Im not on any “side”. HRT is healthcare and as far as I am concerned a good invention for some women where the benefits outweigh the risk.
I am pointing out real financial conflicts of interest that women need to be aware of when taking advice from or watching documentaries from certain sources. This is not to say anyone has bad intentions or is deliberately monetising menopause or there is a “Davina conspiracy” as another poster thinks I am saying.
The disclosure of financial conflicts of interest is required for all researchers submitting their research reports. For all MPs who vote on laws that would benefit them financially if they voted a certain way.
This is a basic ethical principle- that a person who will financially or otherwise benefit from a certain outcome is at high risk of conscious and/or unconscious bias towards the outcome that benefits them personally.
The facts are that Davina McCall, Kate Muir and Dr Newson all benefit financially the more women seek HRT. Thus far, they have benefitted spectacularly due to the surge in women taking up HRT as a result of their media. Yes, they highly recommend HRT but how much of their recommendations are objective and impartial? Are truly evidence based? What about the concerns regarding these private menopause clinics, including Dr Newson’s, not following prescribing guidelines and risking the health of women by convincing them to take HRT dosages they do not need and could harm them?
So generally, a wise person will be aware of this high risk of bias, and will view their media and recommendations with a more critical eye.
Unlike scientific research, there is no peer review or disclosure of financial conflicts of interest for the documentaries Davina broadcast or the self help book Menopausing that she co-authored with another Dr who also owns and runs a private menopause clinic Dr Potter. Or any of their podcasts, apps, and TV cameos. I would have preferred her co-author were a Menopause specialist with no financial conflict of interest. I would have preferred some sort of peer review of the book before publication. But it is what it is and history has shown that such self help books marketed as scientific, medical literature for the public tend to not be very accurate and fraught with bias- even when the authors have the best of intentions.