Andrew Huberman· PhD
for that reason I tend to go with the non-oral formulations to avoid that risk especially if she has any family history of clotting or personal history of clotting you know we're going to go with a non-oral form
Loading…
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.
for that reason I tend to go with the non-oral formulations to avoid that risk especially if she has any family history of clotting or personal history of clotting you know we're going to go with a non-oral form
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.
I'm going with non-oral estrogen as a primary product for my patients because I can just skip that worry so a patch typically so typically transdermal so a patch there's even miss spray there's FDA approved options of a patch there's gels there's a ring there's a um spray and um there is a vaginal ring
For symptomatic perimenopausal women under 60, hormone replacement therapy reduces all-cause mortality.
The breast-cancer risk attributed to HRT in the original WHI trial was overstated and the timing window matters most.