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 question should not be should a woman do HRT. The question should be is there any reason a woman should not do HRT because I just see the the value of of hormone replacement to far outweigh the risk in the majority of women.
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 if someone is a candidate for HRT, we do certainly believe in that or um menopause u therapy.
So if someone is a candidate for HRT, we do certainly believe in that
taken together all of these symptoms in my mind completely justify the use of HRT in any woman who is willing to undergo it
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.