Print

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

[Kathleen]

Hello again ladies.

I think the Panorama programme was also highlighting the need for follow up care and criticising the private clinics for not offering this service, especially when they prescribe high doses of  oestrogen off licence.
I believe that the NHS does not endorse the use of Utrogestan vaginally and this is another area where the treatment by the private sector is different.

The post on this thread from Chopsuey shows that a scan is beneficial even when there are no obvious problems to report.


Take care ladies.

K.

[CrispyChick]

I am actually quite shocked to hear that parts of the private sector, that gives our higher E doses, does not require regular scans. After all, it's at your cost.

Despite the bad press the bhrt clinics get from many members on this forum, they categorically will not pursue treatment for you without scans and mammogram. All at your own cost, obvs.

And, I should add, they don't offer these themselves, so they make no profit from it. 

But, this puts their safety profile in a good light.

[joziel]

There is no reason for women to be required to have scans just because they are taking a higher dose of E, if they are doing that because they don't absorb it well.

My serum estradiol level on TWELVE pumps of gel a day was 330pmol, which is the same as many women on 2-3 pumps of gel.

It makes zero sense to require scans on the basis of dosages. If they want to require women with serum estradiol over Xpmol to have scans, that would make more sense....

[Kathleen]

Hello again ladies.

I don't want to especially criticise the Newson Health clinic, it is just the only one I have used.
 It is true that they didn't provide or even suggest a scan when I was with them. They did however want me to have a blood test to make sure that my oestrogen levels were sufficient before starting testosterone. I had to arrange this with another private company that Newson Health had nominated ( I assume they have a contract with them ).  I went along to the appointment which was in another town,  and when I asked the Phlebotomist if I could be sent the results she said that wasn't possible as the information was for Newson Health only. It was then up to my doctor at NH to email the results to me, obviously I would be charged for this service.

I was a bit miffed that my results, from a test that I had arranged and paid for, were not available to me personally and I would have to pay again to receive them.

Moan over!

Take care ladies.

K.

[joziel]

That doesn't sound right Kathleen. Things have changed now. Newson offer their own blood testing services, although you don't have to use their services.

I get my bloods done wherever I like (Medichecks, NHS, Thriva, Lola) and as long as they are venous samples and not finger prick, my Newson doctors have been happy with them. I get the results and forwards them onto Newson Clinic which adds them to my file.

You should not have had to pay for your results because you have a legal right to the data which anyone holds on you and your blood test results would constitute that data. I think maybe there was a misunderstanding there...

I would add that I was started on T at the Newson Clinic without having to do a blood test beforehand to even check I was low. This was several years ago now and things might have changed. I do need annual tests to monitor levels.

[chopsuey]

Hello again ladies.

I don't want to especially criticise the Newson Health clinic, it is just the only one I have used.
 It is true that they didn't provide or even suggest a scan when I was with them. They did however want me to have a blood test to make sure that my oestrogen levels were sufficient before starting testosterone. I had to arrange this with another private company that Newson Health had nominated ( I assume they have a contract with them ).  I went along to the appointment which was in another town,  and when I asked the Phlebotomist if I could be sent the results she said that wasn't possible as the information was for Newson Health only. It was then up to my doctor at NH to email the results to me, obviously I would be charged for this service.

I was a bit miffed that my results, from a test that I had arranged and paid for, were not available to me personally and I would have to pay again to receive them.

Moan over!

Take care ladies.

K.

I was also told by two private specialists that I didn't need a scan, as I had no symptoms that would suggest there was an issue. However, I was aware from info on this forum, that the guidelines for levels of P in relation to E had changed. For my own peace of mind, I chose to have a scan - just as well I did! 

I also have had the issue of not being able to access blood test results from a nominated provider, requested from a specialist. They would not give them to me and I gave up trying to get them from the specialist, whose admin systems were in chaos. I decided to wait until my next appointment but when they cancelled that, I gave up. I see someone else now who accepts Medichecks or any other reputable blood test provider.

[dangermouse]

Just make a Subject Access Request (DSAR) to the blood test companies and they will be under legal obligation to provide you with your results within 30 days.

[dangermouse]

I am actually quite shocked to hear that parts of the private sector, that gives our higher E doses, does not require regular scans. After all, it's at your cost.

Despite the bad press the bhrt clinics get from many members on this forum, they categorically will not pursue treatment for you without scans and mammogram. All at your own cost, obvs.

And, I should add, they don't offer these themselves, so they make no profit from it. 

But, this puts their safety profile in a good light.

Exactly! They are made out to be the Wild West, prescribing eye of newt. Unlike in this instance, reporters have repeatedly gone after them but have never found anything underhand or unsafe.

[bombsh3ll]

If you have paid for a test and no result has been provided, you are entitled to a refund.

I'd get a chargeback from my bank for the payment. You can do this up to 120 days afterwards.

[joziel]

Here we go, folks: What was really behind the politics of the Panorama show, as explained by Liz Earle here: https://youtu.be/p3nYlWlUIAs?si=Chj4KSrQOa6WlWwU

I’ll be complaining to Ofcom.

[laszla]

The deadline for complaining to Ofcom is this Friday 25 October

[joziel]

It seems that you first need to complain to the BBC and then to Ofcom.

All the links needed to complain to both are just below the Liz Earle YouTube video.

[Dandelion]

I read, I think, on a FB group that one woman's doctor would not give her the required HRT on the strength of a BBC TV programme, which is weird, as you wouldn't expect a Dr to change a prescription based on a mainstream TV programme.
I am also reading that some women have low oestrogen despite being on multiple times the maximum NHS oestrogen dosage, as, for some reason, their skin does not absorb the oestrogen, so their bloods come out as low oestrogen. I don't know why some women don't absorb transdermal oestrogen. Does this mean that this NHS oestrogen dosage is simply not enough for some women?
I also get a feeling that HRT is somehow "taboo" I was discussing menopause with an older friend, who said it's all in the mind. I did tell her, mine gives me loose stools but some people are just convinced menopause is not serious, I used to be like this, pre-meno myself, thinking it was just flushes and stoppage of periods and wondering why there were so many meno products in boots.

[joziel]

As someone currently on 3x the max licensed dose (3.5 to be precise) and who gets her HRT from her NHS GP on the basis of a letter from Newson Health, I am very concerned that my GP might revise or refuse my estrogen now. I haven't put a request in since the episode aired but will need to soon.

And yes, my serum estradiol has never been higher than 330pmol because I don't absorb it well transdermally. When other women can achieve this level from 3-4 pumps of gel, I fail to see why I should be declined adequate care just because my skin doesn't let estradiol through(!). Yes, it means the max licensed dose is not sufficient for many women. The Newson Clinic estimate (after research from the women registered with them) that 25% of women are affected in this way.

The only reason we are restricted E based on dosage is because the NHS is completely inadequate and under-resourced and could not monitor serum estradiol levels. All they can do is go by the amount applied/dosage. If they had to somehow take bloods from every woman on HRT, the system would fall apart. So they make up this BS rule about the actual dosage instead.

Some women don't have serious symptoms of menopause but that doesn't mean that long-term they are not gradually affected by all the negative effects of low hormones. Sometimes I am glad I have had terrible symptoms because it has drawn my attention to ensure I have adequate hormones and hopefully am protected against a lot of the diseases of aging which I might otherwise have just overlooked or ignored if I didn't have immediate symptoms.

[dangermouse]

I watched this last night but wonder if she will have made things worse by stirring up more media attention.

We need to look at intent. I believe that LN has had good intent and that it’s not all been about money, however, she does appear to push oestrogen as the holy grail because of her own personal success with it. She appears to ignore any other opinions that it does not help all women, with the assumption that they are just not having enough of it. To make such public statements of safety, this is what needs to be proven using double blind placebo research, not just untested accounts of her patients.

The BMS’ intent seems to have been fuelled by some angry NHS doctors (who do not have the same access to monitoring that private clinics do) who do not agree with blindly increasing oestrogen doses and facing patients every day demanding it.

Nick Panay seems to have been dragged into it, unwillingly, due to him also prescribing high dose oestrogen off licence. However, the big difference here, is that he is not publicly recommending this practice to peers or shouting it to the media. (Although I stand corrected if he does promote it).

Having Liz Earle (a non-medic) challenge Panorama is fair enough, as both are media entities, but surely medical ethics needs to be challenged by actual medics? if I did not know anything about oestrogen and listened to this video, I would be convinced that oestrogen was 100% safe in any dose, as she said that there was no evidence of it ever causing womb cancer. Of course it’s impossible to measure this. She did not mention breast cancer at all, which is slightly easier to measure for oestrogen positive breast cancer but, even that, how you can ever know for sure. So we have to accept that there is no way of testing for this, rather than accept safety based on there being no evidence.

She also compared the high levels of oestrogen in the pill for younger women with HRT estradiol for older women. Of course, synthetic oestrogen cannot be compared, particularly when we have extremely high levels of natural progesterone when younger. Not sure if any of you have seen the updated menstrual cycle chart but the old one had the non-comparable measurement of progesterone missing from the Y axis, which had made it appear that oestrogen was higher than progesterone in the follicular phase, which never was the case.

I think it’s a shame that this has turned into a 2 sided public row (which the media love!) which, as already stated, is affecting those currently on higher oestrogen with GPs now suspicious. Perhaps it will be the case that going forwards all women on higher dose oestrogen will require womb scans and more frequent mammograms, which would not be such a bad outcome if it does protect them better. Why this was not done as standard by Newson Health, (and Nick Panay if this is the case) still puzzles me as all of this could have been avoided.