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.
in the observational studies this looks like it has a relatively favorable benefit risk ratio however keep in mind this is a very select group of women who are choosing to stay on hormone therapy long term because they're doing extremely well with it and they've tolerated it well and they haven't developed any of these interim events such as a heart attack a stroke a blood clot in the legs or lungs or breast cancer other estrogen sensitive cancers
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.
in observational studies the women who were being prescribed hormone therapy were still largely women in early menopause they were at least being started in early menopause even if they continued into mid and later menopause so that's another important perhaps biological difference between the women in the observational studies and women in randomized Trials where in the Women's Health Initiative the average age was 63 or more than a decade past onset of menopause when the hormone therapy was being started