Print

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

[bear]

As has already been said by  Prof Michael Baum – the study is extremely complex and entails very involved multivariate statistical analysis in relation to a condition for which there are many confounding factors as all the medical experts have recognised and several of us have pointed out on here.

This is what he said: “This paper is extremely difficult to understand even by an expert like me, and I would need many hours to ingest it all”

Medical doctors (private or NHS, or both) have their own opinion on the matter, but that's what it is, their opinion. I wouldn't take their word as gospel, when many are on the hormone business.


BeaR.

I'm not sure what you mean here bear?  Because this is a statistical analysis of a collection of data it is all open to interpretation, including from the authors of the study.  The medical doctors (private and NHS) who have provided the main critiques of this study are forming an informed judgement based on the evidence. Do you mean that you do not trust their opinion – because they are “on the hormone business”? I really don't understand what you're saying. Of course they prescribe hormones – it is their job to prescribe appropriate licensed medication including HRT. There have been many informed responses to the study by leading gynaecologists and menopause specialists. I for one trust that they have read understood and digested this new study and have found its flaws and where appropriate recognised its strengths far better than I can with my limited understanding of it all.

Hurdity x

Sorry, but Prof. Baum has said himself that he, an expert, finds it extremely difficult to understand this paper, so what makes you think that the 'many informed responses to the study by leading gynaecologists and menopause specialists' are responses based on a deep understanding of this study?

At this time it's dangerous to jump to any conclusions, both pro and against the study. I think it's great to have studies like this to be scrutinised by everyone interested in the subject and affected by it. Time and a lot more research will tell.

Regarding the hormone business, I was referring to doctors that are 'menopause experts' and make money out of menopause treatments in their private practice. Nothing wrong with that! I just don't take their word as gospel, they are entitled to their 'expert' opinions, but as a scientist myself I regard them as peers, not authorities. They can sell and prescribe HRT as much as they see fit, but diminishing the importance of this study like this quote from Prof. Studd, posted on this thread...

'Transdermal oestrogens , gels patches or implants with minimal progesterone (not synthetic progestogen ) is very safe and beneficial
Be careful of these controversial studies announced at a press conference on Wednesday
, embargoed until publication on the Friday. It then becomes front page news before the
scientific community have been able to study the complex data The same Oxford group
played the same trick 10 years ago with their flawed Million Women Study and the
discredited and harmful WHI study'

... sounds very unprofessional to me. To say that any drug is 'very safe and beneficial' is also reckless, no drug can be called very safe, particularly drugs that have not been the subject to extensive and appropriate long term studies. Bioidenticals are better than non-bioidenticals, but they are drugs, have side effects and have not been prescribed for an extended period of time yet. The argument that non-oral HRT is safer than oral is correct, but that doesn't make it 'very safe'.

Implying that brilliant Epidemiologists are 'playing tricks' is just beyond my comprehension. No comment.

BeaR.

[CLKD]

I HATE the word 'expert' with a vengeance .  No one is 'expert' at anything.  So-called 'experts' have caused enormous problems in the health service   

It amazes me that people drink and/or smoke without giving much thought to health issues but HRT raises it's head and everyone jumps on the 'it's dangerous'.  If it is so dangerous why aren't women advised to have breasts removed prior to HRT treatments?

[Sparrow]

I HATE the word 'expert' with a vengeance .  No one is 'expert' at anything.  So-called 'experts' have caused enormous problems in the health service   

It amazes me that people drink and/or smoke without giving much thought to health issues but HRT raises it's head and everyone jumps on the 'it's dangerous'.  If it is so dangerous why aren't women advised to have breasts removed prior to HRT treatments?

Drink and tobacco are recreational.  HRT is prescribed by the NHS.

I think there is a clue there.

[bear]

I brough this up with my Meno dr after my GP nagged me every three months about risks. She said it is my right to decide what I want to be on if I choose to be on HRT she has to give it to me.

So, I printed one from articles at that time, one about this very study bein discredited, and took it with me to GP.

It said very clearly that the risk is to women with large breasts, who are obese, and on booze.

Here is the best summary I've read so far:

1. Women who take HRT are less likely to DIE of breast cancer than those who've never taken it

2. Women who take HRT and do develop breast cancer have a significantly better 10 year survival (80%) than those who've never taken it (64%)

3. Women who take HRT have a lower all-cause mortality than those who've never taken it - due mostly to a substantially reduced risk of death from heart attack

4. The risks of being denied HRT far outweigh any from taking it, as there is a “Mortality Toll” from HRT avoidance

When I was deciding to go on HRT, which we all know that is not perfect, only one thing was known for sure, that it protects against Osteoporosis. My Grandma spent her last 5 years in bed with broken bones that could not be put back together from it, so genetically I am prone, hence my decision. I am 19 years on it, and intend to continue!

Best!

Hi orrla,

I also would like to know which studies are behind those conclusions. Any chance of a link?

I understand your fears, and osteoporosis is a big one. No one is saying that HRT cannot be taken by women who have an underlying condition that can be treated by hormones, particularly surgical menopause. Osteoporosis is a valid motive for hormonal therapy when there's family history of the disease, which by the way, is my own case. My Mum had osteoporosis, I'm not on HRT (long story) but I have annual DEXA scans to keep an eye on it, and if my readings get worse I will do whatever it takes to improve them, diet, exercise and as a last resource, HRT.

BeaR.

[orrla]

The clue is in critical thinking, CKLD!

What works for me might not work for you, and opposite.

[Jari]

I'm with you on this BeaR. Absolutely have no trust in private « meno specialists Â»

Of course they encourage women to take hrt, along with the follow up appointments and the odd minor surgery... they have their mortgages to pay. I don't trust a word they say...

I do trust my NHS GP, who is utterly against it, in my case. Plus for women generally, she says to take for the least amount of time.

Orrla, I can't find where your 4 point summary is written. If you see it again, can you post the link as I'd be interested to read it. Thanks!

X

[orrla]

This is becoming like with abortion... or Brexit!

 

[Sparrow]

Same as with abortion...

What??

I'm totally lost now. 

[dahliagirl]

The Labours of Eve.

There is much moralising on 'interfering with nature'

Women were born to suffer.

[orrla]

No matter how many times one will repeat over and over that chances of getting breast cancer are minimal, there always be that noise from ppl who read one headline and now are screaming that they do not trust experts, research, specialists, etc...

.... but trust blindly all sensational headlines!

ps: up until end of 19th century most women were dead before menopause, exhausted from numerous childbirth and work they were made to do, most were gone before their 50s.

Fast forward, our situation is of luxurious one in comparison to other parts, at least in UK or US.

Medical industry keeps developing new ways of extending our lives, including HRT, but nothing is perfect. Trial and error will get women there, eventually.  So far most live beyond their 90 .... Dwell on this!

Good evening!

[Jari]

Hi Orrla, I agree with you that people should not believe sensational headlines.

I still can't find your 4 point summary... it's stating the opposite of other reports, so I'd be interested in reading it, please post the link if you can find it..

Best to trust your instincts and read the facts and research reports, making sure to bear in mind who has written the reports and to ask ourselves if they might have some kind of an agenda.

Scientific reports are probably the best to trust.

Take care. X

[CLKD]

Or women were put into mental institutions due to becoming unstable with The Change.  My granny had what we would call post natal depression but was locked away and had agerophobia for ever.  . Both grannies lived into their early 80s as did their sisters except 1, who died in her 50s.  Both had access to fresh fruit and veg in season; sorry, I digress 

People drink/smoke without thinking about it, put an HRT prescription in front of them and they query every squiggle  . 

Quality of Life girls!

[Bobidy]

Hi, this has inevitably created a lively debate but I think one thing we can all trust and agree about is the info on the Cancer Research UK site re breast cancer:

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/breast-cancer/risks-causes/risk-factors

This provides perspective and shows the multitude of factors at play for breast cancer cause, plus how we can proactively minimise our risks.

I think we can all agree that hrt is a personal choice that, like bcp, we would all rather never have to take in an ideal world. Much like any medication really which can all cause side effects.

What we do all deserve is quality individualised meno / hrt guidance so we can make an informed choice, balancing personal risks and benefits. Women should only ever be prescribed the safest forms of hrt. It's the nationwide inconsistency of this care that needs sorting out. Again, in an ideal world nobody should ever need to pay privately for it.

Im hoping that if our discussion is anything to go by the same is happening further up the tree that can bring more positive change for womens' healthcare (fingers crossed) x

[Sarah Bridget]

Whilst obviously no one wants breast cancer at all , I believe the study highlights risks of getting the disease, not dying from it . As has been stated , the data is complex but I feel the relative risks have been slightly better reported/explained in the media this time . But “ double the risk “ is not helpful ..!
I too feel sooo much better on HRT and whilst the paper is unsettling, I feel it gives useful information .

[Jari]

Totally agree Bobidy and Sarah. Thanks for that link Bobidy. Very important to keep active, bmi watch and keeping alcohol to limits if at all.

Keeping hrt to under 5 years is also an important one. I hadn't realised the risk continues for 10 years after use.

This topic certainly does bring healthy debate.

Take care all. X