Maybe you should check out the writer of this article, she is from your homestate, but she is not a reliable source on hardly any subject. Her credentials are not credible at all. Sorry.

Perhaps you could post the information in the article that you consider to be misleading or erroneous? Do you think she misstated current research and if so what? Everything she has written here has appeared in the major medical journals over the past three years except for the WHI information which is available at the government's WHI site. Do you believe that she misquoted anyone for example and if so whom? Spake,btw, is a well-known science reporter who frequently deals with controversial topics.

US News and World Report is a credible and conservative publication that would certainly fact check before publishing an article that is damaging to the pharmaceutical industry. An industry that is an advertiser in their magazine. I think its a good summary of what has been available in bits and pieces over the last few months and years.

Credible magazine, yes it is, the WRITER, is to whom I reference.

are you on hormone? have you had a hysterectomy or gone thru the change? I had a hysterecomy 20 yrs. ago and have taken HRT ever since. any Dr. will tell you it's best to take something depending on your health history. hormone is not for everyone, but for alot of us, it is what we chose so stop making a big case out of it and telling everyone not to take them. maybe Hrt is what you really need. no hard feelings, but sugar get real not everyone does the same thing or this would be one sad little world.

The article is about what current research shows regarding the safety and efficacy of post menopausal hormones. It has nothing to do with what doctors "tell you." Nor are posts providing information regarding hormone use "telling" you or anyone else to take hormones or not take them.

Okla Gal
From previous posts I have read, she is past meno, just likes to stir the pot here to promote her non-HRT. Don't take her too seriously.

I guess. I just really enjoy this site, but I like the positive input everyone shares then came along a spider that tries to get everyone to do as she does and I for one think that is wrong. that's way there is so many options for people to choose from. give your opinion and then drop it and let people decide w/ there Dr. which is best for that person. personally, you take away my hormone patch and man would you have a fight on your hands. when I first had surgery I litterly thought I was losing my mind till we found the right replacement. the good man above gave us all natural hormone I don't know what he intended for us to do when we lose them, but again if we would have all stayed naked like we were born we would have never had pockets to worry if we had enough money to put in them. therefore money would not be the most important things in ones life. o.k. I'm out of this one. think happy thoughts and be well ladies.

Not quite to 'promote non "HRT."' Rather to provide sources of current information regarding so-called "hormone replacement therapy," so that women have information on which to base their choices. The woman who takes hormones with her eyes open and with full information is aware of the risks she is taking and accepts those risks because of the benefits she assumes she will gain. As those risks/benefits change because of new information. she needs to reassess her choice taking the new information into account.

Distilling the current information on "hormone replacement therapy" provides the following:

1/3 of naturally post menopausal women who take hormones post menopause will find that after 4 or 5 years of use, when they stop they are symptom-free. The other 2/3 will find that their menopausal symptoms return for a significant period of time - often the same period of time as they would have had if they had not started the hormones. For these women, they have merely delayed the discomfort not eliminated it or even lessened it.

Other than the possibility of symptomatic relief, there are no benefits to the use of hormones either short or long term. There is however considerable evidence of significant harm which increases with dose and length of use.

All forms of steroidal estrogen including estradiol, estriol and estrone have been listed as known human carcinogens, meaning that they are known to cause cancer de novo and promote it where it already exists. In the case of breast cancer use of progestins including natural progesterone increases the risk by a factor of 8.

I am indeed more than 7 years post natural menopause and am convinced that avoiding the use of either drugs or supplements intended to "treat" menopause is the best option for almost all women, especially for those undergoing natural as opposed to surgical menopause, as well as women over 40 who have or have had hysterectomies.

You, OTOH seem to think that personal attack on authors/ posters effictively refutes the information in the article or the post. It doesn't.

I am not attacking the person posting, I stated that the writer should be checked, people can write anything, that doesn't always make it true. We're all intitled to opinions. I did my research, it's entirely up to the individual to make judgement about their life. You're basing your statements only on your completely biased opinion against HRT. If you're beyound meno, I question why it means so much to you to continue to come here to push your opinions on everyone else. We're interested in thoughts, but don't need it to be continually pushed down us, I believe everyone here is intelligent enough to read newspapers, seek medical advice, search for info. I see everything you refer to commits to not using any HRT. Why don't you ever refer to positive thoughts? I don't see you referring to any, and there are plenty. I will not make any further comment on this subject, I see it's like beating a dead horse, so be my guest, make the last comment, as usual. You're welcome!

There is a difference between fact and opinion. In this case, facts are what the scientific studies reported in peer reviewed major medical journals find. These facts are certainly open to question and one must read the study carefully and analyze it before accepting or rejecting the "facts" deduced from the study. There are several sites on the net which can help you to do this kind of analysis. The facts I present can certainly be refuted by evidence that these facts are not true. However you have presented no such evidence.

Your opinion that there are positives about hormone therapy may be valid. However, it does not become valid just because you make the claim. If you produce peer-reviewed studies which are reported in major medical journals in support of your facts then they must be given credence until or unless the study can be shown to be questionable.

The current evidence, available on Medline and the WHI website, is that the positives are confined to a probably temporary symptom relief in some women while the evidence of significant harm is mounting.

As for your attacking authors you have not even bothered to deal with the content of the article to which this post referred. You have merely suggested that the author is unreliable without producing any evidence for even that statement.

As always Leigh, we can definitely count on you for an argument. I am glad you chose to pay and continue as a member, for what would this site be without your HUMOR and WIT?

LOL, Pogo, godblessyou :)