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.

NICE guidelines link:

thebms.org.uk/publications/nice-guideline/

Yes so HRT reduces risk of osteoporosis which leads to such a lack of quality of life as women age - I’m 60 so have seen it in the generation above me and how much pain and disability it causes

And I started HRt below 60 which leads to a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease

@Fraudornot
"Why people think it's natural for hormones to reduce during menopause?"

Well, because it is what happens in natural circumstances, hence the name "natural". Not all hormones reduce during menopause, just sex hormones, and the clue is in the name. They have evolved to shape our bodies and brains for the sole purpose of reproduction, hence they are no longer needed in the same amounts after the reproductive age. But during the long evolution process they have acquired some secondary functions, and those are the ones that the HRT advocates think should keep functioning 'forever'. There's nothing wrong in trying to overcome natural processes, but the statement that without HRT a woman will have a higher probablility of having osteoporosis, dementia, heart disease, diabetes and depression (Louise Newson's words) has not been scientifically established.

Regarding NICE guidelines, can you post a link to the document that "recommends HRT with no time limit"?

We are breaking new ground with the age we are all living to post meno.
there is loads of evidence that there is increased cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis with the onset of the drip of hormones at menopause. I’m not scaremongering - that is the science.

www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/support/women-with-a-heart-condition/menopause-and-heart-disease

Osteoporosis risk
www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/menopause-and-osteoporosis#

heart. Evidence shows that HRT should be started within 10 years of starting the menopause and before the age of 60. The earlier HRT is started, the more effective it is at protecting your heart and reducing your risk of coronary heart disease.

Don’t know what is scaremongering here - let’s follow the science and make informed choices

"The fall in oestrogen causes most of the symptoms of menopause." I disagree, the most symptomatic phase is perimenopause when oestrogen levels fluctuate.

Moreover, this "advice" is for women with a previous heart condition. Each case is different, every generalisation is dangerous.

No it’s not

"Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT)
If you take MHT soon after menopause (around the age of 50), it can prevent bone loss"

"It can prevent bone loss"... can doesn't mean it will...

Those are general websites with general advice that includes HRT amongst a lot of other methods for coping with osteoporosis.

Would you care to explain your argument instead of just saying something is or is not just because you think so?

I’m sorry if you are not going to follow the NICE guidelines I am not going to waste time arguing. I want to live to a
healthy age with a healthy heart and strong bones
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9178928/

The link clearly says this is a support section for women with a heart condition

www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/support/women-with-a-heart-condition/menopause-and-heart-disease

The article clearly states this:
Oestrogen has a protective effect on your heart. It helps to control your cholesterol levels and reduces the risk of fat building up in your arteries. It also helps keep your blood vessels healthy.
If your oestrogen levels fall, then fat can build up in your arteries causing them to become narrower. This increases your risk of developing coronary heart disease, a heart attack or stroke.

Don't be sorry for me. We're trying to discuss a topic that is controversial for lack of scientific evidence, but you seem to have all the answers already. NICE has recently recommended CBT for menopause. Are you following this guideline as well?

You do you and don’t do HRT - it doesn’t bother me but the science is in favour at the moment of HRT being effective. I keep up to date and regularly review and the science might change so I keep an open mind. Bit for me at the minute watching the generation of women above me age and seeing how HRT would have helped I’m happy to go ahead for now. But as I say constantly keeping up to date to see what the latest reviews say.

If you are taking HRT and don't have a healthy lifestyle and diet, HRT will not prevent you having high cholesterol or blocked arteries. The website mentions a lot of other aspects that contribute for the overall risk of heart disease.

That's interesting. I wonder where I got the 5 years from.

Bloody brain fog!

Good for you! I'm not anti HRT. We are discussing high levels of oestrogen being prescribed without enough data to back it up. If patients are willing to be guinea pigs it's up to them. But don't blame science for that. I'm a Biologist and I can tell when a scientific article is good or bad science.

I'm not a believer. I need evidence. Robust evidence, if I'm going to trade strong bones for breast/uterine cancer.

I think you've got it from NICE. The "no limit" is probably for low dose vaginal oestrogen for genitourinary symptoms, if I'm not mistaken. Still waiting for the link that says "HRT has no time limit".

But I thought stroke was a potential risk from using HRT - so how can it also protect against stroke (unless this article is talking about a specific cohort eg those with pre existing heart disease)?

...quick Google....https://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c2519

This paper says that there is no increased stroke risk with low dose transdermal, but other types/ dose increase stroke risk.

I think the take away is that the evidence is not clear cut for most of these things (excepting Osteoporosis where it seems to be clearer that HRT is a definite benefit) and that each individual is going to have a different balance of risk and benefit.

I disagree. Aging is pretty much genetically predisposed. Some of us have inherited genes that predispose to a longer life so effectively the aging process is much slower. In my family the women rarely die before 80, none in living memory have suffered with either dementia or osteoporosis. Of those that died prematurely it has benn due to cancer ( only my mum so far). My husbands family are the same. Most have stayed fit and well until a few months before death.

The overwhelming problem that is stacking up is the lack of activities which positively build up and maintain bone density. On the one hand we are better fed but on the other we do a fraction of the weight bearing exercise our parents and grandparents did. An hour in the gym is no substitute for walking everywhere. Women in particular would have a huge workload through the week, which no doubt built up fantastic bone density.
Many women are currently being diagnosed with osteopenia before they hit menopause.
We are no longer active enough to maintain bone density.
HRT is used off licence for osteoporosis because there is not enough long term data to support its use.
Inactivity is a much bigger factor than decreasing hormone levels.
Like most quick fixes we shouldn’t rely on medication as a preventative. We should be encouraging young women to build up bone density in their 20d and 30s so that their starting point is higher. As bone density naturally drops it will take longer to fall to an osteoporotic level.
The jury is still out re cardiovascular disease. I suspect the reasons is may have been connected to HRT are quite complex, possible more to do with the lifestyle of those who have sought out HRT in the past. We know that cardiovascular disease is associated with inflammation which can be related to diet., but there is a strong genetic element too.