Menopause is not a disease.
Question:
Joan: hoot, resa, the Cenestin advertisment found that a placebo reduced hot flashes 58% (OBGYN -June 1999), so the vaunted role HRT has for hot flash reduction is now highly suspect too. Why are women really taking this stuff if science is showing either no or pretty lousy validation of its"benefits." Lots of drugs with far fewer side effects and constant cancer monitoring can produce a short term "feel good benefit." So why, (besides perhaps this secret beauty agenda) are well-non-surgical women really taking this untested stuff? J Well J approximately 89% of women with breast cancer have never used exogenous hormones. If a woman fears that she will be "Constant cancer monitoring" if she uses HRT, then she would be much better off not using. Someone who believes that they have to constantly monitor their body for potential cancers, either had a or many relatives who died of cancer or is overwhelmed and cannot assess the real risks of getting cancer. To repeat: According to the BMJ the real risk for a women dying of breast cancer are 1 in 25. The other 24 will die of something else. But the placebo effect again–According to a NAMS representative estrogen/HRT is effective for relieving hot flashes and their studies back this up. A temporary placebo effect from any treatment is not equivalent to effectiveness in the long term. Resa
Response:
Resa3558 wrote in message <19990625062230.16441.00000…@ng-by1.aol.com>… >Well J approximately 89% of women with breast cancer have never used exogenous >hormones.
I question your figures here. Let’s wait until the WHI study comes out in 2005 for better answers. Refer to "Estrogen and Breast Cancer" by Carol Rinzler for more information on the studies linking hormone drug use and breast cancer. Premarin is the number one selling drug in the US, with Prempro coming in as number 16. And then add to that the use of BCPs, and you have a high use of hormone drug products in a country that has a very high rate of intractible BCA. This has not been comprhensively studied, or poorly and intentionally diluted studied for short term effect. J If a woman fears that she will be "Constant cancer monitoring" if – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->she uses HRT, then she would be much better off not using. Someone who >believes that they have to constantly monitor their body for potential cancers, >either had a or many relatives who died of cancer or is overwhelmed and cannot >assess the real risks of getting cancer. To repeat: According to the BMJ the >real risk for a women dying of breast cancer are 1 in 25. The other 24 will >die of something else. >But the placebo effect again–According to a NAMS representative estrogen/HRT >is effective for relieving hot flashes and their studies back this up. A >temporary placebo effect from any treatment is not equivalent to effectiveness >in the long term. >Resa
Response:
Hypoint wrote in message <19990626004624.22990.00005…@ng-xa1.aol.com>…
Oh, I could imagine being more than that, in the same way that >… frequencies that cause your skin to crawl … hm…. what do we/anybody >know about frequencies of things in the body? >Wendy >hypo…@aol.com
Sorry, no cite, and I may have even learned this on asm, but apparently the screech on a blackboard that makes the hair stand up on the back of (some?) our necks is the exact same sound a monkey makes when screeching in alarm. Maybe I heard it on Dr Dean Edell. J
Response:
On 26 Jun 1999 04:04:40 GMT, Karen Kay <ka…@wordwrite.com> wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Hypoint <hypo…@aol.com> wrote: >> A few things. Belief in the healing power of the pure sound of Tibetan bowls. >Are these like the Chinese singing bowls? These are wonderful. The >resonance is great. (I’d like to see a waveform of one, actually–it >seems to be pretty full-spectrum.) Have you every used one? >> I suppose if nothing else it gives one something to focus on other than fear. >> And provides a focal point for the mind and body to marshall it’s forces >> behind. >Oh, I could imagine being more than that, in the same way that >acupuncture interacts w/ the electrical field of your body. Everything >has a fundamental frequency. (There’s a mechanical engineering term >for this, but it escapes me at the moment.) There are frequencies that >cause things to break, there are frequencies that make things heat up >(microwaves), there are frequencies that cause your skin to crawl. >There are frequencies that cause plants to grow better, there are >frequencies that cause plants to wither. >I used to do percussion jam sessions with friends a while back. It was >wonderful–everyone would make various sorts of noises, and sometimes >people would kind of chant along wordlessly, just modulating the >stream of sound by manipulating their vocal tract. I haven’t done that >in a long time; I found it very spiritually uplifting. (Partly from >the group effort to make a marvelous moment, partly just from the >sounds.)
What a grea thing to do. Did you feel centered and did it carry on into the next day? I have been wanting to create a drumming circle for a group of autistic, mentally disabled, young men for a while now. I think and sense that this could be very beneficial and would help them focus and ‘resonate’ in a shared experience, at the frequency of the drumming. These men have zero impulse control and find it difficult to cope in the real world. I may get the opportunity to experiment a bit with it this summer. I’m quite excited by the prospect. Sheryl – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Karen > ka…@wordwrite.com
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Karen wrote: ><hypo…@aol.com> wrote: >> Jane wrote: >>>Denise wrote: >>>> I am quite into aromatherapy and frequently use oils to cure a range of >>>> illnesses >>>I love massage oil scents, and feel that any of them that really smell >>>wonderful have to have a positive effect! I also love perfume (I choose >the >>>scent for me!). A favorite scent wafting is so pleasing! I know >absolutely >>>nothing about aromatherapy, though. >> Did any (else) see the 48 hours piece of alternative medicine last night >that >> had a segment on the effects of sound on the immune system? >No, what did they say?
A few things. Belief in the healing power of the pure sound of Tibetan bowls. One doctors has his patients make/hear the sounds while they are getting their chemo treatments. There was a woman with ovarian cancer who strongly felt that the sounds had sent her cancer into remission. There was a former Dallas Cowboys cheerleader who had started sound therapy due to rheumatoid arthritis and was very pleased with the results. The Tibetan bowls do make some powerful sounds. I suppose if nothing else it gives one something to focus on other than fear. And provides a focal point for the mind and body to marshall it’s forces behind. Wendy hypo…@aol.com
Response:
<ti…@cheerful.com> wrote – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 04:11:20 GMT, "Joan Livingston" > <joan.livingst…@gte.net> wrote: > >>>You would do yourself and others here who question the benefits of HRT to > >argue > >>>on a point by point basis and provide occasional documentation. > >>>Resa. > >Resa, > > Tishys website: www.oxford.net/~tishy/beyond.html > >The point of the website was to collect these studies for ready reference. > >Give them a read. > The main page for this is > http://www.oxford.net/~tishy/longtermhrt.html but there are related > linked pages – and the search engine does a good job to track down > scattered references. > Tishy
Amen to this. When I was really at my wit’s end and was spending enormous amounts of time just reading these pages seeking clues, Tishy was able to zoom in on the very article I needed to read for peace of mind. It didn’t *fix* the problem, but let me determine precisely what *is* believed to be fact by the medical research community. I must say that the symptoms are still as fierce as ever, but I’m much more detached now, and not passionately seeking "the answer" that others led me to believe was out there somewhere. This reminds me of some old Beatles footage, where John Lennon went up in a helicopter with the Maharishi. When he returned, Paul McCartney asked him why he was so excited about going for the ride with the Maharishi that he pressed to be the one to take the single remaining seat, leaving the other Beatles on the ground. Lennon replied "I thought he might slip me the answer." McCartney asked "So, did he?" "No," said Lennon, he doesn’t know, either!" –Jane
Response:
Joan Livingston <joan.livingst…@gte.net> wrote in message
news:U%Yb3.1124$Ea1.46984@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net… > Resa3558 wrote in message
<19990622175846.18255.00000…@ng-bz1.aol.com>… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >Joan: One of the biggest ongoing problems with the recommendations to use > HRT > >is that right now they are using short term studies (and some really poor > >ones) to recommend the use of these drugs long term. > >Resa: The Nurses Health Study –22 years. Would 90 years be good enough > for > >you?. Generally I do not reply to your posts, simply because your > statements > >consist of all or nothing propositions and you refuse to provide any > citations. > This is an observational study that taught us all about the well-woman > bias. So since that is a finding of this observational study showing that we > lack reliable data on HRT use, I suppose it counts for something. So this > study is hardly justification to take HRT preventively, if that is what you > are getting at. > The study (cited in the archives) about finding 80% of women were taking > HRT as a "beauty treatment" may be the underpinings of this relentless tail > wagging the dog justification for these drug products. That study has always > haunted me when it comes to trying to understand the willingness to justify > on such flimsy grounds the willing experimentation with these products. > Shoot, resa, the Cenestin advertisment found that a placebo reduced > hot flashes 58% (OBGYN -June 1999), so the vaunted role HRT has for hot > flash reduction is now highly suspect too. Why are women really taking this > stuff if science is showing either no or pretty lousy validation of its > "benefits." Lots of drugs with far fewer side effects and constant cancer > monitoring can produce a short term "feel good benefit." So why, (besides > perhaps this secret beauty agenda) are well-non-surgical women really taking > this untested stuff? > J
A quote from a favorite book: "It is done unto you as you believe." Placebos have "cured" people for a very long time! Reminds me of those treatments of native Americans which were later shown to have no effect different from placebo — but people believed they helped. My half-Sioux mother always reminds me of this when I start getting itchy for magic bullets. –Jane
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Karen wrote: ><hypo…@aol.com> wrote: >> A few things. Belief in the healing power of the pure sound of Tibetan >bowls. >Are these like the Chinese singing bowls? These are wonderful. The >resonance is great. (I’d like to see a waveform of one, actually–it >seems to be pretty full-spectrum.) Have you every used one? >> I suppose if nothing else it gives one something to focus on other than >fear. >> And provides a focal point for the mind and body to marshall it’s forces >> behind. >Oh, I could imagine being more than that, in the same way that >acupuncture interacts w/ the electrical field of your body. Everything >has a fundamental frequency. (There’s a mechanical engineering term >for this, but it escapes me at the moment.) There are frequencies that >cause things to break, there are frequencies that make things heat up >(microwaves), there are frequencies that cause your skin to crawl. >There are frequencies that cause plants to grow better, there are >frequencies that cause plants to wither. >I used to do percussion jam sessions with friends a while back. It was >wonderful–everyone would make various sorts of noises, and sometimes >people would kind of chant along wordlessly, just modulating the >stream of sound by manipulating their vocal tract. I haven’t done that >in a long time; I found it very spiritually uplifting. (Partly from >the group effort to make a marvelous moment, partly just from the >sounds.)
I haven’t seen the Chinese singing bowls. Most of the bowls they showed were large deep bowls, but they also showed one that appeared to be only six inches in diameter. With the cheerleader, they showed the waveforms of the various percussion instruments, and did some biofeedback work to get the brains to ‘conform’ to the same pattern (I think I got that right). … frequencies that cause your skin to crawl … hm…. what do we/anybody know about frequencies of things in the body? Wendy hypo…@aol.com
Response:
Jane wrote: >Denise wrote: >> I am quite into aromatherapy and frequently use oils to cure a range of >> illnesses >I love massage oil scents, and feel that any of them that really smell >wonderful have to have a positive effect! I also love perfume (I choose the >scent for me!). A favorite scent wafting is so pleasing! I know absolutely >nothing about aromatherapy, though.
Did any (else) see the 48 hours piece of alternative medicine last night that had a segment on the effects of sound on the immune system? Wendy hypo…@aol.com
Response:
>Resa3558 <resa3…@aol.com> wrote: >> But the placebo effect again–According to a NAMS representative estrogen/HRT >> is effective for relieving hot flashes and their studies back this up. A >> temporary placebo effect from any treatment is not equivalent to effectiveness >> in the long term. >Placebo effects are not necessarily temporary. >Karen > ka…@wordwrite.com
rese, you said you were going to get the studies from NAMS a few weeks ago. Did they contact you and give you the cites. One must also understand that hot flashes will finally end, and that they come and go on their own. Until that is factored into hot flash studies, their putative "control" with use of hormone drugs is highly suspect. The information we have on what is "normal" about hot flashes is woefully inadequate. So who can competently talk about doing anything that allegedly ‘affects" them. Plus if they are a physiological necessity in some women, what downstream price do those women pay by interfering with this biological process? J J
Response:
Thanks. Feel free to improve on it. Karen Kay wrote: > HomemakerJ <ho…@interaccess.com> wrote: > > rp wrote: > >> I am quite into aromatherapy and frequently use oils to cure a range of > >> illnesses,: but what combination of oils for the menopause?? > > Just taking wild guesses, here… > J!!!!!! This is wonderful. I hope this becomes a Net Legend. > > I’m stumped on what aroma for irregular periods… > > Possibly mothballs to encourage infrequent ones
How about liver and onions for heavy bleeding? Oatmeal raisin cookies? Cool Runnings, HomemakerJ
Response:
Joanna Prescott wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:28:12 -0500, HomemakerJ <ho…@interaccess.com> > wrote: > >rp wrote: > >> I am quite into aromatherapy and frequently use oils to cure a range of > >> illnesses,: but what combination of oils for the menopause?? > >Just taking wild guesses, here… > A suggestion for depression – formaldehyde, one may be down but it’s > better than the alternative!
Oh, yes, definite aroma therapy. Good one. Cool Runnings, HomemakerJ
Response:
Denise wrote: > I am quite into aromatherapy and frequently use oils to cure a range of > illnesses
I love massage oil scents, and feel that any of them that really smell wonderful have to have a positive effect! I also love perfume (I choose the scent for me!). A favorite scent wafting is so pleasing! I know absolutely nothing about aromatherapy, though. –Jane
Response:
rp wrote: > I am quite into aromatherapy and frequently use oils to cure a range of > illnesses,: but what combination of oils for the menopause??
Just taking wild guesses, here… Chlorine for hotflashes to get that fresh from the pool feeling Alcohol for that doctor’s office smell for rapid heart beat Chocolate for irritability Lavendar for mood swings, sudden tears (isn’t that what they used to store hankies?) Lavendar again for insomnia, something minty smelling for those frequent trips to the bathroom I’m stumped on what aroma for irregular periods… Possibly mothballs to encourage infrequent ones Patchouli for loss of libido Tea (and drink it) for dry vagina, garlic Sun dried laundry for crashing fatigue Freshly watered soil for anxiety, feeling ill at ease The smell of new things, such as clothes, nail polish, perfume for feelings of dread, apprehension and doom Roses foggy thinking Old photos, newspaper, paper or glue for disturbing memory lapses Baby powder for incontinence Mosquito repellant for itchy crawly skin Bengay for aching sore joints & muscles Baby oil for increased muscle tension The smell of a baby grandchild’s head for breast tenderness Fresh air for headache change Peppermint for gastro-intestinal distress, air freshener for gas pain & nausea Cottage cheese, pineapple or canteloupe for sudden bouts of bloat Whatever smells wholesome to you for depression Turkey roasting for exacerbation of symptoms Air conditioned air for increase in allergies The smell of new things for weight gain, new car smell is nice The smell of hot oil treatment or Head & Shoulders shampoo for hair changes, the smell of facial wax for facial hair Ginger for dizziness Deodorant or soap for changes in body odor Singed hair smell for electric shock sensation Limberger cheese for tingling in the extremeties Scented dental floss for gum problems The old flavored chewing gums like chicolets or black jack or dentyne for burning tongue The smell of a gym for impending bone problems Hand lotion, jello or tea tree oil for nail problems YMMV Cool Runnings, HomemakerJ
Response:
I haven’t studied aromatherapy – but do agree with you about lavender. I have a little lavender pillow under my main pillow – doesn’t always work of course, but I love the smell anyway. I also use a drop or two of lavender oil on my temples to ease headaches and that can often do the trick. I gather that Basil is supposed to be uplifting (but always makes me fancy a nice greek salad). Chamomile is said to be good for menstrual problems and Peppermint for fatigue (I like the those two as teas instead). I have some Ylang-Ylang given to me ages ago – I put a couple of drops in a bath when I want a nice long soak – the bottle says it is good for "anxiety, insomnia, frustration; regulates circulation". I have a small bottle of Eucalyptus oil which I put on a tissue and inhale when I’m having breathing problems – it does seem to help. As for meno in particular, I was told once that Fennel was "good for menopause" but I don’t know exactly what that means and haven’t tried it myself – anyone know? I love scent – I can’t walk past a plant without testing its scent – and I believe that moods can be lifted and tensions eased by the right fragrance. If you are thinking of aromatherapy massage – I just love a massage ………. all the tensions …just.. ..sorta… …flow… …away… mmmmmmmmmm silver rp <r.p…@cableinet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7kr90r$bm5$1@news1.cableinet.co.uk… > I am quite into aromatherapy and frequently use oils to cure a range of
illnesses,:- tea tree for my sons warts, lavender on the pillow to aid restful sleep (or if that doesn’t help a glass of warm brandy and sugar) but what combination of oils for the menopause?? It is to help a wide range of symptoms, today faintness, hot flushes and spotting with stomach pains tomorrow could be altogether different, any ideas……… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Thanks > Denise
Response:
Kathryn wrote in message <37701785.33935693@news>… >On 22 Jun 1999 21:58:46 GMT, resa3…@aol.com (Resa3558) wrote: >>Joan: One of the biggest ongoing problems with the recommendations to use HRT >>is that right now they are using short term studies (and some really poor >>ones) to recommend the use of these drugs long term. ><snip> >>You would do yourself and others here who question the benefits of HRT to argue >>on a point by point basis and provide occasional documentation. >>Resa.
Resa, Tishys website: www.oxford.net/~tishy/beyond.html The point of the website was to collect these studies for ready reference. Give them a read. J >Another paper, this one looked at 22 different trials and came to this >conclusion: >>Conclusions: The results of these pooled data do not support the notion
that postmenopausal hormone therapy prevents cardiovascular events. >I have copied the abstract below but the full article is oneline on >the BMJ website: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7101/149 >the key messages listed for this article on the website are: >> ***The results of these pooled data do not support the notion that
postmenopausal hormone therapy prevents cardiovascular events >>*** These results concern only short term effects of postmenopausal
hormone therapy, and long term effects may be different >>***There have been hundreds of trials studying the impact of hormones on
various physiological phenomena, laboratory values, osteoporosis, >> symptoms, or various health problems but few fully report adverse
effects. Small trials would be useful in studying unintended effects if they >> were more systematically reported >>BMJ 1997;315:149-153 (19 July) >>Impact of postmenopausal hormone therapy on cardiovascular events >>and cancer: pooled data from clinical trials >>Elina Hemminki, research professor, Klim McPherson, professor of public health epidemiology >>Objective: To examine the incidence of cardiovascular diseases and cancer
from published clinical trials that studied other outcomes of postmenopausal >>hormone therapy as some surveys have suggested that it may decrease the
incidence of cardiovascular diseases and increase the incidence of hormone >>dependent cancers. >>Design: Trials that compared hormone therapy with placebo, no therapy, or
vitamins and minerals in comparable groups of postmenopausal women and >>reported cardiovascular or cancer outcomes were searched from the literature. >>Subjects: 22 trials with 4124 women were identified. In each group, the
numbers of women with cardiovascular and cancer events were summed and divided >>by the numbers of women originally allocated to the groups. >>Results: Data on cardiovascular events and cancer were usually given
incidentally, either as a reason for dropping out of a study or in a list of adverse effects. >>The calculated odds ratios for women taking hormones versus those not
taking hormones was 1.39 (95% confidence interval 0.48 to 3.95) for cardiovascular >>events without pulmonary embolus and deep vein thrombosis and 1.64 (0.65
to 4.18) with them. It is unlikely that such results would have occurred if the true >>odds ratio were 0.7 or less. For cancers, the numbers of reported events
were too low for a useful conclusion. >>Conclusions: The results of these pooled data do not support the notion
that postmenopausal hormone therapy prevents cardiovascular events. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->And then there is a lovely list of followup letters in the Sept 13 >1997 issue about this paper, boy did it make a stir. Have fun reading. >[ a little discord sure helps pull out the truth ] >http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7109/676 >Kathryn >droz…@home.com
Response:
I am quite into aromatherapy and frequently use oils to cure a range of illnesses,:- tea tree for my sons warts, lavender on the pillow to aid restful sleep (or if that doesn’t help a glass of warm brandy and sugar) but what combination of oils for the menopause?? It is to help a wide range of symptoms, today faintness, hot flushes and spotting with stomach pains tomorrow could be altogether different, any ideas……… Thanks Denise
Response:
Kathryn wrote in message <37700fac.31926134@news>…
events and gallbladder >>disease, and long-term use probably also increases the risk of breast
cancer. Therefore, until findings from randomized trials confirm and quantitate the benefit of >>estrogen therapy for prevention of CHD, we believe it should not be
recommended to all postmenopausal women. >As far as I can see the purported benefits of HRT for heart disease >are not quite as great as some make them out to be. >Kathryn >droz…@home.com
This point has been made repeatedly, with citations for years on asm. There was a lenghty meta-analysis available on this very issue from several years ago, on tishy’s website and often referred to. It pays to read this stuff. Cites for this information have always been available and that was the point of the website. it needs too be revisited apparently. www.oxford.net/~tishy/beyond.html J
Response:
Resa3558 wrote in message <19990622175846.18255.00000…@ng-bz1.aol.com>… >Joan: One of the biggest ongoing problems with the recommendations to use HRT >is that right now they are using short term studies (and some really poor >ones) to recommend the use of these drugs long term. >Resa: The Nurses Health Study –22 years. Would 90 years be good enough for >you?. Generally I do not reply to your posts, simply because your statements >consist of all or nothing propositions and you refuse to provide any citations.
This is an observational study that taught us all about the well-woman bias. So since that is a finding of this observational study showing that we lack reliable data on HRT use, I suppose it counts for something. So this study is hardly justification to take HRT preventively, if that is what you are getting at. The study (cited in the archives) about finding 80% of women were taking HRT as a "beauty treatment" may be the underpinings of this relentless tail wagging the dog justification for these drug products. That study has always haunted me when it comes to trying to understand the willingness to justify on such flimsy grounds the willing experimentation with these products. Shoot, resa, the Cenestin advertisment found that a placebo reduced hot flashes 58% (OBGYN -June 1999), so the vaunted role HRT has for hot flash reduction is now highly suspect too. Why are women really taking this stuff if science is showing either no or pretty lousy validation of its "benefits." Lots of drugs with far fewer side effects and constant cancer monitoring can produce a short term "feel good benefit." So why, (besides perhaps this secret beauty agenda) are well-non-surgical women really taking this untested stuff? J
Response:
Resa3558 <resa3…@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990621154025.15947.00000108@ng-bx1.aol.com… > "Menopause is not a disease". If you are a newcomer to
alt.support.menopause > and you encounter that phrase you might ask yourself "what does it really > signify?" Not much. It is used as a taunt against those who wish to assess > the long-term or short-term benefits of using HRT.
Resa, I think many of us read this differently — so many women’s doctors rush to cut out body parts when symptoms occur or prescribe untested drugs or herbs without providing any caveats. We feel they are treating women as if menopausal symptoms are part of a disease complex instead of a natural occurrence for all women. I am neither pro- nor anti-HRT, but I still do not like to have my symptoms referred to in books like the DSM (manual used by psychiatric professionals) as a disease. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> to rule out medical conditions without being made to feel that you are sickly. > I was told that I probably think of being female as a disease. Many medical > conditions (including arthritis and thyroid problems) have their onset around > the time of menopause. > Prevention of future illness is determined by health choices you make now. If > along with diet, and exercise changes you want to find out how HRT may make a > difference you are entitled to read all perspectives. Don’t let the often > dictatorial tone of some posters here dissuade you from exploring elsewhere. I > think that this newsgroup is a good place to visit after your have done > research on the internet. > Resa
And I would add that being an informed consumer is what this newsgroup is really all about. I take in all the information and then decide for myself in consultation with my ob/gyn (and I went through a few of those before I found one I am comfortable with). Whatever I put into my body isn’t done lightly or without a lot of careful research. We all get off on rants based on our personal reality occasionally, but that seems pretty common for any newsgroup. As far as I can tell, asm is no more or less rant-full than any other newsgroup (and menopausal women don’t seem to rant any more than anyone else, which feeds the argument that it’s not a disease, but a life evolutionary state)!!! –Jane
Response:
Resa3558 wrote in message <19990621154025.15947.00000…@ng-bx1.aol.com>… >"Menopause is not a disease". If you are a newcomer to
alt.support.menopause >and you encounter that phrase you might ask yourself "what does it really >signify?" Not much. It is used as a taunt against those who wish to assess >the long-term or short-term benefits of using HRT.
One of the biggest ongoing problems with the recommendations to use HRT is that right now they are using short term studies (and some really poor ones) to recommend the use of these drugs long term. So it is darn good advice when anyone hears first that "menopause is not a disease". But unfortunately, the hyper-marketing of sketchy, unproven "health" benefits of HRT is a disease. J However, you are entitled – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->to rule out medical conditions without being made to feel that you are sickly. >I was told that I probably think of being female as a disease. Many medical >conditions (including arthritis and thyroid problems) have their onset around >the time of menopause. >Prevention of future illness is determined by health choices you make now. If >along with diet, and exercise changes you want to find out how HRT may make a >difference you are entitled to read all perspectives. Don’t let the often >dictatorial tone of some posters here dissuade you from exploring elsewhere. I >think that this newsgroup is a good place to visit after your have done >research on the internet. >Resa >.
Response:
Joan: One of the biggest ongoing problems with the recommendations to use HRT is that right now they are using short term studies (and some really poor ones) to recommend the use of these drugs long term. Resa: The Nurses Health Study –22 years. Would 90 years be good enough for you?. Generally I do not reply to your posts, simply because your statements consist of all or nothing propositions and you refuse to provide any citations. Dr. Colditz used the term "we see" in the Scientific American Article. Some of the women in the study are at least 77 years old. That is plenty of time because the onset and heart problems for women begin ten years after menopause. After the age of 65 Cardiovascular disease mortality in women quickly catches up to that of men. What even the most ardent opponents of HRT are saying is that there may be other alternative treatments. No one is denying what they have seen in the 22 year Nurses Health Study. The benefits are established, the alternatives therapies have not been tested, and the risks are being debated. Nothing is so final and absolute as you make it out to be. You would do yourself and others here who question the benefits of HRT to argue on a point by point basis and provide occasional documentation. Resa.
Response:
"Menopause is not a disease". If you are a newcomer to alt.support.menopause and you encounter that phrase you might ask yourself "what does it really signify?" Not much. It is used as a taunt against those who wish to assess the long-term or short-term benefits of using HRT. However, you are entitled to rule out medical conditions without being made to feel that you are sickly. I was told that I probably think of being female as a disease. Many medical conditions (including arthritis and thyroid problems) have their onset around the time of menopause. Prevention of future illness is determined by health choices you make now. If along with diet, and exercise changes you want to find out how HRT may make a difference you are entitled to read all perspectives. Don’t let the often dictatorial tone of some posters here dissuade you from exploring elsewhere. I think that this newsgroup is a good place to visit after your have done research on the internet. Resa .
Response:
On 22 Jun 1999 21:58:46 GMT, resa3…@aol.com (Resa3558) wrote: >Joan: One of the biggest ongoing problems with the recommendations to use HRT >is that right now they are using short term studies (and some really poor >ones) to recommend the use of these drugs long term.
<snip> >You would do yourself and others here who question the benefits of HRT to argue >on a point by point basis and provide occasional documentation. >Resa.
Another paper, this one looked at 22 different trials and came to this conclusion: >Conclusions: The results of these pooled data do not support the notion that postmenopausal hormone therapy prevents cardiovascular events.
I have copied the abstract below but the full article is oneline on the BMJ website: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7101/149 the key messages listed for this article on the website are: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> ***The results of these pooled data do not support the notion that postmenopausal hormone therapy prevents cardiovascular events >*** These results concern only short term effects of postmenopausal hormone therapy, and long term effects may be different >***There have been hundreds of trials studying the impact of hormones on various physiological phenomena, laboratory values, osteoporosis, > symptoms, or various health problems but few fully report adverse effects. Small trials would be useful in studying unintended effects if they > were more systematically reported >BMJ 1997;315:149-153 (19 July) >Impact of postmenopausal hormone therapy on cardiovascular events >and cancer: pooled data from clinical trials >Elina Hemminki, research professor, Klim McPherson, professor of public health epidemiology >Objective: To examine the incidence of cardiovascular diseases and cancer from published clinical trials that studied other outcomes of postmenopausal >hormone therapy as some surveys have suggested that it may decrease the incidence of cardiovascular diseases and increase the incidence of hormone >dependent cancers. >Design: Trials that compared hormone therapy with placebo, no therapy, or vitamins and minerals in comparable groups of postmenopausal women and >reported cardiovascular or cancer outcomes were searched from the literature. >Subjects: 22 trials with 4124 women were identified. In each group, the numbers of women with cardiovascular and cancer events were summed and divided >by the numbers of women originally allocated to the groups. >Results: Data on cardiovascular events and cancer were usually given incidentally, either as a reason for dropping out of a study or in a list of adverse effects. >The calculated odds ratios for women taking hormones versus those not taking hormones was 1.39 (95% confidence interval 0.48 to 3.95) for cardiovascular >events without pulmonary embolus and deep vein thrombosis and 1.64 (0.65 to 4.18) with them. It is unlikely that such results would have occurred if the true >odds ratio were 0.7 or less. For cancers, the numbers of reported events were too low for a useful conclusion. >Conclusions: The results of these pooled data do not support the notion that postmenopausal hormone therapy prevents cardiovascular events.
And then there is a lovely list of followup letters in the Sept 13 1997 issue about this paper, boy did it make a stir. Have fun reading. [ a little discord sure helps pull out the truth ] http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7109/676 Kathryn droz…@home.com
Response:
On 22 Jun 1999 21:58:46 GMT, resa3…@aol.com (Resa3558) wrote: >You would do yourself and others here who question the benefits of HRT to argue >on a point by point basis and provide occasional documentation. >Resa.
This is my bottom line on the HRT and cardiovascular benefit position at the moment. Things might change when more study results come in. I haven’t seen this whole article, just the abstract. http://biomedical.annualreviews.org/cgi/content/abstract/16/19/55?ijk… >Annu. Rev. Public Health. 1998. 19:55-72. >HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY, HEART DISEASE, AND >OTHER CONSIDERATIONS >Elizabeth Barrett-Connor >Division of Epidemiology, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093-0607; e-mail: ebarrettcon…@ucsd.edu >Deborah Grady >Department of Epidemiology and of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California 94105; e-mail: deborah_gr…@quickmail.ucsf.edu >Multiple observational studies suggest a marked reduction in risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) associated with postmenopausal estrogen use. A new >meta-analysis presented here extends these results to estrogen plus progestin regimens. Although the findings from observational studies are strong and >consistent, and there are several plausible mechanisms by which estrogen might reduce risk for CHD, most of the known biases would tend to exaggerate >estrogen’s benefit. Further, estrogen therapy clearly increases risk for endometrial hyperplasia and cancer, venous thromboembolic events and gallbladder >disease, and long-term use probably also increases the risk of breast cancer. Therefore, until findings from randomized trials confirm and quantitate the benefit of >estrogen therapy for prevention of CHD, we believe it should not be recommended to all postmenopausal women.
As far as I can see the purported benefits of HRT for heart disease are not quite as great as some make them out to be. Kathryn droz…@home.com
