Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mary G]

I wonder who funded this study?  Us, the taxpayers?  There are huge cash incentives for churning this kind of stuff out and they just keep it rolling because it's easy money.  What kind of health scare will they come up with next week?  Anyone could have conducted that study, it's not difficult but it is lucrative.  And it's not just HRT, it's drinking, smoking, vaping, standing on your head, you name it, there is a study on it but what do they actually achieve and do they offer 100% cast iron guarantees?  No.

OK, so we have known for some time that synthetic progesterone, progestogens, progestins (whatever you want to call them) which are used in HRT preparations are bad news but it doesn't take a genius to work that out. 

We know that synthetic progesterone carries a slightly increased risk of breast cancer and it also causes some very nasty side effects in many women, it doesn't actually serve any purpose for symptom relief and is only useful for keeping womb lining thin.  All the feelgood factor and symptom control comes from the oestrogen part of HRT. 

So instead of wasting time on meaningless, duplicated studies, why don't these people come up with something useful like a non-hormonal replacement for synthetic progesterone?  This would revolutionise HRT, remove all the risks and women would feel better for not having to take the dreaded progesterone.  Job done. 

I hate synthetic progesterone and wouldn't put anything past it because I have seen what it is capable of doing (my silent migraines) but for those women who are happy with their current continuous combined regime, I would say carry on with it because the risks are very small.

For women who are about to start HRT from scratch, I would look at a cylical regime and keep the progesterone to a minimum.

You have a choice, you either take control of your own life or you allow yourself to be controlled and held to ransom by these pointless studies.  If you stop taking HRT because of it, they have won and you could be faced with a whole host of health nasties in later life and for what?

I have to say I am not worried in the least.

[Maryjane]

There are some really good explanations on here from apt of you ladies 😊 Why don't you send your views to the powers that be ?

I could never write and explain in the way some of you have. 😊

[CLKD]

Where would we start though Maryjane?  GPs; MPs; direct to the Minister of Health; NICE  ……… start a thread in the letters page of The Telegraph ………..

Petition - how many signatures are required for something to be discussed in Parliament?

[Liz]

I'm wondering if Utrogestan is as much of a "risk" as the synthetics.  I think I've read that it's not considered to be so, but quite frankly, who knows what to believe.....

[linz57]

This is the thing Liz, we are told something is a safer  alternative , then a few years later all the reports are turned on their heads. Think back to the butter versus margarine debate. No wonder we don't know what to believe these days.

[linz57]

Petition - how many signatures are required for something to be discussed in Parliament?
[/quote]

Is it 10,000?
I've signed e petitions that people have circulated on social media , it's amazing how the signatures soon mount up. If anyone knows how to get one organised I would post it on my Facebook page and ask my friends to pass it around.

[Tempest]

Another case in point are Statin drugs. Just a short while back, it was lauded as the drug group that was going to save us all, and prevent all manner of health complications in later life. Everyone in middle age was going to be advised to take them at one point. Now opinion is changing.

A friend of mine works in biochemistry here in Glasgow. Senior guy. (I seem to know a lot of biochemists)! He says that he sees some disturbing patterns in biochemistry results from patients who take Statins, and that he wouldn't touch them with a ten foot barge pole (!).

No wonder we're all confused and frightened these days. Opinions vary and advice changes at the drop of hat, often switching back and forth. In the case of HRT, I would tend to go with what I have seen. And I have seen quite a few spry elderly ladies who have done very well on it for years, and continue to do so (my Nana was one of them)!

[Dana]

Personally I am not hung up on the age I live to, although I would like to see my 60s and 70s, but if I live to 94, like both my grandmothers (neither of whom ever heard of HRT) it does not necessarily mean that I am going to end up like Dana said 'hot flushes, insomnia, anxiety, depression, osteoporosis, and a whole host of other ailments, and eventually die after living a miserable 30 years.'.

Life is for living, just live it

Sorry, the intent of my message may have gotten a bit jumbled because I when I wrote it I was truly angry on behalf of these poor women who are now scared to death of being on hrt, simply because of a media report. It's not their fault they have to feel like this. I totally blame the media for blowing up these things and scaring the bejesus out of women who at a very vulnerable time of their lives.

I didn't mean that every woman who lives to a ripe old age is going to suffer. However, my grandmother lived until she was 85 and she was a very miserable old woman. She died over 42 years ago, when I was 15, so hrt was hardly heard of back then, but for as long as I could remember she was always described as "sickly". Yet she was a woman who had raised 6 children, lived through the depression and war, had to chop her own wood, and had a husband die in a horrible freak accident at a fairly young age. She survived all that, but in her later years she was more or less bedridden, and doctors could never really find anything wrong with her. They put it down to her "nerves". Looking back now, with all my meno experiences, I'm certain she suffered until she died from menopause symptoms, and possibly that's why my symptoms were so bad, and I might become her if I go off hrt. I have a lot of longevity in my family. Most of them die in their late 80s/early 90s, so I certainly don't want to live that long and be suffering the whole time. Ironically she died with dementia and undiagnosed bowel cancer.

I think what I'm trying to say is that we are all "ticking time bombs", even from the day we are born. None of us know what we are going to die from or when it's going to happen, so I agree with you that "life is for living".

To those who are worrying about everything I just say this. If hrt is bringing you relief and you are able to live a normal life, honestly who cares if it's maybe shorted a little bit. I'm also not that hung up on how long I live. I would like to live for another 10 years, mainly because I've got two cats who are now 9, so I would like to outlive them, but after that I honestly don't care because I know it's going to happen to me eventually anyway. Live for today.

[Dandelion]

HRT is the onlything that cured my horrible flushes and ibs etc, I'd rather die of cancer in my 50's than live till my 80's miserable as sin.

[Trufflecat]

A question: What is the difference really, between HRT and the contraceptive pill ? In terms of its contents I mean. Bother are oestrogen, progesterone or a combination of the two and we are not hearing about how the pill gives people cancer (or maybe we are and I am badly informed).

[Taz2]

I'm not sure of the scientific answer to this but some of the cancers are due to the amount of years our body is exposed to oestrogen I believe. This is why is you begin your periods early or finish them late, or are both an early starter and late finisher, your risk of some cancers is higher.

If you have a Google you will find quite a lot of studies and articles relating to the bcp's role in cancer. The info on the Cancer Research site states that the combined pill raises the risk of both breast and cervical cancer but reduces the risk of womb and ovarian cancer. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/hormones-and-cancer/the-contraceptive-pill

Taz x 

[peegeetip]

Hi Taz - sorry but if that was the case we'd see far more "early" years in teens and twenties of exposure to Estrogen.

The studies have shown that estrogen only HRT "Reduces" the risk of Breast Cancer.

Ultimately it maybe down to a mixture of lifestyle, luck, cell turnover, mistakes in a process, and a single cell going rogue.

Estrogen is what our bodies expect.

For example alcohol - interacts badly with estrogen and your body metabolises cancerous agents as by products. Even at the point where its washing around your mouth before you've even swallowed.

I'm not against alcohol but I'd love to see a more balanced reporting on things that are dangerous for ladies.

Since the late 1970s, breast cancer incidence rates have increased by 64% in females. Over a period of time where availability, cost and attitude to alcohol has changed beyond anyone's expectations.

Nearly half of BC's are in over 65's, most of which would have stopped HRT with pre NICE update this year (stats say that risk returns to normal within 2 years). So we should see a reduction if Doc's have been stopping ladies artificially at 60!!

The evidence also points to "lifestyle" as the stats show those who are classed as deprived (low income etc) have lower breast cancer rates than those in least deprived (high disposable income) category.

 

[Dancinggirl]

Lifestyle is key, genetics are key - making HRT the bad boy with the BC risk is simply muddying the water.
The rise in BC cases is probably as much about women living longer anyway,100 years ago we were lucky to get to 50 and in the 1950s we were lucky to get to 65. We all have to die of something and the issues around the menopause and the consequences of oestrogen deficiency are a relatively modern problem because we are living longer.

They do not DARE to highlight the risks to do with the contraceptive pill or there will be a massive rise in unwanted pregnancies and abortion - so society and the medical profession are quite prepared to turn a blind eye to these risks.
In my day, almost straight after giving birth, they gave you the talk about birth control and you left hospital clutching your newborn and a prescription for a BCP.

If they did a survey of all the women who have to give up work because the meno has hit them so hard I'm sure they might try to offer better treatment. The country needs women to be active, keep working and ultimately cost the NHS less in the long run.  What does it cost the NHS to treat women for heart and disease and osteoporosis that develops later in life due to oestrogen deficiency?

The BC risk is still relatively small and in fact being on HRT does mean we are monitored better for blood pressure, breast screening etc. so things may be picked up earlier and treated more effectively. How many women opt out of screening and even going to the doctor on the basis that certain lumps, bumps, aches and pains simply have to be put with because it is part of ageing.  My mother did not go to the GP about the awful vaginal/vulva pain she was getting for ages, she put up with this pain for months - when she finally went she was rushed to the specialist the same day as she had developed advanced stage vulva cancer!!!!!

DG x

[Taz2]

Hi Taz - sorry but if that was the case we'd see far more "early" years in teens and twenties of exposure to Estrogen.

The studies have shown that estrogen only HRT "Reduces" the risk of Breast Cancer.

 

We wouldn't see it in early years due to the fact that it is the number of years we are exposed to oestrogen from what I've read? The body naturally decreases it's oestrogen supply over the years but we increase these years by supplying it with oestrogen for longer than it would naturally be exposed to it? That's how I understood it anyway. I realise this article is from a while ago now but it does mention the role that early onset of periods/late menopause can play http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC314432/

Of course lifestyle has a lot to do with it as well. My own doc suggested that when I began combi HRT I should stop drinking alcohol so as not to give the body a "double whammy". Then there's lack of exercise, obesity, smoking and genetic factors.

Taz x

[Dorothy]

Maybe, but you still get Doctors & Nurses grizzling against long-term BCP use due to cancer risk...I've had it raised several times, and just hope I will be allowed to stay on it (or a suitable HRT alternative) until I'm 50.  Every time I go in for my next prescription, I'm twitchy in case they decide I can't have it anymore.