New report about HRT risks on BBC website

[Egghead68]

Menopausal hormone therapy risks 'bigger and last longer' than thought www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49508671

You know what? When we were 16/20/25 and bursting with estrogen most of us took the Pill, which has a gazillion (scientific) times more hormones than the measly little HRT patch. I have never understand the agonising over HRT given that doctors will happily pump 14 year olds full of several times the amounts. And I really don't get how women will suffer and delay for do long before taking action. Is it because they feel they shoukd be able to cope "naturally"? I know if you are at risk for breast cancer it's more of a worry but so many women don't even seem to know that under 50 there are huge benefits too.
I don't WANT to be suicidal for my entire 40s just so I can be "natural" and feel better out the other side.
And I don't trust the BBC when it comes to anything to do with women. Part of me thinks that the establishment actively don't want women over 40 to be happy, healthy and energetic.
They can fuck off with all of that.

That's a very good point - I took the pill for about 25 years so I imagine I'm already at risk without HRT. Just been to doc's to get my dose change and was reminded again of the risks...I know they have to do it but they do make you feel guilty for taking drugs to make you feel like a normal person.

@bengalcat Can you link to the research that shows that statement please- 'better differentiated cancers'? (I've not come across anything saying that and would welcome your knowledge.)

There are risks with the PIll too- just not reported as widely.

You can't really compare the Pill and HRT.

It's not estrogen that causes the cancer, it appears to be the long term use off continuous, synthetic progestogens, and maybe the same stats apply to the Pill as well?

Of course there are risks with the Pill, and no, nobody gives a toss about that. The Pill enables men to have sex with young women without them getting pregnant, so....
(In looking into this I found that The Pill, when it first came out had something like 3 times the levels of hormones in it than it does now!)
I have so many friends, and an older sister, who are really suffering, and trying to hold off using HRT and I just think why?? We all used to smoke, we all used to drink, we all took higher dose contraceptive pill than they would think of giving anyone now. When I was researching HRT (on the advice of my wonderful doctor) all I could find were scare stories and reasons why we shouldn't, all in the mainstream press.
We are none of us going to live forever, and frankly I want a life not a bloody endurance test thanks very much.

There is certainly a lot of synthetic progestogen in the Pill - COC is a huge amount.

The only sort I can find that is used across contraception and also in HRT is levenorgestrel. It is interesting to compare amounts used in COC, minipill, IUCD, HRT *.

Some sorts of HRT uses a lot of norithisterone which is really effective on the endometrium, but not used much in contraception.

• I think the only HRT was FemSeven patches, so transdermal which makes it harder to compare with oral preparations.

This relates to the post by Egghead68

www.newsonhealth.co.uk/news/british-menopause-society-uses-freedom-of-information-act-to-question-mhra-practices

Very interesting - thank you.

The BMS response to the MHRA recomendations above, which was issued before the FOI request.

thebms.org.uk/2019/09/bms-response-to-mhra-recommendations/

Press release from MHRA on 30/08/19
www.gov.uk/government/news/hrt-users-to-discuss-its-risks-and-benefits-at-their-next-routine-appointment-as-new-study-highlights-persistent-risk-of-breast-cancer