Newson Health and the menopause industry

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8e5y4e83lo

Keeping an eye on this. Newson makes an awful lot of money out of HRT.

That’s the Skegness diet

Oops, silly me!

And yet those women still bang on about HRT!

Well, nowt a sunny beach disco can't solve imho (which I've just been to)

A surprisingly "poor me" interview with Newson on the Daily Mail site:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-13926699/menopause-expert-Panorama-accused-Dr-Louise-Newson-overprescribing-HRT-dead-asylum.html

I think all parties would be better served if everyone involved put their considerable energies into more research into the best and safest remedies for menopausal symptoms, given that a lack of evidence or studies seems to be part of the problem.

She should have said that transdermal HRT is SAFER than oral HRT. That doesn't mean that hormones are SAFE, like she said. And that's exactly the point: she is talking to women who might not have the necessary background to understand the difference. This is a marketing tactic to get people interested. Her team has marketeers who are not scientists and also legal advisors who can twist the narrative so she can keep saying these things. The BMS has decided that she is not doing her job properly. And I agree.

@Angrymum22 I'm sorry to hear about your sis. It does put things into perspective. I don't know why I bother discussing menopause tbh. I suppose I just want to help, but in the end each woman is a different universe and all I can say is "Know thyself", no one can know one better than oneself, but it takes a lot of hard work, time and patience, and sometimes we don't have that. If a person is willing to do something that could cause them harm it's up to them. A doctor has a duty of care though. They should know better or change careers.

I will volunteer to come off HRT and try this, I don’t mind being a guinea pig here.

I’ll even forgo the alcohol if that helps.

Excellent. I'll have the booze you don't want.

Bagsy I'm not in the control group. To be a proper longitudinal study we'll need to participate for a good long time, too.

'After reviewing those papers I knew giving people HRT would make them feel better.
'It's not just that, it's all the health benefits – helping to reduce heart disease, osteoporosis, diabetes and dementia because it reduces inflammation. I remember thinking it was really transformative for women's health.'

This is not how a doctor or public educator should frame things. It's not cautious or neutral enough. It's far too sweeping and it sounds to me like she is still trying to sell a product, rather than listen to and advise and support women.

Not to mention that it's utterly arrogant to say that "after reviewing those papers I knew..." as if she was a scientist trained and educated in Biology to be able to review and know anything about physiology, pharmacology, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.

The problem is that robust biological research is expensive and governments are not wiling to expend resources on that, so the giant pharmaceutical companies step in and even if they support genuine research the ones that get published won't go against their own products, right?

It's emotive, persuasive language rather than the neutral tone one expects from a medical professional.

Reading that interview it seems to be a feature - she's then creating strawman arguments suggesting people want her dead or in an asylum - appeal to emotions.

Of course nobody wants her dead. She may well have had some positive impacts for some people, hyperbole like that doesn't actually help her case.

But women deserve care based on the best available evidence, and to be treated like adults, not sold 'cure all' products based on emotional reasoning.

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.

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'm curious that she hasn't accepted some of the criticisms made by various people and organisations, and considered that a massive company like hers is very likely to make some mistakes? She could learn from them. Instead, she accuses women of lying and claims there's a conspiracy, a witch hunt, and that people want her dead.

It's also centring all the attention on her, (good and bad) which reinforces the personality-led nature of the company.

Probably would be better to have less focus on one person. That would probably also be healthier for her, better for the company itself, and better for the women using the service.

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.

"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?

No NICE recomends it with no time limit

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.

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

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 🤦‍♀️

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

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.

Because menopause is a natural life stage for women and hormones change at this stage of life. This does NOT necessarily lead to osteoporosis and heart disease; please don't spread scare stories.

From the NICE guidelines you refer to:

'Osteoporosis—HRT reduces the risk of osteoporotic fracture, the
benefit being maintained while HRT is taken.'

Women will have different risk factors for osteoporosis for a range of factors.

'Cardiovascular disease--no increased risk when started under age
of 60. Appears to be a small increased risk of stroke with tablet but
not transdermal HRT but baseline risk in women under age of 60 is
very small. Studies have shown that starting HRT before the age of
60, or within 10 years of the menopause may reduce the risk
of heart disease, but evidence so far is not strong enough to
confirm this.'

(my bold).

Causes and risk factors of osteoporosis:

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/osteoporosis/causes/