The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
And it randomized, it had two parallel arms. So it had a group for women who did not have a uterus. So these are women that had undergone hysterectomy for some other reason. And then it had a group for women that did have their uterus. In the first group, there was a placebo arm and then an estrogen only arm. And in the other group, there was a progesterone plus estrogen versus a placebo.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
So this was a study that had, you know, two parallel arms, right? one where women without a uterus were just randomized to either the synthetic uh or ecquin based estrogen versus a placebo and then one where if you had a uterus you got MPA a synthetic progesterone and the estrogen as you pointed out the um elephant in the room here was the one finding that got all of the attention was that in the women with uterus group if you got the synthetic progesterine and estrogen, you had an increase in your incidence of breast cancer.