Night sweats help please. Black cohosh or HRT?

[mrsjackrussell]

I think I'm definitely going through the menopause now. I'm 50.
For the last 3 years iv had irregular periods and night sweats so I then take black cohosh and it all goes back to normal then I stop taking it and within a few months it all starts up again. Apart from 4 months last year when I wasn't taking it and I had non stop bleeding for 4 months. Had a scan all OK. I don't know whether the cohosh actually worked or if it was just coincidence.
Forward to now and no period since October.
I'm having night sweats and it's affecting my sleep badly and in turn my life.
I'm disabled too and get horrendous cramps and what with my husband snoring.
I'm thinking about taking the black cohosh again but I'm worried about the side effects re. Liver damage. Iv been put off HRT by others saying its not good to mess with your body which I agree with to some extent. Also with the HRT would I then have to stop it again in the future or is it for life?
Would all of the menopausal symptoms come back?
Coul d I have some advice please from you lovely people

www.menopause.org.au/members/ims-menopause-live/991-hrt-and-cardiovascular-disease

Pharma companies are not making huge amounts out of HRT; HRT is dirt cheap compared to many other products.

Pharma makes its money out of drugs for high BP, diabetes, cancer, and depression /mental health drugs, the latter being offered to women by out of touch GPs.

And as I said previously what do you think the companies are doing who sell sage, black cohosh, magnets and the like? Do you think they are not making a profit? Open any magazine or newspaper and it will be FULL of adverts for vitamins and supplements that are supposed to make you 'well'.

I'm sure getting stressed out about what other people post on the internet isn't good for one's heart either.

Nobody said they knew better than an 'international menopause doctor' (whatever that is).

These guidelines change so often it is better to err on the side of caution.

The study I referenced was from the NHS's own website and I believe it was from 2016! If that was erroneous and out of date, then it is the NHS you need to speak to, not me.

I agree with Bells, I was told exactly the same from my gyn ( I go privately), that there is no time limit for the use of hrt and it depends on each individual case. Under 60 is considered safe to use it.

No one is getting stressed. Well, I'm not.

Margo- that NHS link says exactly the same as all the other papers! I think you have misunderstood it.

It says that there is a benefit to women using HRT within 10 years of the menopause, shown by reduction in plaque in the arteries.
This ties in with all the other trials.
It's called 'the window of opportunity'.

They link goes on to say that there were no measurable improvements in women using HRT in late post menopause (more than 10 years after their last period.)

This is consistent with all the research.
It means if you want the benefits of HRT to your heart you need to start within 10 years of menopause.

The quote you left is part of what's on that link and it's out of context and doesn't include the fact it's referring to very post menopausal women.

This is because once arterial plaque it established, HRT cannot reverse it- but it can stop it occurring in the first place.

I am left wondering why you said my statement was 'alarming' in the first instance and if I could back it up.
Well I have with the link to the Oz publication and the quote therein which says exactly the same thing.

Pity you can't apologise and say 'Ah, okay, got it, thanks.'

@JaneJeffer- No the guidelines do not change too often. The complete opposite.

The most recent change was in 2015 with the NICE menopause guidelines. This was 12+ years after the WHI and MW studies. A whole generation of women whose lives were blighted by discredited research.

You cannot accept discussion about this can you? What should I be apologising for?

Here is the conclusion the NHS came to cut and pasted directly from its website. Posters can draw their own conclusions:

"The main ambiguity is whether the differing rates of artery thickening observed here are big enough to have an impact on a person's risk of heart attack or stroke.

The differences of 0.0078mm versus 0.0044mm per year for placebo and HRT groups were statistically convincing, but it's much less clear if they are clinically important.

The researchers themselves describe the difference as "preclinical", suggesting they think these differences aren’t a problem yet. However, they don't comment on whether their accumulated value over multiple decades – which would happen if these women lived into their 70s or older – would be a significant risk booster.

The assumption in the media was that, over the longer term, this faster rate of thickening might result in an important increased risk of heart disease, but this isn't yet concrete and needs further unpicking. The other factor to bear in mind is that measures of early disease progression and risk, such as CT scans of the arteries, showed no differences.

Hence, we have a mixed bag of results. They clearly show a link between the timing of HRT after menopause, but the link between HRT and reducing risks of heart attack and stroke is a little more fragile.

HRT can help many women with severe symptoms of menopause, providing relief, and its considerable benefits should not be overlooked. But this comes with a known increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer.

The risks and benefits of taking HRT should always be taken into account and discussed with your GP if you have any concerns."

Margo-I do think you should step back and retract your initial question which asked me to clarify my 'alarming' statement. Or accept that the evidence is there.

I've posted a quote by an international menopause site which says the same thing. Clearly you chose to ignore that.

Instead, focusing on one small-ish study by the NHS. that is ONE study and the NHS info on HRT overall is sometimes rather patchy- different sections within the site say different things.

Given the terrible experiences quoted here from posters on the treatment for menopause, usually within the NHS, I'm afraid it's the last place I'd be looking for advice.

Bodies like the International Menopause Society and the British Menopause Society which consist of world experts on menopause are far more reliable sources.

Every single consultant I have spoken to / interviewed personally says that there is sound evidence that HRT before age 60 confers some protection against heart disease when started early.

Women reading will make up their own minds.
I'm not going to engage with you further.

The study wasn't done by the NHS!!!!!! They were obliged to comment on it because the Daily Mail claimed "Women who take HRT drugs soon after going through menopause are 'less likely to suffer heart disease'. Hmmm!

I am not ignoring anything.

I questioned your statement that a menopausal woman not taking HRT may be putting herself at higher risk of CVD. I wondered what you were basing that alarmist statement on. You responded and I responded - that is what happens in a discussion.

You have been aggressive and defensive accusing me of thinking I know better than experts, that I should apologise, that I'm ignoring what you post, that I should retract my initial question and so on. All of that leads me to conclude that you do not want to discuss HRT and you are not open to anyone else's point of view. You want your word to be taken as the one and only truth.

Thankfully, this is an open forum and it is a place where issues that concern us can be discussed and considered and people can make up their own minds.

www.drweil.com/health-wellness/body-mind-spirit/heart/hormone-replacement-therapy-for-heart-health/