Newson Health and the menopause industry

No it’s not

"The fall in oestrogen causes most of the symptoms of menopause." I disagree, the most symptomatic phase is perimenopause when oestrogen levels fluctuate.

Moreover, this "advice" is for women with a previous heart condition. Each case is different, every generalisation is dangerous.

Don’t know what is scaremongering here - let’s follow the science and make informed choices

heart. Evidence shows that HRT should be started within 10 years of starting the menopause and before the age of 60. The earlier HRT is started, the more effective it is at protecting your heart and reducing your risk of coronary heart disease.

Osteoporosis risk
www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/menopause-and-osteoporosis#

www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/support/women-with-a-heart-condition/menopause-and-heart-disease

We are breaking new ground with the age we are all living to post meno.
there is loads of evidence that there is increased cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis with the onset of the drip of hormones at menopause. I’m not scaremongering - that is the science.

@Fraudornot
"Why people think it's natural for hormones to reduce during menopause?"

Well, because it is what happens in natural circumstances, hence the name "natural". Not all hormones reduce during menopause, just sex hormones, and the clue is in the name. They have evolved to shape our bodies and brains for the sole purpose of reproduction, hence they are no longer needed in the same amounts after the reproductive age. But during the long evolution process they have acquired some secondary functions, and those are the ones that the HRT advocates think should keep functioning 'forever'. There's nothing wrong in trying to overcome natural processes, but the statement that without HRT a woman will have a higher probablility of having osteoporosis, dementia, heart disease, diabetes and depression (Louise Newson's words) has not been scientifically established.

Regarding NICE guidelines, can you post a link to the document that "recommends HRT with no time limit"?

And I started HRt below 60 which leads to a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease

Yes so HRT reduces risk of osteoporosis which leads to such a lack of quality of life as women age - I’m 60 so have seen it in the generation above me and how much pain and disability it causes

This, absolutely this.

It took me two years of literally begging my GP to finally be prescribed HRT. When, a few months later, I wasn't sure if the dosage was right for me I went back and was told "well there isn't anything else we can do about that".
That's the NHS GP experience.

I do find it shocking that someone listened to a nurses clearly uninformed decision rather than thinking for themselves

And I’ve always gone into my gp with my informed choice and listened to their advice and I’m still on HRT. I’m due for another review shortly - been on 10 years - and I will do with my ideas but listen to what they have to say. Constantly thinking and making informed decisions. Not listening to a nurses opinion as stated above 🤦‍♀️

For people who don’t know NICE does a thorough evaluation of all evidence and is the go to for doctors recommending treatment

I’m interested why people think it is natural for hormones to reduce during menopause and therefore we should go with this. This drop leads to rapid osteoporosis and heart disease and we are living much longer in menopause than previous generations. To me HRT not only reduces the symptoms but has long term protective factors and this is backed by latest NICE guidelines. People can argue all they want about what will aide symptoms but science trumps every time for me.

No NICE recomends it with no time limit

"The GMC's external doctor has said I'm experienced enough to practise outside ­guidelines.'"

"Newson Health said its approach to care was consistent with national guidelines and that the British Menopause Society was a charity, not a regulatory body."

Do the national guidelines say that it's okay to practise outside guidelines if a "GMC's external doctor" says a fellow doctor is experienced enough? And what is a GMC's external doctor btw?

I suspect it's a sensationalist media thing. I personally don't like the tone used by most newspapers and online news, as if the average reader is a moron. They don't write to educate or simply to inform the reader, they want to instigate intolerance and other irrational behaviours. Maybe LN and NH are short of good media advisors atm. Or maybe they're all young people who are very good at their job, but too immature when it comes to healthcare and medical/biological knowledge. Her business is centered on her personal image and her medical and menopause history, which is not what I would consider professional, but some people like it this way, maybe they feel they are being heard or treated in a more sympathetic way. It reminds me of Doc Martin, I'd like to have a doc like him, no bedside manners needed as long as you are doing your job properly.

One question I would like Louise Newson, her team or her patients to clarify:

If a patient is a poor absorber of transdermal oestrogen/estradiol, why keep increasing the dose instead of changing to another route, like implants or oral? All regimens have pros and cons. The transdermal route is not free of side effects, particularly if you are applying 3 patches made of strong glue every 3 days or 12 pumps of alcoholic gel daily on your skin and having to change sites frequently (that is what a patient on 300 µg of estradiol would require).

I agree, her response is intended to reinforce the cult-ish status that she has amongst her social media supporters and some patients who consider her a "lifesaver" because they empathyse with this emotional approach. She's a product of social media, and it's very hard to go against the wave of millions of followers. There are zillions of websites owned by doctors who claim to have answers for all sorts of health issues, and if a person wants to trust them it's their prerogative. The difference is that in the UK a private doctor like LN can prescribe a specific regimen and an NHS doctor will agree to continue prescribing it. One way of stopping this madness is to advise GPs to stop doing it. If a person trusts LN's approach let them have their treatment under LN's guidance and monitoring, not the NHS. And before anyone shoots me, I know the NHS is not perfect and that many GPs are utterly clueless on menopause, but one thing doesnt justify the other.