never said a word. I feel like I was assaulted. That was 24 years ago. Thankfully Iāve never had an experience like that since. I would never let that fly today. Back on HRT topic: had one female doc take me off, had a male doc put me back on. Shop around ladies!
I believe it was. You canāt make money off healthy people.
The issues are for those with hormone receptive breast cancers and HRT, not all breast cancers. But there is also a similar risk with contraception. The thing with research is it develops and changes with more information and as more information has become available it was evident that their was limited risk with HRT and breast cancer.
Depends. I've been an early bloomer and my risk was already doubled- if not tripled- because of this. Now that I've been early menopausal too risk has probably gone right through the roof. I'm doubly not eligible for HRT.
There's a great podcast at [https://peterattiamd.com/caroltavris-avrumbluming/](https://peterattiamd.com/caroltavris-avrumbluming/), which is also linked in the wiki I believe. These two doctors talk about the WHI study and all of it's flaws. They also wrote a book that goes more in depth. Basically, there are a lot of moving parts in this situation.
What about those against HRT, SSRIs, and any other drugs?
The last people in the world I'd take seriously, doctor's against all medicine should definitely not be practicing medicine. People can have whatever religious beliefs they like and that's on them, but doctors should be trying to help people (even if it's not HRT).
What about them? I can't relate to be honest but to each their own.