Hrt linked to dementia

[Ninaguineapig]

I thought it was supposed to prevent it.

amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/06/28/health/hrt-dementia-risk-wellness/index.html

I’m not sure your list is entirely proven that HRT is a causal factor to prevent those things. Perhaps it’s a bit like you’re thinking that single women live the longest, when the actual ONS data shows they have the shortest lives.

Im not criticising women for using HRT, rather I am criticising some of the marketing of HRT which does tend to overstate claims of youth preservation and it is clear there is some preying on vulnerabilities of women in regards to fears of aging.

Anti-depressants are not marketed to the public in the U.K. as it is illegal.

Menopause is a natural process, when it goes the way it should which it does for the majority of women meaning they do not get distressing symptoms.

@ReleasetheCrackHen Most of what you have written is just false in every sense.
https://thebms.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/BMS-Vision-MAY2023%E2%80%93A.pdf

Even if you just get to page 3, you will see that 80% of women have symptoms.

Anti-depressants are not marketed to the public in the U.K. as it is illegal.

Neither is HRT. You can only get it on prescription.

So what on earth are you talking about?

BUT antidepressants were marketed to GPs with financial incentives.

Of course they are! By what process would you like us all to die? It is completely natural that some or other part of our body gets crappy in some way or another and causes us to die. Otherwise we would all live forever. Which would not be natural.

I gave birth naturally. Everyone else should, too. It’s natural.

Well what you posted is not evidence of what you originally claimed, which shall we remind you was:
*One interesting stat is that single women live longest, married men live longer than single men, and married women die earlier than /have poorer health than single women. *

*compare the above to what you’re now saying *
”Married men and married women live, on average, two years longer than they’re unmarried counterparts.” And so on.

But I’ll take that as a win as even though you are not admitting you were wrong, you have corrected yourself in a manner of speaking.

@ReleasetheCrackHen I can assure you that what I have posted there is correct, factually. I’m not sure your list is entirely proven that HRT is a causal factor to prevent those things.

It's in all the medical research some of it going back 20 years.

The way you question it, shows how very little you know about it.

Stop patronising women saying they want the 'fountain of youth'.

Women can make their own decisions.

I see you missed the word “distressing” in there before “symptoms”
Do try and not erase important qualifiers when claiming I’ve written something false. Do I need to explain the difference between “any symptoms” and “distressing symptoms”?

@ReleasetheCrackHen you know what I think? I think you should spend a day reading the BMS statements and everything else on their website, then come back and argue.

You clearly don't want to engage with facts, just stand on your soap box. And talk about a 'win' over me.

Enjoy your evening.

HRT has been marketed to the public.
Never heard of Davina McCall?

There’s been a bit of marketing by exploiting the media. Classic tactic.

Well that is rich, you accusing me of not engaging using facts when I’ve caught you out on some significant factual errors. I notice you seem to get upset whenever I ask for some evidence to back up your claims? If it is so well known and researched, surely you’d have something to link to back up any one of your claims. Like HRT prevents diabetes or prolapse…

And funny you’d say the research goes back 20yrs, because wasn’t the research from 20yrs ago on older types of HRT no longer in use? I could swear I have seen you dismiss research results you didn’t like from then because it was done on women who took the older types of HRT.

I think it would be helpful to readers if you could back up your very remarkable claims regarding the benefits of HRT with some recent research? After all, thus far you have proven yourself to be a less than reliable source of information.

Here’s my evidence. So, not false but true.

While the majority of women experience body changes over the menopause transition, most consider this a natural process that is manageable without medical intervention. For example, a US longitudinal survey of 2565 midlife women in the 1980s found that almost half were relieved to be going through menopause (42%) or felt neutral about the experience (35%).(1)

An Australian cross sectional survey of midlife women (n=776) in 2001 found that 90% were not troubled by the physical or psychological changes of the menopause transition.(2)

1. Avis NE, McKinlay SM. A longitudinal analysis of women’s attitudes toward the menopause: results from the Massachusetts Women’s Health Study. Maturitas1991;13:65-79. doi:10.1016/0378-5122(91)90286-Y pmid:1861643CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
2. ↵Calvaresi E, Bryan J. Symptom experience in Australian men and women in midlife. Maturitas2003;44:225-36. doi:10.1016/S0378-5122(03)00037-9 pmid:12648886CrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

Lol Yes I do. Perhaps you would benefit from this continuing education brief on menopause?

“Menopause is a routine, non-pathologic condition involving the permanent cessation of menses for at least 12 months.”
“Menopause is the permanent cessation of menses for 12 months resulting from estrogen deficiency and is not associated with a pathology.”
“Menopause is a normal physiologic process in aging women in which the number of ovarian primary follicles quickly diminishes, such that there are inadequate amounts to respond to the effects of FSH.”

Not a pathology = natural process when talking about human physiology

At any rate, it is a more factual summary of the benefits and risks of HRT.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507826/

Enjoy your evening, @ReleasetheCrackHen I'm not going to be baited by your rather confrontation manner or your idea that you are 'winning' an argument.
My facts are correct - it's professional work, but I'm not going to waste time on you.

Bye!

The biology or chemistry at a cellular level, of all disease, is completely natural (ie without human intervention to artificially promote that disease.)

What are you talking about. That is absolute nonsense. Lung cancer, when caused by smoking, is not "natural". Heart disease, or vascular disease, when caused by poor diet, lack of exercise, smoking and heavy drinking, is not "natural" it is a byproduct of poor choices or ignorance.

Lifestyle factors implies human "intervention" - what one eats, drinks, smokes, or doesn't; exercise or lack of; pollution and environmental toxins and factors one may not have control over - all examples lifestyle factors.

What a load of rubbish. That’s like saying that diabetes is caused by eating too much sugar. You can’t blame lifestyle factors for all of these diseases. Yes, we all know that smoking causes lung cancers, COPD and cardiovascular disease, but it certainly doesn’t cause ALL of it. Aging itself (esp) post-menopause causes atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) and CVD. Many people develop heart disease who are seemingly fit and healthy. The incidence of genetic factors causing this is just as high as smoking, etc. Aging is a KNOWN cause of diabetes. Aging is KNOWN to cause osteoporosis.
There are many people who develop lung cancers despite never smoking or living with smokers, there are fit, slim and healthy people who develop diabetes because their pancreas simply gives up the ghost as they age. While known lifestyle factors definitely increase the likelihood of certain diseases, they are not the ONLY cause for everyone.
if you look at the burden on healthcare, lifestyle factors are an enormous cause, but the biggest one is aging. I guess that it is true enough to say that aging itself is a lifestyle factor and it IS a known cause of disease. (A lot of which can be prevented and/or minimised with supplemental oestrogen. Just saying…)

I'm just repeating what the researchers into these diseases have concluded over the last 20 years. Also the WHO, who takes note of the research and has stated that 80% and upwards of our current chronic diseases are lifestyle-related.

I guess that it is true enough to say that aging itself is a lifestyle factor and it IS a known cause of disease. (A lot of which can be prevented and/or minimised with supplemental oestrogen. Just saying…)

Increased age is a risk factor for many diseases, like dementia. Your bracketed statement is ludicrous and just wishful thinking.

HRT has improved my quality of life immensely and I have no intention of stopping it. It has improved my energy and mood enough for me to still teach part time at 70 and focus on a healthy lifestyle in general. I don’t drink alcohol or smoke, I exercise and eat sensibly. For me, any possible risks from HRT are massively offset by these other factors.

Same… they’re going to have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands. Meanwhile, it is a CHOICE which should be determined between the individual and their doctor, based on their health needs, medical history AND lifestyle factors. Non-medical people with OPINIONS can jam it.

I think this thread gives a fascinating insight into why women face such poor care when it comes to period problems, pregnancy, childbirth and menopause. There's an underlying psychological and philosophical problem, to put it politely, centreing around concepts of naturalness. In this faith, sickness, degeneration, pain, injury etc are not outcomes intended by God (sorry, nature...) but are the fault of human sin (renamed 'lifestyle factors'), or at least are rare.

This comes up all the time with childbirth, where refusals to intervene are justified based on the ideology of natural childbirth. Women are described as being 'designed' to give birth, just as menopause is described as if it were intended to give women freedom. This explains a lot. I suspect it's as widespread in the medical profession as it is in society, simply dressed up in medical language as a false binary between 'physiological' vs 'pathological'. It's slightly horrifying really, because it has deep roots and more than one of them. This would also explain why a single incompetent study turned both women and the medical profession 180 degrees on HRT, causing so much unnecessary suffering.

The WHO doesn't say that @lemonchiffonpie

What they have concluded (on a worldwide level, including impoverished countries) is that 80% of premature deaths (before the age of life expectancy) can be lifestyle-related.

That's not the same as 80% of chronic diseases being lifestyle-related.

Talk about tying yourself into knots!

I can't for the moment find the statement I have read from WHO regarding chronic diseases being largely lifestyle related - not largely genetic, as MN likes to tell itself, or related usually to an estrogen deficiency, as you like to pedal on this board.

Here's one paper on cancer, one of your "natural" diseases:

Only 5–10% of all cancer cases can be attributed to genetic defects, whereas the remaining 90–95% have their roots in the environment and lifestyle. The lifestyle factors include cigarette smoking, diet (fried foods, red meat), alcohol, sun exposure, environmental pollutants, infections, stress, obesity, and physical inactivity. The evidence indicates that of all cancer-related deaths, almost 25–30% are due to tobacco, as many as 30–35% are linked to diet, about 15–20% are due to infections, and the remaining percentage are due to other factors like radiation, stress, physical activity, environmental pollutants etc. Therefore, cancer prevention requires smoking cessation, increased ingestion of fruits and vegetables, moderate use of alcohol, caloric restriction, exercise, avoidance of direct exposure to sunlight, minimal meat consumption, use of whole grains, use of vaccinations, and regular check-ups. In this review, we present evidence that inflammation is the link between the agents/factors that cause cancer and the agents that prevent it. In addition, we provide evidence that cancer is a preventable disease that requires major lifestyle changes.

Cancer is a Preventable Disease that Requires Major Lifestyle Changes - PMC (nih.gov)

Yes it is absolute nonsense. The sort of intuitive thinking someone who never sat through Uni level biology 101 or bothered to self educate would say. Natural process when talking about the human body doesn’t mean “any process caused by anything in nature.”