Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tempest]

Oh, gawd!!! Another 'study'. I really wish the press would stop grabbing on everything to do with women's health and whipping up hysteria, especially anything to do with HRT. As you all know, I am uterus and ovary-less but do read with great interest all of your posts on the trials of progesterone. I'm thinking very strongly that this aspect of HRT needs a serious reconsideration by the medical community as the synthetic progs. seem so problematic and there is so much conflicting advice with the Utrogestan on exactly HOW to use it. A complete nightmare at a time when women need effective regimes that actually work!! For a health professional to say 'oh, but your hot flushes have diminished haven't they' when you feel like crap on the regime you're on is nothing short of a disgrace. When are they going to realise it's NOT ALL ABOUT HOT FLUSHES?

This is why the private sector is thriving. Every woman is treated as an individual, and not just given an HRT picked by their GP just because it's the one that the majority of women in their practice gets along with (I suspect a lot of them DONT get along with it and give up, and then shuffle off in despair to haunt the aisles of a well known chain of health stores in pursuit of something, ANYTHING that might help).

I'm adding to my private healthcare fund weekly. I've TOLD Hubby that this is how it's going to be, if I don't find the improvement to my quality of life via the NHS that I need. He's just bought a new car, so its not like he can argue!!!

[Dawncam]

My first post on MM so forgive me if I get it wrong!

Interestingly, my first exposure to this news was by a woefully ill-advised meno nurse who seemed to delight in imparting such 'bad news'. This nurse, by the way, was sketchy on the difference between conti and Sequi. It's beggars belief sometimes. She obviously disapproved of hrt and it's not the first time at this clinic that I've had 'odd' treatment. Things such as "well, yes, it's ok but obviously you need to remember you'll be coming off this soon" and "I'm happy to prescribe this with a view to discussing coming off at some point soon" - always women and always delivered in a pointed tone. I've been using hrt for 5 years so not quite ready to give up! The most eye opening statement was from the actual consultant who stated that I wasn't to get too 'hung up' on bio- identical hrt and would give me a scan and all other singing and dancing add-ons if I had a mirena fitted! What's this about? Budgets? She also disallowed alt day utrogest use but has allowed it on here for another lady who visited her. On the day after a flawed study scares women into stopping their hrt and enduring miserable half lives the very people who should help are advocating the drugs that might be causing the problems!

This needs to stop! And I'm not convinced it's not linked to anti depressant drug companies pressure.

[Tempest]

Stellajane, let me tell you that they already see HRT in surgical menopause as 'non essential'! I was fobbed off for over a year following my surgery, and I was only 46 when I had my operation.

I can see the day coming, I really can. GP's already see it as us just being neurotic (I know I'm generalising, but i should say this has been my experience and the experience of many other ladies I have spoken to recently who are in natural menopause).

I was also told by my GP that she has a '3 strikes and then you're out' policy on HRT. This was before I kicked up such a big fuss recently and my Hubby complained and I got a referral to a Menopause Consultant. The GP said if I tried three types and then couldn't settle on any of them, then I would have to have antidepressants instead. Although I have to say that she put me on antidepressants first when I first asked for HRT! I tried 3 of those, and felt horrible and had problems with all of them.

[peegeetip]

As said earlier - this is not even published properly yet.

Terrible for a Nurse to even comment. Nurse is not even qualified to make that judgement or understand the figure or the impact it has on people.
She's wrong on 5 years as there is no limit for ladies to take hrt now - its up to you.

Even the numbers in 1000 - 14 to 34 was mentioned but no specific type (5 years or 15 years!!!) terrible reporting btw. All for the OOOH! factor perhaps.
The 54% mentioned would be 14 to 21 surely ? so where do we get the 34.
14 to 34 is actually an increase of just over 140%!!? Someone is either making this up or has no idea how to count. 

We are really only talking about 1.5 to 3.0% change here (within 1000). 

Is this just re-running the numbers from other reports and studies as they did a few years ago.

In any study they run you could get variations each time you run the numbers and the people involved within these sort of numbers.

These studies dont fully explore or explain the group that made up the increase in numbers.

1) had they had children (i'll come back to that)
2) do they drink or have been honest about drinking alcohol
3) what other lifestyle traits did they have (smoking, eating smoked meats etc) dont laugh
4) where they lived (pollution)
5) what their own genetics/dna would cause

Ultimately, until we are informed on the wider issues and are able to discern the true cause then we are always going to be unsure.
Blaming it on one thing seems unfair and seems to lead to scare stories - especially when there are some many factors including damned "LUCK"!

If they really cared then if they pushed for more ladies to stop drinking then the breast cancer rate would plummet.
Just look at Cancer Research's own figures - the increase in Breast Cancer over the years follows the availability/affordability of Alcohol!
Coincidence?

However we dont see anyone trying to stop us enjoying alcohol on a regular as we like basis (or in the same hard line manner as the nurse mentioned above).

Going back to having kids, the breast is made up of cells, and the cells change when we have kids.
There is evidence that having kids and breast feeding protects the breasts.
However when pushed there is nowhere to check on which ladies had the extra cancers.
Did they have kids, did they drink, did they have traits that would have led to this cancers anyway? Your guess is as good as mine.

Just remember they hid the results for Estrogen only HRT actually seemed to reduce Breast Cancer!

A lot needs to be answered before we put ourselves and our lives back to before the introduction of the pill and hrt.
Or perhaps thats what some want.

 

[Dorothy]

I hope we don't come to a time where treating symptoms of menopause at normal age is seen as non-essential on the NHS. Unfortunately its not difficult to forsee a time when only women undergoing early menopause would be treated, with the rest having to go to a private clinic, or suffer.

Hahaha!  Try getting early meno treated even now!  Took me 5 years to get any kind of help!  Best comment I had was from a (female) gynae who asked me why I was 'bothering' them and taking up 'women's healthcare resources' when I wasn't able to have children...  Presumably only those with good 'breeding' potential are worthy of precious NHS resources. 

[Tempest]

Dorothy, that is BEYOND disgusting!!!!!!!! I'm so sorry you were treated so appallingly!!!

[peegeetip]

Just stick to the "pill" instead - dont come off it early. No need to await HRT - and the pill is free. Just ensure your pill is a single / mono phasic one - so you'll get the same estrogen portion thru the month

Just an update, they are playing with tiny numbers!!!

http://breastcancernow.org/news-and-blogs/news/effect-of-combined-hrt-on-breast-cancer-risk-likely-to-have-been-underestimated

This is all that can be found and seems to contradict the Telegraph report - if we're even on the same planet 

This overview mentions a risk increase from 1.7 to 2.7 - this is where the telegraph gets its 54%.

Bare in mind that the risk for alcohol - depending on how much you consume is in the same "window" of risk (1.5 to 3.0) for Breast Cancer.

1.0 would mean no risk or change btw.

I can't really see their real figures from this page - but it seems familiar (100000 ladies) (39000 meno) etc etc. I'm sure I've seen this before.

But bare in mind this. The 3.3 times figure they are talking about is 3.3 times the extra ones they think might be getting it from HRT.

So
if they found that in every 1000 ladies 20 got Breast Cancer (without HRT)
if they found that in every 1000 ladies 21 got Breast Cancer (with HRT original study)
if they found that in every 1000 ladies 24.3 got Breast Cancer (with HRT newish study??)

So the newish study has 3.3 times more ?! Now you can see how they are playing with very small numbers here.

However anyone getting cancer is a terrible thing. However its even more terrible to play constantly with ladies and families lives on the back of statistics.

Run this again and again and they will get a different answer each time, up , down , the same. That is what statistics are.

Statistics is the study of the collection, analysis, interpretation, presentation, and organization of data.

Any change or deviation in the way any of those items are done and you'll get a new and different result.

So if we just did this for teetotal ladies the answer would be different again but it maybe the same

Just google "Misuse of Statistics"

As I said earlier - these are similar to what you'd see if someone drank a lot of alcohol in risk terms and numbers of extra breast cancers.

They also go onto say that 90 genetics issues have been associated with breast cancers - and thats sounds like an awful lot of combinations thru the number of woman they followed up over 6 years only (not the 40 years total mentioned)

In all its still very unclear what they are trying to get thru here - as this is all numbers, issues and scare stories that have been rolled out many times.

Could this be sour grapes after NICE setting out in a new direction with HRT?

 

[Hurdity]

My first post on MM so forgive me if I get it wrong!

Interestingly, my first exposure to this news was by a woefully ill-advised meno nurse who seemed to delight in imparting such 'bad news'. This nurse, by the way, was sketchy on the difference between conti and Sequi. It's beggars belief sometimes. She obviously disapproved of hrt and it's not the first time at this clinic that I've had 'odd' treatment. Things such as "well, yes, it's ok but obviously you need to remember you'll be coming off this soon" and "I'm happy to prescribe this with a view to discussing coming off at some point soon" - always women and always delivered in a pointed tone. I've been using hrt for 5 years so not quite ready to give up! The most eye opening statement was from the actual consultant who stated that I wasn't to get too 'hung up' on bio- identical hrt and would give me a scan and all other singing and dancing add-ons if I had a mirena fitted! What's this about? Budgets? She also disallowed alt day utrogest use but has allowed it on here for another lady who visited her. On the day after a flawed study scares women into stopping their hrt and enduring miserable half lives the very people who should help are advocating the drugs that might be causing the problems!

This needs to stop! And I'm not convinced it's not linked to anti depressant drug companies pressure.

Hi Dawncam - sorry your post seems to have been missed - if it had been in the new members section it would have been seen but it got lost amidst all the controversy about the recent news!

I agree your treatment is poor and yet another example of ill-informed medical professionals. The meno-nurse should not be practising if she doesn't know such basic information! Also the consultant not giving you the respect to decide your own course of treatment ( I presume you mean oestrogen and progesterone when you mention bio-identical - and not the expensive compounded treatment?).

I hope you manage to get the treatment you need

 

Hurdity x

[CLKD]

Welcome Dawncam - start a thread about yourself so that you don't get 'missed' ?

I was disgusted that The Telegraph became yet another headline grabber   

[Dancinggirl]

This latest announcement has got me thinking!!!???  I'm probably completely ‘off the wall' here but I want to share...
The observations of this research/study, so comparing the women who have used HRT and those that have not, throws up some interesting questions: 
Firstly, as we have all quickly picked up on -  why is it combined HRT, which includes progesterone, that brings this very small additional risk of developing breast cancer - why aren't they looking at this in more detail as progesterone could be a key causal trigger for BC - research into this in all women (whether taking any hormones or not) could be interesting. A study looking at women's hormone levels overall might throw up some clues? Is it the menopause itself with all the hormonal fluctuations that brings the trigger for BC?

The claims of this study are not saying HRT actually causes breast cancer - as Dr. Currie pointed out - in fact I think the earlier findings actually showed that hysterectomised women were at lower risk of getting BC if using oestrogen - maybe this has changed???.

It is well known that women from their mid 50s and through their 60s,70s (when oestrogen levels are at their lowest ) are increasingly more likely to develop breast cancer (whether they take HRT or not) so I assume the claim is that HRT might encourage those who are already at risk to develop cancer sooner or perhaps that BC might not have developed without the presence of progesterone.
This leads me to question: Are women who need HRT because meno symptoms are quite severe and life limiting, perhaps slightly more prone to developing BC anyway? Do women who sail through their menopause have a good low level of oestrogen through peri and post meno which is actually protective? Genetics has a very big role to play in whether we develop BC or not and life style choices are also crucial but are they ignoring some other crucial factors.
Perhaps getting the right hormone treatment for women, who suffer bad meno symptoms, might actually be protective?  We know that HRT protects the heart and bones for the long term - perhaps better hormone treatment is the key?

The post BC treatment of giving tamoxifen may reduce oestrogen in the body but brings the risk of developing womb cancer - not sure why - does the womb lining over thin or become thickened? In the absence of oestrogen do other hormonal or chemical reactions in our bodies cause cancer triggers or problems? Tamoxifen seems to be given to all BC patients and I assume not all these BC cases were oestrogen receptive - should they not be more careful about who gets Tamoxifen?

One of the good things that comes out of this study is the confirmation that oestrogen alone is not a risk factor, so for those of us who will need local oestrogen for VA and bladder problems should not be denied life long treatment for these problems.

I think this study throws up more questions than conclusions and facts.  The medical and research scientists really do need to be more cautious about how they present findings - they know that the media loves to over blow scary stuff.  There are so few certainties in life but spreading unnecessary fears is also irresponsible - it can ruin lives.  DG x

 

[hotstff]

I hope we don't come to a time where treating symptoms of menopause at normal age is seen as non-essential on the NHS. Unfortunately its not difficult to forsee a time when only women undergoing early menopause would be treated, with the rest having to go to a private clinic, or suffer.

Theresa May's bound to be on HRT (you'd have to be, to cope with doing her job) and hopefully she will have empathy and ensure that HRT remains available on the NHS for the foreseeable future.

We can but hope!

[Dancinggirl]

Yes, hotstuff and Stellajane - I can certainly see the day when many things will only be available privately.  Many treatments are being rationed and if there are any risks with HRT (however small) then this gives a wonderful excuse not to have it as standard treatment - we have a blame culture these days with many seeking compensation that might make prescribing HRT something the NHS does not want responsibility for. 

When I was suffering with depression my GP did prescribe Prozac for me. Our local chemist printed out the side effects and actually took time to explain these to me; he was concerned about me taking them - I had small children at that time and was even taking other peoples children on the school run in my car as well - he knew this and wanted me to be aware that I might not be safe to look after the children in the first few weeks.  His advice was invaluable and I decided not to take these drugs. It is known that many people react very badly to ADs/SRRIs, particularly in the first few weeks, yet they are dished out without any warnings or advice by most GPs.  I believe there are also now concerns about long term use of ADs/SRRIs!!!

Ironically, I know 4 women who have had BC and non of them had HRT -  one died aged 52, one had extensive treatment with mastectomy plus chemo, radiation etc. when she was 55  - another had very early stages but still had mastectomy and she was 52 and the forth just had a bit of chemo when she was 63.  All slim, fit, good diets etc. and no family history of BC. I know a lady in her late 80s still on HRT - she is slim and fit, she is not bent with osteoporosis but agile, alert and full of life.

We get quite a few women posting on MM who have experienced early menopause and simply told they have to ‘ride the storm' and not given HRT by their GPs or taken off it too early because of the 5 year cut off. I do hope these women sue the NHS for malpractice should they develop heart disease or osteoporosis?
I have to say, if I was in my 30s or even mid 40s and my GP or even the gynae refused HRT, I would ask he or she to put in writing why they do not believe I need HRT as I would want evidence in the event I develop heart disease or osteoporosis.  It's sad we might need to resort to this kind of tactic.

Menopause is part of the ageing process and the consequences of oestrogen deficiency is very clear.  As prevention is the key in terms of keeping us healthier for longer, keeping us all productive in the workplace for longer and saving the NHS and the country money, it would make far more sense they spend time and money on researching what can be done to prevent the negative effects of this oestrogen deficiency - sadly good lifestyle choices are simply not enough for many.
Dg x

[Dandelion]

My vaginal atrophy was so bad that I require local and full HRT , and quite frankly I don't think I would be here if HRT is taken from me because of reports like this.

Three times the risk , you still need to realise the amount in percentages though.

I no three ladies with BC , one extremely aggressive NONE of them have ever been on HRT.

I have considered a hyster to get rid of the progesterone part, but that comes along with potential problems later also with a vaginal vault prolapse.

We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. 😔

Without HRT I think I would have committed suicide by now, my flushes and moods were terrible, and I would put the moods akin with drug withdrawal.
I will continue to take HRT, it's my body, and it should be upto me if I want to run the risk of breast cancer.
I would rather die of breast cancer at 50yrs old, than live to 85yrs old miserable.
Quality of life is the bottom line, not quantity.
I don't have the money to go private, but doctors don't own my body.

[Dandelion]

I am trying so hard to get the regime I think might work best for me via the NHS but if it doesn't work I think I could possibly put the £300 quoted to see Prof  Studd on a credit card. I too am currently on benefits due to long term ill health, have no savings, live a hand to mouth existence and have not a soul I could ask for money.  I could resent putting money on a credit card for private treatment and am also angry that it can be such a battle to get what we need on the NHS but my life seriously isn't worth living like this and I'd have no qualms about ending either (please don't worry I am quite sane, have thought it through very carefully and it will impact nobody) but the ultimatum I gave myself is not until I had exhausted all routes.  I'm that desperate now and even though I only have £30.48 to my name am glad and grateful to know about ALL options.

Without HRT, my life would not be worth living. Started flushes at 42rs old, blamed meds. They got worse and worse and I got anxious about the most ridiculous things, but they would worry me sick. No quality of life. No family either, well I do have one, but I keep away from them, because my life would not be worth living with them in iit.

[Dawncam]

Thank you Hurdity and CLKD - I'm afraid I don't know how to start a thread about myself or the newbie section. Would you please direct me. Many thanks