I think there are lots of problems with prescribing hrt at the moment.
GPs have been on a rollercoaster for the last 20 years with all these studies coming out and hitting the headlines and turning things around, then quietly in the background, with further study, things are not so clear cut.
I am really pleased with Dr Currie's reply. The NICE guidelines have already taken this into account and still hold, and the work in getting them out there continues. There is hope that things will improve.
There is also the problem with those who hold the purse strings for prescriptions. When you look around, a lot of authorities are saying that GPS must prescribe Elleste duet as a first line, then if that doesn't work then Femoston, then if there are problems with that, they start on the transdermal. So things like Uterogestan will not be in every GP's everyday knowledge. The 'lowest dose possible for a max of 5 years' is still around too. So this is tying their hands too and it does not fit well with the guidelines.
Hopefully, with the knowledge you can get on here, you can work your way to a consultation (pref NHS) with someone who does know, so that the GP can be helped.
I do hate these big out of proportion headlines that are not followed through with vigour. Really it is just telling us what was already known but in a sensational way. They are also studies that focus breast cancer and not hrt. We have a lot more going on in our bodies.
I have looked at the Breakthrough Generation Study's pages and they have done a lot of work recently on identifying genes related to BC and hopefully they may come somewhere to finding how it is actually caused. Then we might be able to know what the risk is that is being tripled by HRT (whilst it is being used).