Andrew Huberman· PhD
I think 10 years ago, I think the medical profession was not open to the idea that a 40-year-old woman, for instance, who had not yet undergone menopause by the strict definition, would take estrogen. It was seen as a risk as opposed to a benefit. Isn't it interesting? And, you know, by professional organizations, they would even call it menopausal hormone therapy, MHT, not even just hormone replacement therapy. And I talk about this a lot with my patients, the difference in replacing a hormone, we'll use in an embryo transfer cycle. If I'm going to give you estrogen, you haven't ovulated, I now have to replace your progesterone or I have to give it in a certain format that it can get to high enough levels versus supplementing. Your body's making some and we're supplementing that or augmenting it like you said to get it to the appropriate level or to make sure we have enough. I've given hormone therapy for a long time, right? I've been out of practice for over 10 years. And what's so interesting is that we'll use premature ovarian failure. So going into ovarian failure before age 40, well accepted that these women need hormone replacement even when they still have the low end of hormonal function. So in this population, we've been doing it for a really long time, but for menopause, it's been so frowned upon because of the WHI and fear-based tactics