I saw the documentary and actually was very shocked at the approach. Because I’ve been doing other stuff I haven’t kept up with everything that’s going on but although the criticisms (of the blanket approach of oestrogen oestrogen and more oestrogen) are valid I was shocked at the vehemence with which they demolished the Newson clinic’s approach and particularly Louise Newson herself and I'm not sure of the motivation behind this.
I haven’t been a patient of hers either but the second half or two thirds of the programme almost portrayed her as some evil woman bent on causing harm to other women for the sake of money and disregarding safety, when in reality she has done a huge amount to publicise menopause more recently. Although I do disagree with her approach, I felt for her, personally as I thought it was very unfair. Also I disagree with private clinics that charge so much and for example admire the other specialists – like Paula Briggs and Heather Currie who spoke on the programme who as far as I know either don’t practice privately or maybe in a very limited way.
“The BMS need to follow strict guidelines to receive their funding” - someone said this earlier in the thread.
The point is that the BMS is the professional body specialising in menopause and as such is underpinned by science and evidence. This and other such organisations exist across the whole range of scientific disciplines and most have their own journals where the latest research is published. Because they are evidence based then there is necessarily a delay in new guidelines etc as research takes time. This doesn’t make them old-fashioned nor does the fact that they are a charity make them corrupt or only interested in funds. Their accreditation system necessarily will give approval to those who follow guidelines and licensed regimes so that we women know who to trust on the whole and who perhaps to be more wary of.
Here is what they say on their website:
“The British Menopause Society (BMS) is the specialist authority for menopause and post reproductive health in the UK. Established in 1989, the BMS educates, informs and guides healthcare professionals, working in both primary and secondary care, on menopause and all aspects of post reproductive health.”
“All BMS resources are evidence based, peer reviewed and they incorporate recommendations for best practice from both national and international guidelines.”
I can’t really add anything to some of the excellent points already made on this thread but to say I agree as we know that the NHS is woefully underfunded sending many women to private treatment and all the inequalities associated with that.
Also the point about dosage vs oestrogen levels and testing – agree with all that. However the specialists consulted did say that they individualised their treatments and were in fact prepared to prescribe unlicensed regimes in certain cases and therefore “think outside of the box”.
I think the main criticism if borne out in practice, of not looking at the woman’s complete health picture during consultations – may well be valid?
A bit off topic but the old issue about gels – someone said the gel was watered down to make it go further. This can’t possibly be the case. There are very rigorous quality control measures in place so any deviation from both the concentration of estradiol and total amount in a pack would not be picked up. Say what you like about big pharma but this is an absolutely fundamental principle. Variation in dose due to variable pump mechanisms may play a part but dose concentration is still the same. If a bit less comes out in one dose then more will need to be applied but should not result in more being used if you see what I mean (as an aside I find this with Lenzetto – the spray amount is variable depending on how much is left in the canister and the priming).
Hurdity x
