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 we should at least be given the opportunity to have our symptoms evaluated, to be offered hormone therapy if we want it, and to not have to have these harsh cut offs, especially for something that can be so protective long term. I mean, for women, we see it be cardioprotective. It can help
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.
And then on a bigger scale, we're seeing the tide turn on hormone replacement therapy. And I know that's not what this entire episode's about, but as a reproductive endocrinologist, I love estrogen. I love hormones. And I think it's really important for women to know that you can start hormone replacement therapy at any time. So even though long time ago we felt really comfortable starting it right at the time of menopause, we're starting to see benefits starting it in the permenopausal period. We see a benefit starting it once you have menopause. But I think it's a disservice to women to make them have no period ovarian failure for 12 months, no estrogen, feel terrible before we'll allow them to have hormone replacement therapy.