Print

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

[Nas]

Tora, I’m a BC survivor and know exactly what kind of fight your friends will have to had put up, in order to feel better and to function.

Totally agree that more research is required to allow women to make informed choices re HRT. And to also understand that it isn’t always THE silver bullet which takes away all symptoms.

HRT can however make life much more bearable. It is available to many women ( even cancer survivors, under guidance and supervision).

At the of the day, these hormones are vital to the physical, emotional and mental well being of women, it’s a biological fact. Some women function well with HRT, others not so well. Some women want to take it, others don’t.

 You might also have a woman who takes HRT, doesn’t get struck with dementia etc, but develops something completely different and unrelated.

This is a forum for all though ..

[KarineT]

Well said Naz!

ATB, if you think I am attacking the forum and am disrespectful, what do you think of this? It was posted on this forum and, to me, it suggests that those not HRT will automatically have health problems:

99% of women do have osteoporosis later in life, who do not take hormones - my NHS nurse who did my dexa scan said as soon as I stop my HRT I will be like the rest of them - meaning not on HRT, with osteoporosis.

When I read this, it makes me feel bad & worried and I find this quite negative, even if it's based on scientific evidence.  I don't think it applies to 99% of women.

[Marchlove]

Hi Karine

Just wondering what you mean by 99% of women in later life get osteoporosis, who are not on hrt?
This is a contradiction to what you’ve been arguing.
 Have you got a study link for this you could share?
 
Also, what the nurse might have meant by you being like the rest of them, was once you stop the benefits will stop.

Are you not able to take hrt for some reason? Many can’t, in which case I can understand your concerns about what is being said because it would rightly worry you. I don’t know your story which is why I’m asking.

Nas- I didn’t know you are a BC survivor, well, what a very brave lady you are fighting that fight and now fighting another completely different one. x

Yes a forum for all indeed x

[Nas]

Yes lovely March, BC was my fight many years ago. I have scars to prove it! ☺

Life eh? I am coming back as a bird in the next life! X

[ATB]

Well said Naz!

ATB, if you think I am attacking the forum and am disrespectful, what do you think of this? It was posted on this forum and, to me, it suggests that those not HRT will automatically have health problems:

99% of women do have osteoporosis later in life, who do not take hormones - my NHS nurse who did my dexa scan said as soon as I stop my HRT I will be like the rest of them - meaning not on HRT, with osteoporosis.

When I read this, it makes me feel bad & worried and I find this quite negative, even if it's based on scientific evidence.  I don't think it applies to 99% of women.

I feel like you shouldn’t get so worked up and make a post attacking the forum based on one comment to you. The forum overall is full of very helpful advice to other women whether they take HRT or not.

[KarineT]

Marchlove, I am not the one who mentioned this.  I was quoting someone else.  You have realised this if you read my post thoroughly.

[Marchlove]

I didn’t read it thoroughly enough so didn’t realise you were quoting someone else.

I tend not to quote other people unless I’m fully confident that what they have said, is in fact correct.

People giving statistical information should post links. x

[dangermouse]

The forum has not historically been a welcome place for those not on HRT, many have left as any discussions on alternatives would get shot down. I don't come on here much now but hopefully things have improved.

I think that the heart risk is based on women no longer having the protection that oestrogen gives their heart to give birth, so once that is no longer required, our risk is aligned with men. This does get exaggerated by the media though as if we are about to keel over without HRT!

I do also find the TV doctors disingenuous, like one that was This Morning today, who promote HRT but then say compounded bio identical hormones are natural supplements being advertised on social media, that do not have any active ingredients, when they contain exactly the same plant-based, lab created estradiol and USP progesterone as the ones the GPs prescribe. It seems as if they have to follow the drug company's marketing strategy, regardless of what they really think. Money talks!

Hopefully the members here can see through this and make informed choices. The best strategy is, if it makes you feel good, then take it, and hopefully enjoy some risk mitigation, if it doesn't, then don't waste months and months taking things that make you feel awful just to protect yourself from a potentially exaggerated set of risks.

[ATB]

Bio identical HRT is not the same as body identical HRT at all. This page has a lot of info about why it is not advised, mostly due to safety reasons
PS I took this form years ago & it is discussed on the alternative therapies section here whenever people want. Did you all not see that section?

https://thebms.org.uk/publications/consensus-statements/bioidentical-hrt/

[Aprilflower]

Thank you dangermouse, for giving a clear, calm perspective.

[KarineT]

Hi Aprilflower and dangermouse,

Thanks for your kind messages and support in this situation.

And for those of you who are not on HRT,  it does not mean that it's the beginning of the end physically and mentally.

[Aprilflower]

You're welcome.

[dangermouse]

Bio identical HRT is not the same as body identical HRT at all. This page has a lot of info about why it is not advised, mostly due to safety reasons
PS I took this form years ago & it is discussed on the alternative therapies section here whenever people want. Did you all not see that section?

https://thebms.org.uk/publications/consensus-statements/bioidentical-hrt/

The ingredients are the same, the perceived danger is that because the HRT is made fresh in compounding pharmacies (like the old fashioned ones before big pharma took over) they are not packaged so cannot be licensed. They will have better quality carrier ingredients than the off the shelf packs that are mass produced, hence the cost. Only BMA doctors in UK can prescribe them and scans etc are carried out as standard to check on womb lining (if oestrogen is used) as sometimes less Utrogestan, or other USP progesterones are used.

The NHS cannot afford to resource scans so they have to use silly high amounts of progesterone (check out how much is in Evorel Conti!) which make a lot of women feel worse.

Anyway, this thread is not about the C word so sorry for bringing that up, but just to explain for anyone confused by it.

[ElkWarning]

Hi DM

This seems to imply that standard dosing of HRT in the UK is a bit like chucking the kitchen sink at the issues (symptoms) because actually women (on the NHS) can't be treated with an evidence-based approach due to lack of resources. Have I read that right? If so, that would really being into question the whole 'facts' (i.e evidence) claims.

I also agree with Nas re: 'the magic bullet'. So many women don't experience this response to HRT. I feel we're pretty much still waiting for an open and honest discussion about this and at the moment all we have is the binary 'for' and 'against' approach - which as 2,000 years of logic and reason has taught us, is absolutely the reverse of how we should think through issues.

There's an interesting analogy that can be applied here. CBT is widely touted as a suitable treatment path for women experiencing mental health crises (often as the result of hormonal disruption) and yet there's a wide body of evidence which suggests its universality as treatment of choice is more informed by cost implications (for the NHS, in terms of training and delivery, etc) and for some it can definitely do more harm than good. But it's become so accepted as the 'first line of defence' that it's almost impossible to have any form of sensible conversation about it - further information can be found in 'trauma is really strange' and 'the body holds the score'.

Anyway, I can kind of see where the OP is coming from. It's tough to think you can heal and be your best self even you're constantly being told you haven't got access to the magic bullet.

[CherrySG]

There's an interesting analogy that can be applied here. CBT is widely touted as a suitable treatment path for women experiencing mental health crises (often as the result of hormonal disruption) and yet there's a wide body of evidence which suggests its universality as treatment of choice is more informed by cost implications (for the NHS, in terms of training and delivery, etc) and for some it can definitely do more harm than good. But it's become so accepted as the 'first line of defence' that it's almost impossible to have any form of sensible conversation about it - further information can be found in 'trauma is really strange' and 'the body holds the score'.

Anyway, I can kind of see where the OP is coming from. It's tough to think you can heal and be your best self even you're constantly being told you haven't got access to the magic bullet.

CBT aka Cruelty Based Therapy. Shudder. I have had this inflicted on me. (A bit off-topic, sorry. Was just moved to comment    )