Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Please have a look at the questionnaire page if you have a spare minute.

media

Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24

Author Topic: Louise Newson  (Read 41501 times)

Dandelion

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2030
Re: Louise Newson
« Reply #330 on: November 09, 2024, 08:49:54 AM »

Just to say that wasn't my experience at Newson this year.   I didn't need  Oestrogen levels to be taken.   I did have a T level because the GP had tested it but I don't believe that is required.   I do need a test at 3 months to continue T.
Hello  :)
Would the NHS not give you T?
If not, why not?
I ask, as the NHS are doing a T blood test this coming Friday for me, and GP will prescribe if my levels are low enough, but I understand private clinics idea of low testosterone is a higher figure, and if so, private might still be on the table for me.
Thank you.
Logged

Seasidegirl

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 140
Re: Louise Newson
« Reply #331 on: November 09, 2024, 11:00:57 AM »

Just to say that wasn't my experience at Newson this year.   I didn't need  Oestrogen levels to be taken.   I did have a T level because the GP had tested it but I don't believe that is required.   I do need a test at 3 months to continue T.
Hello  :)
Would the NHS not give you T?
If not, why not?
I ask, as the NHS are doing a T blood test this coming Friday for me, and GP will prescribe if my levels are low enough, but I understand private clinics idea of low testosterone is a higher figure, and if so, private might still be on the table for me.
Thank you.

Yes, exactly as your final sentence.   GP did test but used lab ref range that started at 0.01 so my 0.8 was perfectly fine according to GP
Logged

Dandelion

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2030
Re: Louise Newson
« Reply #332 on: November 10, 2024, 02:34:29 PM »

Just to say that wasn't my experience at Newson this year.   I didn't need  Oestrogen levels to be taken.   I did have a T level because the GP had tested it but I don't believe that is required.   I do need a test at 3 months to continue T.
Hello  :)
Would the NHS not give you T?
If not, why not?
I ask, as the NHS are doing a T blood test this coming Friday for me, and GP will prescribe if my levels are low enough, but I understand private clinics idea of low testosterone is a higher figure, and if so, private might still be on the table for me.
Thank you.

Yes, exactly as your final sentence.   GP did test but used lab ref range that started at 0.01 so my 0.8 was perfectly fine according to GP
I'm really sorry to hear that the NHS would allow you to suffer the symptoms of low testosterone, given T can be so beneficial in many ways.
Do you mind me asking if you are peri or post meno?
I ask because, while this is no excuse to deprive you of testosterone, I wonder if my levels might be lower as I am post meno, if T levels are higher in peri, that is.
Logged

Seasidegirl

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 140
Re: Louise Newson
« Reply #333 on: November 10, 2024, 02:59:24 PM »

Hi Dandelion.  I'm peri.   I think my GP's view was that anything in range so over 0.1 was OK!

I've been taking T for 5 weeks,  I'm a bit complicated as I've got other issues going on (likely thyroid disorder and a problematic progesterone reaction) so I don't feel as well a I first did on HRT.    But.... tentatively I think I might be feeling a bit better 🤞

I hope you get a good response from your GP
Logged

Dandelion

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2030
Re: Louise Newson
« Reply #334 on: November 12, 2024, 01:01:12 AM »

Hi Dandelion.  I'm peri.   I think my GP's view was that anything in range so over 0.1 was OK!

I've been taking T for 5 weeks,  I'm a bit complicated as I've got other issues going on (likely thyroid disorder and a problematic progesterone reaction) so I don't feel as well a I first did on HRT.    But.... tentatively I think I might be feeling a bit better 🤞

I hope you get a good response from your GP
Hello and thank you for your reply.
I wish you all the best on your journey.
Logged

Peana

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Louise Newson
« Reply #335 on: November 21, 2024, 12:57:32 PM »

A bit late to the thread, however, I finally had a chance to watch the youtube video from Paula Rastrick who appears in the Panorama programme.  I found it interesting to get more background about the programme, so thought I'd share it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8ruGzcc7NM&t=1s

I think Louise N has done an amazing job of making the discussion around menopause more mainstream and she does provide very accessible information (I regularly checkout her posts on youtube).  I personally feel that there is a case for treating women outside of the guidance, however, I also feel that this means they should be monitored more closely, and when not commercially sensitive or breaching patient confidentiallity, for more information to be shared about how this cohort of women resond to higher doses.  The health issues experienced by the women featured in the programme (both pre and post any MHT they received) must be devasting.
Logged

HellsBells

  • Guest
Re: Louise Newson
« Reply #336 on: December 20, 2024, 04:12:12 PM »

'There is no evidence for...' does NOT mean 'we have done the research/studies/testing and proved it is wrong'. It just mean it hasn't been properly tested according to medical protocols. The biochemists may have proved it but that is not enough for doctors. I started supplementing with Vitamin D in 2009 after having cancer through looking at the biochem research and now it is mainstream. No recurrence and glad I didn't wait. Same principle applies here with HRT.
Logged

CLKD

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 78761
  • changes can be scary, even when we want them
Re: Louise Newson
« Reply #337 on: December 20, 2024, 04:40:57 PM »

Also researchers will leave out anything that might be negative to proving their cause!
Logged

joziel

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Louise Newson
« Reply #338 on: December 20, 2024, 05:50:19 PM »

And there is zero money in natural/body identical hormones because they are not patent-able drugs which can make big pharma loads of money - so there is no incentive for the research ever to be carried out. Who wants to wait for a bus which never comes, in the pouring rain?

And yes, it must be devastating for the women who developed health problems as a result of unbalanced hormones - but it is equally devastating for the billions of women who fail to receive high enough doses of estrogen on the NHS to adequately treat their symptoms. If I were on the NHS and didn't have access to the Newson Clinic, I would be shaking through the night, all night, jerking awake every time I begin to fall asleep and have my heart racing hard and fast all night.

No one would care about that, though - because it would be due to a withholding of care/medication, rather than through the application of medication. No heads would roll. Because we can't blame doctors for all the suffering which results because they are NOT prescribing something, can we? We can only find the minority of people who have suffered because they HAVE been prescribed something and then target those doctors.

'Do no harm' applies to refusing to prescribe and not just to prescribing. And there are so many women being HARMED through inadequate estradiol levels. Women who think they are fully protected against osteoporosis and then fall and fracture their pelvis and realise their estrogen levels are tiny. Women with cardiovascular disease and dementia, who wouldn't have these diseases if they had been able to absorb enough HRT from the max licensed dose - which they thought was protecting them.

So much harm being done, every day... from doctors who under-medicate, under-prescribe and under-treat. Far more than the very very few women they could rustle up who've been (arguably) over-treated.

Where's the TV programme about that, then?
« Last Edit: December 20, 2024, 05:51:57 PM by joziel »
Logged

pepperminty

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1373
Re: Louise Newson
« Reply #339 on: December 21, 2024, 08:24:17 AM »

And there is zero money in natural/body identical hormones because they are not patent-able drugs which can make big pharma loads of money - so there is no incentive for the research ever to be carried out. Who wants to wait for a bus which never comes, in the pouring rain?

And yes, it must be devastating for the women who developed health problems as a result of unbalanced hormones - but it is equally devastating for the billions of women who fail to receive high enough doses of estrogen on the NHS to adequately treat their symptoms. If I were on the NHS and didn't have access to the Newson Clinic, I would be shaking through the night, all night, jerking awake every time I begin to fall asleep and have my heart racing hard and fast all night.

No one would care about that, though - because it would be due to a withholding of care/medication, rather than through the application of medication. No heads would roll. Because we can't blame doctors for all the suffering which results because they are NOT prescribing something, can we? We can only find the minority of people who have suffered because they HAVE been prescribed something and then target those doctors.

'Do no harm' applies to refusing to prescribe and not just to prescribing. And there are so many women being HARMED through inadequate estradiol levels. Women who think they are fully protected against osteoporosis and then fall and fracture their pelvis and realise their estrogen levels are tiny. Women with cardiovascular disease and dementia, who wouldn't have these diseases if they had been able to absorb enough HRT from the max licensed dose - which they thought was protecting them.

So much harm being done, every day... from doctors who under-medicate, under-prescribe and under-treat. Far more than the very very few women they could rustle up who've been (arguably) over-treated.

Where's the TV programme about that, then?

I agree and also there is little opportunity to prescribe further drugs with HRT . Loads of long term medications that are prescribed cause many side effects, and make people sicker in the long run and there is the commercial opportunity to dish out more drugs - these pharmaceutical companies are  BIG business and not in it for the wonderful feeling they get making people better ! It is about risk and benefit and what doctors don't tell you about is the risk to benefit ration of many drugs. Also gender equality plays a part - HRT is for women, if it were for men it would be a different story.

PMxx
Logged

Mary G

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2680
Re: Louise Newson
« Reply #340 on: December 21, 2024, 12:54:30 PM »

I must say I have never understood the zero tolerance attitude to compounded/bespoke HRT.  I was certainly given a hard time on my compounded hormones thread in the Alternative Therapies section.  This is very strange considering the monitoring offered by the prescribing clinics is far superior to anything the NHS offers which seems to be virtually non existent and most women have never even had a uterine scan.

I think there are two reasons why the NHS are wedded to low dose oestrogen.  Firstly, they still seem terrified of those wretched and now discredited studies from 20 years ago and secondly, they keep overloading women with high doses progesterone while not giving them enough oestrogen.  This is because they are obsessed with endometrial hyperplasia but at the same time they refuse to properly monitor people.  Most women could probably take a higher dose of oestrogen and a lower dose of progesterone but they are prohibited from finding out via TVS scans.  This results in low HRT compliance and poor symptom control.

It's a nonsense and no wonder so many women seek help privately from specialists like Louise Newson.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2024, 12:56:25 PM by Mary G »
Logged

joziel

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Louise Newson
« Reply #341 on: December 22, 2024, 01:45:09 PM »

Totally, good points Mary.

The thing is, the NHS cannot manage the demand already for health services. If they gave everyone adequate estrogen and not tons of progesterone unnecessarily, they would (as you say) need to offer regular ultrasounds to monitor things. They just cannot provide this, the system would collapse. (Is already collapsing.) So instead they underprescribe E and overprescribe P and hope that will do the trick... so insane.
Logged

bombsh3ll

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1814
Re: Louise Newson
« Reply #342 on: December 22, 2024, 02:42:21 PM »

I actually think that if the whole picture were considered it would make economic sense to offer an annual well woman pelvic ultrasound.

This would prevent the suspected cancer pathway from being clogged up with everyone who has had a bit of spotting, and would remove the issue of many women having to be overtreated with progestogens in order to prevent a minority developing endometrial hyperplasia.

If it permitted more physiological dosing of estrogen rather than the palliative microdosing that is designed to stop women complaining of hot flushes, nothing more, there would also be far fewer cases of osteoporosis and premature cardiovascular disease down the line, as well as less prescriptions for painkillers, psychoactive medication, incontinence treatment etc...
Logged

CLKD

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 78761
  • changes can be scary, even when we want them
Re: Louise Newson
« Reply #343 on: December 22, 2024, 02:58:12 PM »

We should be encouraging our young people to exercise regularly, get off the vapes and eat plenty of dairy! 
Logged

joziel

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Louise Newson
« Reply #344 on: December 23, 2024, 12:46:21 PM »

I'm with you there, bombshell. Annual well-woman exam with ultrasound and smear, maybe mammograms or breast u/s too - all at a centre which just does this, for women.

It would exist, if it were about men's health.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24