Question:
Thank you Theresa for your -cited- information on this topic. Good example why one must guard against "sound-bytes", unsubstantiated myths and second hand accounts. And your warning about reliance on these unsubstantiated claims giving a false sense of security is very, very timely. J Theresa <caspi…@btinternet.com
wrote in message
news:8dnpc5$i1u$1@plutonium.btinternet.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
~ Windsong ~ wrote in message … I hope you’re not only telling people about HRT but also warning all the young women you know to have babies at an early age and to nurse them for a year or so. It’s been
know
for awhile that that prevents BC in women.. Breast feeding *doesn’t* prevent breast cancer – as a community nurse I
see
women with breast cancer who have done all the *right* things, had their children young, breast fed them for a year or more. The diagnosis of
breast
cancer comes as even more of a shock for those who have been lulled into a false sense of security by this oft quoted myth about the so-called protective effects of breast feeding. Abstract from medline – I tried to post the URL but it didn’t work. History of Breast-Feeding in Relation to Breast Cancer Risk: a Review of
the
Epidemiologic Literature. [Record Supplied By Publisher] J Natl Cancer Inst 2000 Feb 16;92(4):302-312 (ISSN: 0027-8874) Lipworth L; Bailey LR; Trichopoulos D [Find other articles with these Authors] L. Lipworth, International Epidemiology Institute, Rockville, MD, and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN. The purpose of this review is to critically evaluate the collective epidemiologic evidence that a history of breast-feeding may decrease the risk of breast cancer. Original data for inclusion were identified through
a
MEDLINE(R) search of the English language literature from 1966 through
1998.
To date, virtually all epidemiologic data regarding breast-feeding and breast cancer risk are derived from case-control studies, which vary according to classification of breast-feeding history. Overall, the
evidence
with respect to "ever" breast-feeding remains inconclusive, with results indicating either no association or a rather weak protective effect
against
breast cancer. An inverse association between increasing cumulative
duration
of breast-feeding and breast cancer risk among parous women has been reported in some, but not all, studies; the failure to detect an
association
in some Western populations may be due to the low prevalence of prolonged breast-feeding. It appears that the protective effect, if any, of
long-term
breast-feeding is stronger among, or confined to, premenopausal women. It has been hypothesized that an apparently protective effect of
breast-feeding
may be due to elevated breast cancer risk among women who discontinue breast-feeding or who take medication to suppress lactation; however, the evidence is limited and should be interpreted with caution. The biology underlying a protective effect of breast-feeding and why this should be restricted to premenopausal women remain unknown, although several mechanisms have been postulated (hormonal changes, such as reduced
estrogen;
removal of estrogens through breast fluid; excretion of carcinogens from breast tissue through breast-feeding; physical changes in the mammary epithelial cells, reflecting maximal differentiation; and delay of the re-establishment of ovulation). While breast-feeding is a potentially modifiable behavior, the practical implication of reduced breast cancer
risk
among premenopausal women with prolonged durations of breast-feeding may
be
of marginal importance, particularly in Western societies. Language: English Publication Type: JOURNAL ARTICLE; RECORD SUPPLIED BY PUBLISHER PreMedline Identifier: 0010675379 Theresa
Response:
~ Windsong ~ wrote in message …
I hope you’re not only telling people about HRT but also warning all the young women you know to have babies at an early age and to nurse them for a year or so. It’s been know for awhile that that prevents BC in women..
Breast feeding *doesn’t* prevent breast cancer – as a community nurse I see women with breast cancer who have done all the *right* things, had their children young, breast fed them for a year or more. The diagnosis of breast cancer comes as even more of a shock for those who have been lulled into a false sense of security by this oft quoted myth about the so-called protective effects of breast feeding. Abstract from medline – I tried to post the URL but it didn’t work. History of Breast-Feeding in Relation to Breast Cancer Risk: a Review of the Epidemiologic Literature. [Record Supplied By Publisher] J Natl Cancer Inst 2000 Feb 16;92(4):302-312 (ISSN: 0027-8874) Lipworth L; Bailey LR; Trichopoulos D [Find other articles with these Authors] L. Lipworth, International Epidemiology Institute, Rockville, MD, and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN. The purpose of this review is to critically evaluate the collective epidemiologic evidence that a history of breast-feeding may decrease the risk of breast cancer. Original data for inclusion were identified through a MEDLINE(R) search of the English language literature from 1966 through 1998. To date, virtually all epidemiologic data regarding breast-feeding and breast cancer risk are derived from case-control studies, which vary according to classification of breast-feeding history. Overall, the evidence with respect to "ever" breast-feeding remains inconclusive, with results indicating either no association or a rather weak protective effect against breast cancer. An inverse association between increasing cumulative duration of breast-feeding and breast cancer risk among parous women has been reported in some, but not all, studies; the failure to detect an association in some Western populations may be due to the low prevalence of prolonged breast-feeding. It appears that the protective effect, if any, of long-term breast-feeding is stronger among, or confined to, premenopausal women. It has been hypothesized that an apparently protective effect of breast-feeding may be due to elevated breast cancer risk among women who discontinue breast-feeding or who take medication to suppress lactation; however, the evidence is limited and should be interpreted with caution. The biology underlying a protective effect of breast-feeding and why this should be restricted to premenopausal women remain unknown, although several mechanisms have been postulated (hormonal changes, such as reduced estrogen; removal of estrogens through breast fluid; excretion of carcinogens from breast tissue through breast-feeding; physical changes in the mammary epithelial cells, reflecting maximal differentiation; and delay of the re-establishment of ovulation). While breast-feeding is a potentially modifiable behavior, the practical implication of reduced breast cancer risk among premenopausal women with prolonged durations of breast-feeding may be of marginal importance, particularly in Western societies. Language: English Publication Type: JOURNAL ARTICLE; RECORD SUPPLIED BY PUBLISHER PreMedline Identifier: 0010675379 Theresa
Response:
droz…@home.com wrote:
There is an editorial in the current NEJM about whip lash injuries and no fault insurance. I know it is a stretch to make the analogy to women having *features* at menopause but made it just the same. There may indeed be more than *biology* to our menopause symptom experiences. [ this is the same issue with the two book reviews mentioned by Tishy] http://www.nejm.org/content/2000/0342/0016/1211.asp Pain and Public Policy
(snipping to get to the part that interests me:)
… The mere act of assigning a diagnostic label may increase illness-related behavior, (12) and many physicians believe that excessive testing leads to the conviction that one has a disease, as well as to anxiety and overreaction.
Whoa. This sums up in one succinct sentence a whole bunch of vague thoughts that have been rattling around in my brain for some time. I truly believe that being treated like a victim (of disease, of bad luck, of whatever) can sometimes make us come to see ourselves as victims. This may be part of the reason why two women, having exactly the same set of menopausal signs and symptoms, can report such subjectively different experiences. How would this change if doctors were willing to tell us, "You’re not sick, your body is just making the normal adjustments it needs to make as you approach menopause. It may take some time for this to work itself out, so let’s give you a good physical and make sure you’re in generally good health, and then I’ll point you to some resources that might help you cope with any temporary discomfort you feel. Otherwise, go on about your life." –Pat Kight kig…@peak.org
Response:
Gail Gillespie wrote:
Most women I know well enough to ask, however, do seem to either take HRT or ERT
(snip of very relevant rant) Keep talking Gail. You will have more of an effect than you think. And thank you! Who is in a better position that you to get this message out there? Cool Runnings, HomemakerJ
Response:
On 20 Apr 2000 04:18:37 GMT, kig…@ucs.orst.edu (Pat Kight) wrote:
There may also be some cultural differences in what women *complain* about; i.e., maybe getting old isn’t such a godawful big deal to some cultures, and they don’t experience common meno signs as that big a deal, either. –Pat Kight kig…@peak.org
There is an editorial in the current NEJM about whip lash injuries and no fault insurance. I know it is a stretch to make the analogy to women having *features* at menopause but made it just the same. There may indeed be more than *biology* to our menopause symptom experiences. [ this is the same issue with the two book reviews mentioned by Tishy] http://www.nejm.org/content/2000/0342/0016/1211.asp
Pain and Public Policy
[small quote ] – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Does this mean that people who file insurance claims for whiplash injury are malingering? Hardly. There are reports of staged automobile accidents and other fraudulent claims, but they probably represent less than 5 percent of claims for whiplash injury. (4) The vast majority of claimants undoubtedly have real symptoms, but how these symptoms are labeled, evaluated, and treated may have important effects on their perceived severity and duration. The mere act of assigning a diagnostic label may increase illness-related behavior, (12) and many physicians believe that excessive testing leads to the conviction that one has a disease, as well as to anxiety and overreaction. (13) Patients may choose to file insurance claims not only because of the severity of their symptoms or disability, but because of an inability to cope with symptoms, anxiety about their implications, and a conscious or unconscious desire for retribution. Physicians often blame lawyers for unnecessary disability claims, citing contingency fees, "ambulance chasing," and exaggerated claims of pain and suffering. Certainly, adversarial proceedings impair a patient’s ability to recover; any improvement threatens the patient’s credibility and financial well-being, because of legal fees and lost wages. It seems almost axiomatic that if you have to prove you are ill, you can’t get well. (14) But physicians share the blame for unnecessary disability claims. Alarming and inconsistent diagnostic labels, excessive testing, and unnecessary therapy contribute to the problem. Treatments are sometimes imposed as if desperation were a legitimate clinical indication, circumventing the need for objective evidence, scientific precedent, or attention to consensus guidelines for practice. (15) An evidence-based review of treatment for whiplash-associated disorders concluded that soft cervical collars, corticosteroid injections of the facet joints, and pulsed electromagnetic treatments are ineffective, and many other treatments have not been rigorously evaluated. Some treatments, such as the use of a soft collar for more than 72 hours, may result in prolonged disability. (2)
Kathryn droz…@home.com
Response:
In article <XUsL4.24154$fV.1315…@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
,
Eva D. Struction <EvaDSt…@aol.com
wrote: I *don’t* doubt your experiences, although Joan’s remark certainly brought me up short when I read it. It just makes me wonder about the demographics of the 80% who don’t take it. Usually minority women are the ones "massive drug experiments" (to use Joan’s phrase) are conducted on. But you’re all saying it’s well-educated middle-class white women who are taking the most HRT.
I think that’s probably the case, and you’re right, it does sound atypical. My completely unsupported guess is that (a) these prescriptions are handed out most freely to those who have ample insurance coverage, (b) women who go to the doctor routinely (as opposed to "only in an emergency" are much more likely to have them suggested and (c) some physicians may not see their minority patients as requiring/deserving the same kind of "lifestyle" medication as they think their well-educated middle-class white women patients demand. There may also be some cultural differences in what women *complain* about; i.e., maybe getting old isn’t such a godawful big deal to some cultures, and they don’t experience common meno signs as that big a deal, either. –Pat Kight kig…@peak.org
Response:
No, they report Synthoid. They see this as a disease condition. But with hormones, they have bought into the marketing imagery that just by being "post-menopause" they are ispo facto "estrogen-deficient". Therefore by taking this drug, they are righting the natural order of things and consequently this is not a "disease" but now they are again "normal." This has clearly been the marketing strategy and it has worked. And I think this plays a very large part in the drugs well-documented placebo effect as well as the hue and cry when one even mentions that HRT is not a Good Thing. I have not -myself- heard any woman say that they tried to cope with menopause and it was so bad they finally had to resort to taking drugs. I see it just plain given to women and taken by women with little hesitation, need or request. I had to turn down two offers myself just at the mere mention of having hot flashes on my updated health history form. I saw on my medical records that my doctor wrote down that he had counseled me on taking HRT at every annual exam and that I had again declined, when in fact we only talked about it once, when to his surprise, I said, no way. This would make a good thread. How and why did women get offers of HRT from their doctors? The story I have heard here most frequently (and I can be accused of selective memory here) is that women where just "told" by their doctors to take HRT, primarily for "heart and bones". J Eva D. Struction <EvaDSt…@aol.com
wrote in message
news:YUsL4.24155$fV.1315758@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Joan Livingston wrote in message <0i8L4.670$OG4.211…@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net… I see a lot of middle age female dental patients…. ….some women do not think of "hormones" as drugs and do not put this down on their health histories .They see them as some sort of
dietary
supplement. The amount of drugs that people take midlife on in this area from my dental chair prespective is astounding. ————– Out of curiosity, do they also neglect to report Synthroid (also a
"hormone
replacement" medication) as a drug? Eva
Response:
We (Gail and myself) both know women from allegedly a narrow socio-economic strata. I observe women who either have dental insurance or have financial means to cover dental specialty services from their own income and my women friends are professional working women. This does not comprise knowing -all women-. We see women who think they can "afford" to be on HRT and all of the attendant medical care this drug decision entails. Yes, the US government funded study, the Col study, concluded that only less than 1% of all women would not benefit from life-long HRT, and study money was forth-coming to find ways to make more women compliant about taking HRT. (This Col study came out before the Iowa study finding more BCA in HRT users, and the recent JAMA article finding more BCA in Estrogen/Progesterone users and the HERS and WHI preliminary findings showing HRT takers had more heart attacks, deaths, blood clots and strokes.) J Eva D. Struction <EvaDSt…@aol.com
wrote in message
news:XUsL4.24154$fV.1315754@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Gail, thanks for your thoughtful answer. We know–because the drug companies complain about it all the time–that only *20%* of "eligible" women are taking HRT. Yet you, Joan, and Carol–who can hardly be said to be in cahoots with each other–have all posted that *most* or *almost all* of the midlife women you know are
taking
it. I *don’t* doubt your experiences, although Joan’s remark certainly brought me up short when I read it. It just makes me wonder about the
demographics
of the 80% who don’t take it. Usually minority women are the ones
"massive
drug experiments" (to use Joan’s phrase) are conducted on. But you’re all saying it’s well-educated middle-class white women who are taking the most HRT. Eva ——————– Gail Gillespie wrote in message <38FF7575.5…@mindspring.com… Hi Eva and ASM folks, Well, I don’t think that my circle of acquaintances is too abnormal. Most women I know well enough to ask, however, do seem to either take HRT or ERT except for the one woman I mentioned who, it turns out is taking tamoxifen for her breast cancer. (Actually, now that I think of it, I actually know of two women who took estrogen/birth control pills in their 40s and are now currently dealing with breast cancer of "good prognosis"…one lives in Va. and the other in La.) I have just turned 53 and most of my women friends are between the ages of 45 and 55, so another factor may be that we are prime HRT targets. It does seem that most of the women my age are either taking HRT, or experimenting with different forms of it trying to find one that doesn’t make them feel like sh*t or are taking straight estrogen for surgical menopause. Indeed, every time I see a new doctor for anything at all – a cold, an injured foot, poison ivy – I get asked if I’m taking hormones and if not, why not. I live in the middle of North Carolina, in a university town. My part of the state is a very well educated and generally well-heeled region with a large population of health conscious women, many of menopausal age. Though the place I was visiting last weekend was in an isolated part of an adjacent state, the people I was among were largely middle aged men and women of similar background to mine -ie. over-educated Southerners – and no, you smart alecs out there, that’s NOT an oxymoron! So, I feel that the people I know are a pretty good cross section of mostly middle class Southerners. OTOH, in the South women do seem to wind up with more than our fair share of cold-turkey TAH-BSO/surgical menopauses. I know a half dozen women on ERT who had their surgery within the last 3 or 4 years…at about the age of 45. This is a different situation from mine & if it’s a fait accompli I rarely comment, unless a woman is having heavy flooding and considering the operation. Then, I’ll suggest some reading, especially Cutler’s Hysterectomy, Before and After. It helped me to avoid a surgical menopause myself. By becoming eduated, improving my diet, gradually increasing aerobic and weight bearing exercise and by having faith that everything would turn out all right in the end I went through a natural menopause. I feel terrific now (thank you ASM!). No way in h*ll would I put these drugs in my body at this point. As Joan mentioned, they (the HRT takers) all seem to genuinely trust their doctors and believe HRT is a "good thing," parallel to taking vitamins. In fact, their reasons for taking hormones could come straight from one of those smarmy Wyeth-Ayerst Prempro ads from Parade magazine. I will usually advise my HRT taking women acquaintances to at LEAST read the package insert. Then, if they are appropriately appalled by that, I might suggest some further reading, beginning with Love’s Hormone Book and Coney’s Menopause Industry (both at our local library). Yes, it’s a difficult, emotional issue, as is obvious from this ng. And, yes, the breast cancer issue is very, very close to home to me still. In fact I can become pretty incoherent with rage to think that women are risking such an unspeakable and endless nightmare in order to take drugs of such dubious value. Well, of course death will end the nightmare of breast cancer, but sometimes only after 20 some years. I think if we had x-ray vision, it would be a shock to see how many women there are running around with only one breast, even in Tennessee, where Carol lives! In the meantime, once diagnosed, a woman must endure horrific, mutilating surgery, many kinds of chemo & radiation treatments plus other assorted horrors too numerous to mention. And, please, please remember that my mother had the sort of breast cancer "with a good prognosis." It actually stayed away for 4 years after her initial mastectomy. She was considered a "survivor" and would not "count" in bc mortality statistics, though breast cancer is what killed her. And, what is everyone taking these f*cking drugs for? Women take these hormones because trusted doctors advise them to & simply because they are the "right age." They walk in for a check up and the doctor convinces them they want to either to turn off hot flashes or, if they are feeling fine, they are given the "party line" of unproven future benefits. I wouldn’t wish the agonies my mother went through on Hitler. (well, maybe..) In the end, her pain was so staggering that she had to take so much morphine she was mercifully unconscious. So, when I hear a friend tell me she is taking estrogen "for her bones…for her heart…to prevent alzheimers’," I just try to stay calm & ask about familial history of breast cancer since the doctors around here do not seem to do this (!) I know because, at my HMO clinic, doctors have looked right at my record, which states that my mother had/died of breast cancer, and try to convince me to take hormones. ARGGGGH. G.
Response:
Hi Eva and ASM folks, Well, I don’t think that my circle of acquaintances is too abnormal. Most women I know well enough to ask, however, do seem to either take HRT or ERT except for the one woman I mentioned who, it turns out is taking tamoxifen for her breast cancer. (Actually, now that I think of it, I actually know of two women who took estrogen/birth control pills in their 40s and are now currently dealing with breast cancer of "good prognosis"…one lives in Va. and the other in La.) I have just turned 53 and most of my women friends are between the ages of 45 and 55, so another factor may be that we are prime HRT targets. It does seem that most of the women my age are either taking HRT, or experimenting with different forms of it trying to find one that doesn’t make them feel like sh*t or are taking straight estrogen for surgical menopause. Indeed, every time I see a new doctor for anything at all – a cold, an injured foot, poison ivy – I get asked if I’m taking hormones and if not, why not. I live in the middle of North Carolina, in a university town. My part of the state is a very well educated and generally well-heeled region with a large population of health conscious women, many of menopausal age. Though the place I was visiting last weekend was in an isolated part of an adjacent state, the people I was among were largely middle aged men and women of similar background to mine -ie. over-educated Southerners – and no, you smart alecs out there, that’s NOT an oxymoron! So, I feel that the people I know are a pretty good cross section of mostly middle class Southerners. OTOH, in the South women do seem to wind up with more than our fair share of cold-turkey TAH-BSO/surgical menopauses. I know a half dozen women on ERT who had their surgery within the last 3 or 4 years…at about the age of 45. This is a different situation from mine & if it’s a fait accompli I rarely comment, unless a woman is having heavy flooding and considering the operation. Then, I’ll suggest some reading, especially Cutler’s Hysterectomy, Before and After. It helped me to avoid a surgical menopause myself. By becoming eduated, improving my diet, gradually increasing aerobic and weight bearing exercise and by having faith that everything would turn out all right in the end I went through a natural menopause. I feel terrific now (thank you ASM!). No way in h*ll would I put these drugs in my body at this point. As Joan mentioned, they (the HRT takers) all seem to genuinely trust their doctors and believe HRT is a "good thing," parallel to taking vitamins. In fact, their reasons for taking hormones could come straight from one of those smarmy Wyeth-Ayerst Prempro ads from Parade magazine. I will usually advise my HRT taking women acquaintances to at LEAST read the package insert. Then, if they are appropriately appalled by that, I might suggest some further reading, beginning with Love’s Hormone Book and Coney’s Menopause Industry (both at our local library). Yes, it’s a difficult, emotional issue, as is obvious from this ng. And, yes, the breast cancer issue is very, very close to home to me still. In fact I can become pretty incoherent with rage to think that women are risking such an unspeakable and endless nightmare in order to take drugs of such dubious value. Well, of course death will end the nightmare of breast cancer, but sometimes only after 20 some years. I think if we had x-ray vision, it would be a shock to see how many women there are running around with only one breast, even in Tennessee, where Carol lives! In the meantime, once diagnosed, a woman must endure horrific, mutilating surgery, many kinds of chemo & radiation treatments plus other assorted horrors too numerous to mention. And, please, please remember that my mother had the sort of breast cancer "with a good prognosis." It actually stayed away for 4 years after her initial mastectomy. She was considered a "survivor" and would not "count" in bc mortality statistics, though breast cancer is what killed her. And, what is everyone taking these f*cking drugs for? Women take these hormones because trusted doctors advise them to & simply because they are the "right age." They walk in for a check up and the doctor convinces them they want to either to turn off hot flashes or, if they are feeling fine, they are given the "party line" of unproven future benefits. I wouldn’t wish the agonies my mother went through on Hitler. (well, maybe..) In the end, her pain was so staggering that she had to take so much morphine she was mercifully unconscious. So, when I hear a friend tell me she is taking estrogen "for her bones…for her heart…to prevent alzheimers’," I just try to stay calm & ask about familial history of breast cancer since the doctors around here do not seem to do this (!) I know because, at my HMO clinic, doctors have looked right at my record, which states that my mother had/died of breast cancer, and try to convince me to take hormones. ARGGGGH. G.
Response:
Most of the 50 something women I know are also taking either HRT or straight estrogen (castrated). I used to think that the high rate of hormone use was possibly because I live in an area with a couple of large teaching hospitals that are always running studies on post-menopausal women involving "free study medications" (guess what?) Several of the women I know here began taking hormones as part of long-term studies and continued to take them afterward. However, last weekend I was at a gathering in another state that included eight other midlife women and was amazed to meet one other woman not taking hormones. Actually, after talking to her, it turned out the other non-hormone taking woman had actually gotten breast cancer after 10 years of estrogen. And, I guess she WAS taking hormones. After the mastectomy, radiation and chemotherapy she is now on tamoxifen. So, I guess I was indeed the only mid life woman in the room not taking some form of estrogen related drug. -g
Response:
I see a lot of middle age female dental patients so that is why I probably see so many women on HRT because I see their health histories …which is why I have this perspective about the number of them that I see who get later HRT linked diseases. It is very hard to find women among my patients who are not on HRT in some form. Also among closer personal friends, most are on HRT as well as antidepressants like Prozac, and I reported a male friend who was getting alarmed about how many of his male friends were also on Prozac. Additionally, some women do not think of "hormones" as drugs and do not put this down on their health histories .They see them as some sort of dietary supplement. The amount of drugs that people take midlife on in this area from my dental chair prespective is astounding. Just had someone my age who had been taking Prem/Provera for a number of years and was bragging that she was no longer taking that nasty old horse stuff and was now on the "naturals". She was also reporting getting arthritis in her hands which she showed me and was now being put on Celebrex. I discussed the findings I had discovered on HRT and arthritis, and the unknown safety of "natural" HRT as best I could within my role as her dental hygienist, which has some latitude because teeth benefit claims are being made for HRT. She was not particularly interested in hearing anything negative about these drugs and I don’t think what I told her mattered. But I saw one more healthy midlife woman starting this downward spiral into more and more drugs to take care of the potential side effects from the first ones which had no business being given to her in the first place. (IMHO) J Eva D. Struction <EvaDSt…@aol.com
wrote in message
news:LV7L4.22782$fV.1198244@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Gail Gillespie wrote in message <38FDBD3A.4…@mindspring.com… Most of the 50 something women I know are also taking either HRT or straight estrogen (castrated). ….last weekend I was at a gathering in another state that included eight other midlife women and was amazed to meet one other woman not taking hormones. Actually, after talking to her, it turned out the other non-hormone taking woman had actually gotten breast cancer after 10 years of estrogen. And, I guess she WAS taking hormones. After the mastectomy, radiation and chemotherapy she is now on tamoxifen. So, I guess I was indeed the only mid life woman in the room not taking some form of estrogen related drug. ————- Good grief! Where do you live? Or, where was the other state where this happened? Did you tell your mother’s story to all these women, or is it still too close? Sometimes I think I’m living on another planet. Then again, I tend not to talk to people about what medications they’re taking. It depresses me to find out how many are on antidepressants. Eva
Response:
In article <07aL4.764$OG4.245…@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net
, "Joan
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Livingston" <joan.livingst…@gte.net
wrote: My friends know how I feel. No, they do not claim this drug "gives them their life back" at all. I don’t know "crazy lady" menopause women who -need- drugs, which should be no surprise. They just take it because they think it is "good for them" and hopefully will keep them looking young. They have been sold by their doctors, the media and advertising on preventing heart disease and osteoporosis, just exactly the marketing scenario set out in "The Menopause Industry" by Sandra Coney. They are healthy women, but they do not have back grounds in science or a critical awareness about the health care industry. None of them have ever mentioned having problems prior to taking this .It is just that practically all doctors I hear about in this area just tell women …they are at the age to take it. The think taking it is a Good Thing. I have found however that this subject has so much emotional overlay, just like here, that after I raise the subject, I no longer push it with them. It is not my job to go against what belief system they still have in their doctors, and their own deep needs for the promises of these drugs .They genuinely believe these drugs are good for them. Everyone has to come to their own decision in their own way .And I do not push this individual choice on this newsgroup either. You will not find this. But I do present as much information as I can about their potential dangers, lies and frauds. Keep in mind that women who choose not to take HRT need support too when the entire industry is telling them that taking it is a Good Thing. Women who choose not to take these drugs need to know they are not harming themselves by not taking it. This is strongly implied in the HRT message. These are the women I reach out to, not the ones who want to take these drugs because they can not, do not want to listen. This I know. And this is why so many of the studies that come out "supporting" HRT need to be analyzed line by line to reassure women choosing not to take these drugs that their decisions are still very much okay. Have you ever seen my asm "mission" from this perspective .That I am very much providing support for women who choose not to take HRT and to help them continue to feel okay about this decision? In my research which I share almost daily, I have seen nothing whatsoever for any healthy woman to come even close to even think about taking these drugs. I do think they are poisons of the worst order. And I want women who want to avoid them to have these supporting facts at their fingerstips because empowerment for this position is hard to come by, when they go against the forces that support the use of these drugs. And that is how I see my own role on -alt.support.menopause- I am here to help support women going through menopause. I am not here to support uniformed HRT drug (or any other menopause "product") choices, as this is not the name of this newsgroup. It is alt.support.menopause. I don’t believe that is an excuse for drug experimentation. J
Thank you, Joan, for saying this so much more eloquently than I could. We have many women who come here asking "what will happen to me if I don’t take hormones?" or "I really want to get off hormones but I’m afraid of what will happen." They need to know that this is a perfectly rational choice to make and one that many women choose – the majority in fact. Terri
Response:
gs wrote:
Several of *you* are very active in asm regarding medical studies, women’s issues, truth in advertising, etc. I have been wondering if *you* are active outside of the newsgroup concerning these topics. I would be very interested to find out what *you* are doing, how *you* are doing it, and how you got started.
I’ve been politicaly active on women’s issues since the late 1960s. Like many , I got started as a student anti-war activist and rather quickly discovered that the left tended to treat women as shabbily as the right. It pissed me off, and I got involved with women instead. It turned out to be quite possibly the most empowering decision I’ve made in my life, and the one I’ve least regretted. I’ve worked on general women’s issues, reproductive rights issues and, in the past decade, gay-lesbian-bisexual rights issues, all of which I believe are intertwined. These days, I continue to be an member of my local NOW chapter (though not as active as I once was), and am on several progressive email lists, most of them at least tangentially involved in women’s issues. I subscribe to several special-interest publications, many with a political bent. As for activity, I generally fall back on the tried-and-true: Reading and writing. When I’m interested in a subject, I read everything I can lay hands on, preferably from a variety of sources and viewpoints. When I’m moved to act, I start out with good, old-fashioned, hand-written letters to the appropriate parties, from local bureaucrats to Congresscritters. That’s sort of the baseline. Beyond that, I contribute money to organizations working to support positions I espouse; I write letters to my local newspaper on occasion; I’ve been known to speak in public, attend rallies, marches and vigils, staff booths at fairs, volunteer for the local rape crisis center … and not too many years ago I quite my job for a year to serve as full-time activist and local campaign manager to help defeat a number of anti-gay initiatives. And I always, always vote. I don’t have the energy I once did, but I expect to remain politically active until the day I die. I’m inspired by the stories of women like Alice Paul and Hazel Wolfe, who were agitating into their 80s and 90s. –Pat Kight kig…@peak.org
Response:
My friends know how I feel. No, they do not claim this drug "gives them their life back" at all. I don’t know "crazy lady" menopause women who -need- drugs, which should be no surprise. They just take it because they think it is "good for them" and hopefully will keep them looking young. They have been sold by their doctors, the media and advertising on preventing heart disease and osteoporosis, just exactly the marketing scenario set out in "The Menopause Industry" by Sandra Coney. They are healthy women, but they do not have back grounds in science or a critical awareness about the health care industry. None of them have ever mentioned having problems prior to taking this .It is just that practically all doctors I hear about in this area just tell women …they are at the age to take it. The think taking it is a Good Thing. I have found however that this subject has so much emotional overlay, just like here, that after I raise the subject, I no longer push it with them. It is not my job to go against what belief system they still have in their doctors, and their own deep needs for the promises of these drugs .They genuinely believe these drugs are good for them. Everyone has to come to their own decision in their own way .And I do not push this individual choice on this newsgroup either. You will not find this. But I do present as much information as I can about their potential dangers, lies and frauds. Keep in mind that women who choose not to take HRT need support too when the entire industry is telling them that taking it is a Good Thing. Women who choose not to take these drugs need to know they are not harming themselves by not taking it. This is strongly implied in the HRT message. These are the women I reach out to, not the ones who want to take these drugs because they can not, do not want to listen. This I know. And this is why so many of the studies that come out "supporting" HRT need to be analyzed line by line to reassure women choosing not to take these drugs that their decisions are still very much okay. Have you ever seen my asm "mission" from this perspective .That I am very much providing support for women who choose not to take HRT and to help them continue to feel okay about this decision? In my research which I share almost daily, I have seen nothing whatsoever for any healthy woman to come even close to even think about taking these drugs. I do think they are poisons of the worst order. And I want women who want to avoid them to have these supporting facts at their fingerstips because empowerment for this position is hard to come by, when they go against the forces that support the use of these drugs. And that is how I see my own role on -alt.support.menopause- I am here to help support women going through menopause. I am not here to support uniformed HRT drug (or any other menopause "product") choices, as this is not the name of this newsgroup. It is alt.support.menopause. I don’t believe that is an excuse for drug experimentation. J Eva D. Struction <EvaDSt…@aol.com
wrote in message
news:__8L4.12188$PV.829178@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Joan Livingston wrote in message <0i8L4.670$OG4.211…@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net… I see a lot of middle age female dental patients so that is why I
probably
see so many women on HRT because I see their health histories …which is why I have this perspective about the number of them that I see who get later HRT linked diseases. It is very hard to find women among my
patients
who are not on HRT in some form. Also among closer personal friends, most are on HRT as well as antidepressants like Prozac, and I reported a male friend who was getting alarmed about how many of his male friends were
also
on Prozac. —————— What I don’t get is why you’ve been unsuccessful in convincing your *personal friends* that they’re risking their lives and throwing their
money
away. They must know how you feel about it; you must have shown them the studies that demonstrate increased risks and doubtful benefits. What do they say HRT is doing for them that’s worth getting breast cancer? Are
they
like Carol’s friends who say "It gave me my life back"? Or are they just like my co-worker, who’d started taking Evista to counteract the effects of Synthroid. When I looked up the PDR entry on Evista and told her it could be dangerous, she replied flatly, "Look, I trust my doctor." She wasn’t a close personal friend, so I didn’t feel I could push it any further, but hopefully I did start her thinking about looking things up before just blindly swallowing them. Eva
Response:
In article < 933F01D4EEC224E9.0D24E4F833D13807.2A87C8F25D5C8…@lp.airnews.net
, "gs" <he…@rest.net
wrote: Joan, This is an area where I get myself into trouble. I am not being
flippant! My
question is…Many women get these diseases and have never
taken HRT. Maybe
I am the *village idiot*, but I don’t see how if women get them
anyway, they
can tell there is an increased incidence.
If out of every 100 women on hormones, 3 get the disease, and out of every 100 women not on hormones, 2 get the disease, and all other known risk factors have been accounted for, then it’s reasonable to say that hormones appear to increase the incidence of the disease. That doesn’t mean that hormones are the *only* cause, and that the disease does not occur in women who don’t take homrones. It just means that if you take hormones you are increasing your risk for that particular disease. Does that help?
I’m not making a pro or con statement. I understand the increased incidence in reference to
a placebo
etc. Maybe my frustration is in the fact that they can’t be
prevented. We know
risk factors. No one knows who will get them. Why isn’t more
known? Why
isn’t more known about how a woman’s body functions?
Medicine is far from an exact science. There is much about men’s bodies that isn’t understood either. Doctors aren’t omniscient. Most do the best they can with what they know. A few are exceptionally good and a few are exceptionally bad. Patients need to take responsibility for themselves so they know which kind of doctor they are dealing with. Terri gs * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
Thank you Terri. I just get so *frustrated*. I realize its not an exact science…but I, like most, want it to be. I understand what you mean about the doctors. gs "Terri" <vl-hb001NOvlS…@erols.com.invalid
wrote in message
news:0c044b20.5019d6e9@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article < 933F01D4EEC224E9.0D24E4F833D13807.2A87C8F25D5C8…@lp.airnews.net , "gs" <he…@rest.net wrote: Joan, This is an area where I get myself into trouble. I am not being flippant! My question is…Many women get these diseases and have never taken HRT. Maybe I am the *village idiot*, but I don’t see how if women get them anyway, they can tell there is an increased incidence. If out of every 100 women on hormones, 3 get the disease, and out of every 100 women not on hormones, 2 get the disease, and all other known risk factors have been accounted for, then it’s reasonable to say that hormones appear to increase the incidence of the disease. That doesn’t mean that hormones are the *only* cause, and that the disease does not occur in women who don’t take homrones. It just means that if you take hormones you are increasing your risk for that particular disease. Does that help? I’m not making a pro or con statement. I understand the increased incidence in reference to a placebo etc. Maybe my frustration is in the fact that they can’t be prevented. We know risk factors. No one knows who will get them. Why isn’t more known? Why isn’t more known about how a woman’s body functions? Medicine is far from an exact science. There is much about men’s bodies that isn’t understood either. Doctors aren’t omniscient. Most do the best they can with what they know. A few are exceptionally good and a few are exceptionally bad. Patients need to take responsibility for themselves so they know which kind of doctor they are dealing with. Terri gs * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network
*
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!
Response:
Joan, Terri answered the question for me already. I am NOT getting into any of the other stuff…who said what or does what. If I’m not sure what someone has said or means by what they said, I will ASK the person that posted. The personal experience is what I was talking about in another post. The only women I know that have gotten breast cancer, haven’t taken HRT. Just the opposite of your experience! This is why this is so frustrating for me! I’m not alone in this frustration! gs "Joan Livingston" <joan.livingst…@gte.net
wrote in message
news:UGuK4.2523$hA6.522968@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
gs, Have I ever claimed HRT was the sole cause of any of these conditions? No. Have others claimed this is what I am saying? Yes. Who do you want to talk to about this? Them or me? When studies show an -increased- HRT link to these major diseases when observed against those who do not take HRT, I repeatedly ask … why accelerate the odds? This I don’t get. Not when all there are no valid claims for HRT "benefits"? (I am not, nor have I ever been, talking about the ethical post-surgical ERT management with replacement hormone drugs, but even
this
area needs a heck of a lot more investigation and demands for better efficacy and dosage needs.) So how did you (did you?) conclude I am denying that women get these diseases without taking HRT. I never have said this. Never. But this has been tagged on me. Are you clear about what I say …….and what gets
said
about what I say? BTW: two more friends, late 60’s, early 70’s both on HRT, both now with breast cancer diagnosis. One, the 70 year old, is on a one-woman campaign
to
tell everyone she knows not to take HRT. I thought I was talking to myself when I heard her pitch. SHe had not known I had spent the last 4 years tracking down the same information she had found and was on the same educational mission. This statement about my own personal aquaintences however does not say
that
no one gets breast cancer if they do not take HRT. It does say that the only people I know who have breast cancer …so far …..have -all- been
on
HRT. That has been my own individual experience (Most women I know are on HRT anyway already, but studies do show
higher
incidences for BCA for HRT users, but never has this been proven to be the exclusive cause. And most likely someday it will be shown to be one of several co-factors and this combination of factors will be the most
helpful
discovery that needs to be made. Depression of the immune system may be
far
more important than taking hormone drugs. And it could be something about the profile of the person who chooses to take HRT that may be its
co-factor, > not the drug itself. More to learn, more to be open to.) > J > gs <he…@rest.net
wrote in message
> news:933F01D4EEC224E9.0D24E4F833D13807.2A87C8F25D5C8E62@lp.airnews.net… > > Joan, > > This is an area where I get myself into trouble. I am not being flippant!
My question is…Many women get these diseases and have never taken HRT. Maybe I am the *village idiot*, but I don’t see how if women get them anyway, they can tell there is an increased incidence. I’m not making a pro or con statement. I understand the increased incidence in reference to a
placebo
etc. Maybe my frustration is in the fact that they can’t be prevented. We
know > > risk factors. No one knows who will get them. Why isn’t more known? Why > > isn’t more known about how a woman’s body functions? gs > > "Joan Livingston" <joan.livingst…@gte.net
wrote in message
> > news:YArK4.2364$hA6.472337@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net… > > > Sometimes you need to read the cited studies that are provided here. I > > list > > > the diseases that have been linked to HRT from cited studies posted to > > this > > > group. Stop putting your words into my mouth, resa. > > > There is no point ruining a perfectly good case against HRT by lying > about > > > it. Lying about HRT is why we have gotten into the mess we are in today. > > > From cited studies and references posted to this newsgroup and > collected > > in > > > my files, HRT use has been linked to the increased incidence of: > cancers, > > > heart attacks, blood clots, strokes, gall bladder disease, diabetes, > > > arthritis, asthma, migraine, and depression. > > > That is not -all- disease known to the human condition, but it covers > many > > > of the leading ones. Please search the archives for the cites. Or you > can > > > start with the HERS study, the WHI preliminary results, and the FDA > > warning > > > label for most of these. You now have the arthritis studies. The only > one > > > you are missing is the asthma one .I will post it for you. > > > J > > > Resa3558 <resa3…@aol.com
wrote in message
> > > news:20000416171438.13964.00001953@ng-cp1.aol.com… > > > > Joan– I write in a neutral tone with facts and studies, not in the > more > > > > emotional and colorful tone I often use on this newsgroup. > > > > Resa–Why don’t you share these facts with the newgroup? This is a > very > > > > emotionally charged issue with some women. I think it would help if > you > > > would > > > > tone down some of your emotionally charged statements. Sometimes you
seem to be saying that every illness known to women is caused by HRT.
Response:
What do I do outside of asm about women’s health issues? I write my legislators. I write to local doctors. I write to women’s health publishers. I write to FDA review panels, and local women’s health agency boards. I stand up and ask difficult questions at public meetings, and I do not get brushed off with evasive answers and I follow up with cited cases. I serve on a hospital bioethics board. I monitor community education programs on women’s health issues. I track FDA hearing transcripts and forward information to women’s health agencies. I talk to anyone who wants and needs to know. I share my information. I get responses back saying my points are "interesting and provocative" and they will look into it and they share my concerns about the issues I raise. I write in a neutral tone with facts and studies, not in the more emotional and colorful tone I often use on this newsgroup. I address specific issues, quotes and cited cases. I occasionally make a difference. I occasionally get back a valuable response. I often get back "concern" and no realistic course of action. I feel many drops of water will finally etch a stone. I feel like a lone voice in the wilderness …often. Then every once in a while I hear a similar voice and it is validating as this voice comes from their own independent concerns about these issues. I have made deep friendships among some on this newsgroup. This has been a gift and a surprise and an enduring bond. I started looking into this well before my own "menopause" years when I saw up close and personal the devastation to a family after the wife at age 46 had a prophylactic "pelvic" clean-out …because she was told she is "that age" ….and as long as "we are in there" …. and 6 weeks later with 6 weeks of Premarin she was dead from a massive stroke. I wanted to be prepared "when I was that age" so I started reading the only books I could find at that time and started with "The Castrated Woman" and then "How to Avoid a Hysterectomy" and then "MalePractice" . All both factual and inflammatory books. I got inflammed. I did not know anything about menopause or perimenopause, but I knew it was almost expected at that time to "have a hysterectomy" if you were female and lived long enough. Younger women I worked with were surprised that I "had not had my hysterectomy yet" because they assumed all "older" women had them. I hit my own menopause about the same time "Silent Passages" came out by Sheehy opening the door to new thinking and finally talking about menopause and the controversies of the hormone drug questions. Then I started reading and reading and doing my own "watchful-waiting" and re-thinking my own menopause transition from this perspective. I turned down multiple casual offers of hormone drugs from my doctors to their surprise, just for the mere mention of starting to have hot flashes on my updated health history. I stopped going to doctors after being told on an annual check-up to have an FSH test at age 51 to "rule out the possibility of cancer" because my periods were slowing down. I stopped buying into annual medical checkups and will not return until I start seeing something other than life-long hormone drug pushing coming from US medical offices. I am healthy by any standards and I do not fear "hidden disease". I fear over-treatment and medical ignorance more. I came to asm shortly after my own periods stopped when I was age 52. And rest of my story can be found on four – five yearsdejanews. The most important book on this entire topic for me remains: "The Menopause Industry" by Sandra Coney. Hunter House publishers. ISBN 0-89793-160-2 What do you do? J gs <he…@rest.net
wrote in message
news:1D7A1A1503519A9E.7B33BD355E53ACBD.35716CEEF8E0B589@lp.airnews.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Several of *you* are very active in asm regarding medical studies, women’s issues, truth in advertising, etc. I have been wondering if *you* are
active
outside of the newsgroup concerning these topics. I would be very
interested
to find out what *you* are doing, how *you* are doing it, and how you got started. gs
Response:
Joan, Thank you for taking the time to answer. I am very impressed by your compassion, and honesty. I admire your determination to make *them* listen. Women have to take an active role in their healthcare. Thank you again! gs "Joan Livingston" <joan.livingst…@gte.net
wrote in message
news:EmnK4.2126$hA6.403128@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
What do I do outside of asm about women’s health issues? I write my legislators. I write to local doctors. I write to women’s
health
publishers. I write to FDA review panels, and local women’s health agency boards. I stand up and ask difficult questions at public meetings, and I
do
not get brushed off with evasive answers and I follow up with cited cases.
I
serve on a hospital bioethics board. I monitor community education
programs
on women’s health issues. I track FDA hearing transcripts and forward information to women’s health agencies. I talk to anyone who wants and
needs
to know. I share my information. I get responses back saying my points are "interesting and provocative" and they will look into it and they share my concerns about the issues I raise. I write in a neutral tone with facts and studies, not in the more emotional and colorful tone I often use on this newsgroup. I address specific issues, quotes and cited cases. I occasionally make a difference.
I
occasionally get back a valuable response. I often get back "concern" and
no
realistic course of action. I feel many drops of water will finally etch
a
stone. I feel like a lone voice in the wilderness …often. Then every once in
a
while I hear a similar voice and it is validating as this voice comes from their own independent concerns about these issues. I have made deep friendships among some on this newsgroup. This has been a gift and a surprise and an enduring bond. I started looking into this well before my own "menopause" years when I saw up close and personal the devastation to a family after the wife at a
ge
46 had a prophylactic "pelvic" clean-out …because she was told she is "that age" ….and as long as "we are in there" …. and 6 weeks later
with
6 weeks of Premarin she was dead from a massive stroke. I wanted to be prepared "when I was that age" so I started reading the only books I could find at that time and started with "The Castrated
Woman"
and then "How to Avoid a Hysterectomy" and then "MalePractice" . All both factual and inflammatory books. I got inflammed. I did not know anything about menopause or perimenopause, but I knew
it
was almost expected at that time to "have a hysterectomy" if you were
female
and lived long enough. Younger women I worked with were surprised that I "had not had my hysterectomy yet" because they assumed all "older" women
had
them. I hit my own menopause about the same time "Silent Passages" came out by Sheehy opening the door to new thinking and finally talking about
menopause
and the controversies of the hormone drug questions. Then I started
reading
and reading and doing my own "watchful-waiting" and re-thinking my own menopause transition from this perspective. I turned down multiple casual offers of hormone drugs from my doctors to their surprise, just for the mere mention of starting to have hot
flashes
on my updated health history. I stopped going to doctors after being told
on
an annual check-up to have an FSH test at age 51 to "rule out the possibility of cancer" because my periods were slowing down. I stopped buying into annual medical checkups and will not return until I start
seeing
something other than life-long hormone drug pushing coming from US
medical
offices. I am healthy by any standards and I do not fear "hidden disease".
I > fear over-treatment and medical ignorance more. > I came to asm shortly after my own periods stopped when I was age 52. > And rest of my story can be found on four – five yearsdejanews. > The most important book on this entire topic for me remains: "The > Menopause Industry" by Sandra Coney. Hunter House publishers. ISBN > 0-89793-160-2 > What do you do? > J > gs <he…@rest.net
wrote in message
> news:1D7A1A1503519A9E.7B33BD355E53ACBD.35716CEEF8E0B589@lp.airnews.net… > > Several of *you* are very active in asm regarding medical studies, women’s
issues, truth in advertising, etc. I have been wondering if *you* are active outside of the newsgroup concerning these topics. I would be very interested to find out what *you* are doing, how *you* are doing it, and how you
got
started. gs
Response:
Several of *you* are very active in asm regarding medical studies, women’s issues, truth in advertising, etc. I have been wondering if *you* are active outside of the newsgroup concerning these topics. I would be very interested to find out what *you* are doing, how *you* are doing it, and how you got started. gs
Response:
gs, Have I ever claimed HRT was the sole cause of any of these conditions? No. Have others claimed this is what I am saying? Yes. Who do you want to talk to about this? Them or me? When studies show an -increased- HRT link to these major diseases when observed against those who do not take HRT, I repeatedly ask … why accelerate the odds? This I don’t get. Not when all there are no valid claims for HRT "benefits"? (I am not, nor have I ever been, talking about the ethical post-surgical ERT management with replacement hormone drugs, but even this area needs a heck of a lot more investigation and demands for better efficacy and dosage needs.) So how did you (did you?) conclude I am denying that women get these diseases without taking HRT. I never have said this. Never. But this has been tagged on me. Are you clear about what I say …….and what gets said about what I say? BTW: two more friends, late 60’s, early 70’s both on HRT, both now with breast cancer diagnosis. One, the 70 year old, is on a one-woman campaign to tell everyone she knows not to take HRT. I thought I was talking to myself when I heard her pitch. SHe had not known I had spent the last 4 years tracking down the same information she had found and was on the same educational mission. This statement about my own personal aquaintences however does not say that no one gets breast cancer if they do not take HRT. It does say that the only people I know who have breast cancer …so far …..have -all- been on HRT. That has been my own individual experience (Most women I know are on HRT anyway already, but studies do show higher incidences for BCA for HRT users, but never has this been proven to be the exclusive cause. And most likely someday it will be shown to be one of several co-factors and this combination of factors will be the most helpful discovery that needs to be made. Depression of the immune system may be far more important than taking hormone drugs. And it could be something about the profile of the person who chooses to take HRT that may be its co-factor, not the drug itself. More to learn, more to be open to.) J gs <he…@rest.net
wrote in message
news:933F01D4EEC224E9.0D24E4F833D13807.2A87C8F25D5C8E62@lp.airnews.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Joan, This is an area where I get myself into trouble. I am not being flippant!
My
question is…Many women get these diseases and have never taken HRT.
Maybe
I am the *village idiot*, but I don’t see how if women get them anyway,
they > can tell there is an increased incidence. I’m not making a pro or con > statement. I understand the increased incidence in reference to a placebo > etc. > Maybe my frustration is in the fact that they can’t be prevented. We know > risk factors. No one knows who will get them. Why isn’t more known? Why > isn’t more known about how a woman’s body functions? gs > "Joan Livingston" <joan.livingst…@gte.net
wrote in message
> news:YArK4.2364$hA6.472337@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net… > > Sometimes you need to read the cited studies that are provided here. I > list > > the diseases that have been linked to HRT from cited studies posted to > this > > group. Stop putting your words into my mouth, resa. > > There is no point ruining a perfectly good case against HRT by lying about
it. Lying about HRT is why we have gotten into the mess we are in today. From cited studies and references posted to this newsgroup and
collected
in my files, HRT use has been linked to the increased incidence of:
cancers,
heart attacks, blood clots, strokes, gall bladder disease, diabetes, arthritis, asthma, migraine, and depression. That is not -all- disease known to the human condition, but it covers
many
of the leading ones. Please search the archives for the cites. Or you
can
start with the HERS study, the WHI preliminary results, and the FDA warning label for most of these. You now have the arthritis studies. The only
one > > you are missing is the asthma one .I will post it for you. > > J > > Resa3558 <resa3…@aol.com
wrote in message
> > news:20000416171438.13964.00001953@ng-cp1.aol.com… > > > Joan– I write in a neutral tone with facts and studies, not in the more
emotional and colorful tone I often use on this newsgroup. Resa–Why don’t you share these facts with the newgroup? This is a
very
emotionally charged issue with some women. I think it would help if
you
would tone down some of your emotionally charged statements. Sometimes you seem to be saying that every illness known to women is caused by HRT.
Response:
Joan– I write in a neutral tone with facts and studies, not in the more emotional and colorful tone I often use on this newsgroup. Resa–Why don’t you share these facts with the newgroup? This is a very emotionally charged issue with some women. I think it would help if you would tone down some of your emotionally charged statements. Sometimes you seem to be saying that every illness known to women is caused by HRT.
Response:
Sometimes you need to read the cited studies that are provided here. I list the diseases that have been linked to HRT from cited studies posted to this group. Stop putting your words into my mouth, resa. There is no point ruining a perfectly good case against HRT by lying about it. Lying about HRT is why we have gotten into the mess we are in today. From cited studies and references posted to this newsgroup and collected in my files, HRT use has been linked to the increased incidence of: cancers, heart attacks, blood clots, strokes, gall bladder disease, diabetes, arthritis, asthma, migraine, and depression. That is not -all- disease known to the human condition, but it covers many of the leading ones. Please search the archives for the cites. Or you can start with the HERS study, the WHI preliminary results, and the FDA warning label for most of these. You now have the arthritis studies. The only one you are missing is the asthma one .I will post it for you. J Resa3558 <resa3…@aol.com
wrote in message
news:20000416171438.13964.00001953@ng-cp1.aol.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Joan– I write in a neutral tone with facts and studies, not in the more emotional and colorful tone I often use on this newsgroup. Resa–Why don’t you share these facts with the newgroup? This is a very emotionally charged issue with some women. I think it would help if you
would
tone down some of your emotionally charged statements. Sometimes you seem
to
be saying that every illness known to women is caused by HRT.
Response:
Here (following) is the asthma study showing increased incidence linked to HRT use to add to the rest of the conditions associated with HRT use risk. The primary issue here is don’t take a healthy woman, feed her hormone drugs and convince her with lies, and not fact, that taking these drugs are going to make her healthier. And who gives a flip if you think that taking these drugs "transdermally" will -maybe- show better results. Why even give anyone who is healthy and asymtomatic these drugs in the first place. And when given in the attemtp to treat a pathology, the known and documented "benefits" had darn better outweigh the risks. This has not been the current prescribing "doctrine that has put Premarin and Prempro in the top 20 selling drugs in the US. ASTHMA STUDY – HRT INCREASES INCIDENCE "SIGNIFICANTLY" Menopause, postmenopausal estrogen preparations, and the risk of adult-onset asthma. A prospective cohort study. Troisi RJ, Speizer FE, Willett WC, Trichopoulos D, Rosner B Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995 Oct 152:4 Pt 1 1183-8 Abstract We prospectively evaluated the association of hormone replacement therapy and asthma incidence in a cohort of pre- and postmenopausal women 34 to 68 yr of age. During 582, 135 person- years of follow-up between 1980 and 1990, 726 new cases of asthma were documented. Postmenopausal women who were never users of replacement hormones had a significantly lower age- adjusted risk of asthma than premenopausal women (relative risk = 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.46 to 0.92). Among naturally menopausal women, the age-adjusted relative risk of asthma for ever use of postmenopausal hormones was 1.49 (95% CI = 1.10 to 2.00); for current use of hormones (conjugated estrogens with or without progesterone), 1.50 (95% CI = 0.98 to 2.30); and for past use, 1.52 (95% CI = 1.08 to 2.13), compared with never use of hormones. Ever users of 10 or more years’ duration had twice the age-adjusted risk of asthma compared with women who never used postmenopausal hormones (95% CI = 1.39 to 2.87). Among current users of conjugated estrogens, there was a positive dose-response demonstrated between daily dose and asthma risk (p for trend = 0.007). While confirmatory studies are warranted, these data suggest that estrogen plays a role in the pathophysiology of asthma and that long-term use and/or high doses of postmenopausal hormone therapy increase subsequent risk of asthma. MeSH Adult, Age Factors, Asthma, Body Mass Index, Case-Control Studies, Cohort Studies, Contraceptives, Oral, Estrogen Replacement Therapy, Estrogens, Estrogens, Conjugated, Female, Human, Incidence, Menopause, Middle Age, Postmenopause, Progestational Hormones, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Smoking, Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t, Support, U.S. Gov’t, P.H.S., Time Factors Author Address Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA. Joan Livingston <joan.livingst…@gte.net
wrote in message
news:YArK4.2364$hA6.472337@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Sometimes you need to read the cited studies that are provided here. I
list
the diseases that have been linked to HRT from cited studies posted to
this
group. Stop putting your words into my mouth, resa. There is no point ruining a perfectly good case against HRT by lying about it. Lying about HRT is why we have gotten into the mess we are in today. From cited studies and references posted to this newsgroup and collected
in
my files, HRT use has been linked to the increased incidence of: cancers, heart attacks, blood clots, strokes, gall bladder disease, diabetes, arthritis, asthma, migraine, and depression. That is not -all- disease known to the human condition, but it covers many of the leading ones. Please search the archives for the cites. Or you can start with the HERS study, the WHI preliminary results, and the FDA
warning > label for most of these. You now have the arthritis studies. The only one > you are missing is the asthma one .I will post it for you. > J > Resa3558 <resa3…@aol.com
wrote in message
> news:20000416171438.13964.00001953@ng-cp1.aol.com… > > Joan– I write in a neutral tone with facts and studies, not in the more > > emotional and colorful tone I often use on this newsgroup. > > Resa–Why don’t you share these facts with the newgroup? This is a very > > emotionally charged issue with some women. I think it would help if you > would > > tone down some of your emotionally charged statements. Sometimes you seem
to be saying that every illness known to women is caused by HRT.
Response:
Joan, This is an area where I get myself into trouble. I am not being flippant! My question is…Many women get these diseases and have never taken HRT. Maybe I am the *village idiot*, but I don’t see how if women get them anyway, they can tell there is an increased incidence. I’m not making a pro or con statement. I understand the increased incidence in reference to a placebo etc. Maybe my frustration is in the fact that they can’t be prevented. We know risk factors. No one knows who will get them. Why isn’t more known? Why isn’t more known about how a woman’s body functions? gs "Joan Livingston" <joan.livingst…@gte.net
wrote in message
news:YArK4.2364$hA6.472337@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Sometimes you need to read the cited studies that are provided here. I
list
the diseases that have been linked to HRT from cited studies posted to
this
group. Stop putting your words into my mouth, resa. There is no point ruining a perfectly good case against HRT by lying about it. Lying about HRT is why we have gotten into the mess we are in today. From cited studies and references posted to this newsgroup and collected
in
my files, HRT use has been linked to the increased incidence of: cancers, heart attacks, blood clots, strokes, gall bladder disease, diabetes, arthritis, asthma, migraine, and depression. That is not -all- disease known to the human condition, but it covers many of the leading ones. Please search the archives for the cites. Or you can start with the HERS study, the WHI preliminary results, and the FDA
warning > label for most of these. You now have the arthritis studies. The only one > you are missing is the asthma one .I will post it for you. > J > Resa3558 <resa3…@aol.com
wrote in message
> news:20000416171438.13964.00001953@ng-cp1.aol.com… > > Joan– I write in a neutral tone with facts and studies, not in the more > > emotional and colorful tone I often use on this newsgroup. > > Resa–Why don’t you share these facts with the newgroup? This is a very > > emotionally charged issue with some women. I think it would help if you > would > > tone down some of your emotionally charged statements. Sometimes you seem
to be saying that every illness known to women is caused by HRT.
Response:
Categories: Asthma Study | 
No Comments »
)) Did you know that the 1.2.3 program was tested in the UK first? I wonder why it’s different? I thought that WW International was just that International? I’ll have to ask why at work on Tuesday (I’m off tomorrow to take my son to an Asthma study – yep he’s studying to be an asthmatic LOL – and it’s a holiday on Monday here) TTFN Julie 
Good luck! Erin Started 4/11/2000 at 269 Currently – 235.2 Mini-goal – 234 2nd 10% Goal – 219 Semi-ultimate goal – under 200 by Christmas Ultimate goal – ask me later! 