The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
the E plus P arm so the Cee plus MPA arm was stopped early correct a little over five years it was stopped after 5.6 years and it was stopped 3.3 years early and this was stopped presumably on the basis of the finding for the increased incidence of breast cancer correct
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.
We saw a decrease in overall mortality, a decrease in cancer specific mortality.
And so when you looked at the estrogen and the progesterine groups, there was a fear that there was an increased risk of incidence but not mortality from breast cancer. And even when you look at that data, there is questioning of the fact that the placebo group actually was more protected by breast cancer because many of them had been on hormones in the past. And when you use a correct placebo group, the the lines actually go together. And so you're more of a statistics nerd than I am, but the reality is there was no difference.
It turned out it didn't actually lead to any change in mortality from breast cancer, but there was an increase in the incidence. Now, um the number is really scary if it's given in relative terms. It was a 24% increase in the incidence. Incidence for the listener meaning getting breast cancer, right? So, you had a 24% higher chance of getting breast cancer if you took the um two hormones.