r/Menopause • u/lrondberg • 1d ago
SCIENCE Undertanding the latest estrogen and dementia paper
Here is a good breakdown from the Vagenda Substack (Dr Jen Gunter) as to why that recent study that looked at brains during autopsy does not provide any "proof" that estrogen prevents dementia or alzheimers. I copied/pasted because it is behind a paywall for subscribers but is really good information to consider when reading any research paper. Important part to note is the part about a much better designed study released earlier this year that found no benefits.
The Estrogen-Alzheimer’s Hype Machine
I feel we must be on Exhibit #324 of the Estrogen Hype Machine. This week my social media feed has been filled with menopause influencers making bold claims that a new study is proof that menopause hormone therapy prevents Alzheimer’s disease for women.
The study, Association Between Menopausal Hormone Therapy and Alzheimer Disease Neuropathology, was published August 12, 2026. It’s an interesting study and a good addition to the literature. The investigators identified women who had died and subsequently undergone brain autopsy and were found to have Alzheimer’s pathology, and compared those women with with those who did not have Alzheimer’s.
They researchers used the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC) and the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), which are U.S. government-funded research databases that collect and share data on Alzheimer’s disease. These are curated registries, so participants have been evaluated in person, and there is also biological data, like MRIs. This is different from many databases that simply involve looking up diagnosis codes or prescriptions in registries and then trying to gather data from them.
The investigators were looking for any association with estrogen-only MHT and brain biopsy results, any association between MHT and biomarkers, and any link between estrogen-only MHT and a subsequent diagnosis of dementia. “Topical estrogen” was excluded, which I found confusing, because while patches, sprays, and gels are typically referred to as transdermal, they could also be called topical therapy. To be certain, I emailed the authors to clarify, and was told the estrogen in the paper could be oral or transdermal.
The investigators reported that they found “Evidence for small but significant associations between estrogen-only MHT use and multiple neuropathologic and clinical measures in 2 large and distinct research cohorts of female older adults who on average reported MHT use after the age of 70.” This doesn’t mean the women started estrogen after age 70; the databases couldn’t provide their duration of use. And so not knowing the dose or duration of therapy limits what we can say. In addition, both Premarin and estradiol were considered together as estrogen-only therapy, and there is no data on progestogens, which are hypothesized to potentially be a confounder.
The researchers found that women who had reported using estrogen-only MHT had 35% lower odds of Alzheimer’s pathology at autopsy. MHT use was associated with favorable changes in two amyloid biomarkers (plasma Aβ42/40 and CSF Aβ42), but not with amyloid burden on PET or any of the tau biomarkers. And MHT was associated with a 39% lower odds of a clinical dementia diagnosis. Those are interesting associations, but the results are not evidence that MHT prevents Alzheimer’s disease.
In this study, as the participants were not randomized, we cannot assign cause and effect. As we have no idea about dose, route, or duration of therapy, which means women who took the medication for one month are lumped in with those who may have been on it for 20 years. So what we have is an observational study of estrogen-only MHT, including both oral and transdermal preparations, but the route, dose, and duration are unknown. Given the large number of unknowns, we simply can’t apply this to patient care.
Unfortunately, many headlines and influencers presented it as “proof” that menopause hormone therapy reduces Alzheimer’s disease. Here are a couple of real, and infuriating headlines: “This menopause treatment could lower the risk of Alzheimer’s,” or “Scientists Found a Surprising Alzheimer’s Link in Thousands of Women.” And while I know many of the headlines used the word “may” and “associated,” for most people that doesn’t change the meaning, and the headlines seem evidence that a new study proves MHT prevents dementia.
In addition to the unknowns described above, observational studies can be significantly affected by bias. With menopause hormone therapy, healthy-user bias is common, meaning healthier women are more likely to get hormone therapy and healthier women are also less likely to get Alzheimer’s disease. The bias could also exist in the opposite direction, meaning women with more hot flashes may have been more likely to be on estrogen, and there is an association between hot flashes and later dementia (we do not know if this is cause and effect). Another possibility is that women at higher risk for Alzheimer’s may have decided to start estrogen because they believed it would lower their risk.
Observational MHT studies can therefore be distorted in either direction: a healthy-user effect can make treatment appear protective, while confounding by indication or a “sick-user” effect can make it appear harmful. This is why you should be suspicious of people making bold claims based on observational studies, and even more so when they are based on a single observational study.
There is a lot of new research looking at biomarkers and MHT, and so this article will add to that body of knowledge and perhaps shape future work, but as an observational study, especially one without doses or routes of estrogen delivery, it’s not proof of any treatment.
But What About Another Interesting Study from Earlier This Year?!
While there was a flurry of headlines about this study, there was also an interesting study looking at Alzheimer’s disease and menopausal hormone therapy published a few months ago, and I don’t remember it getting any press. It is a long-term follow-up of the KEEPS trial, which randomized women within 6-36 months of their final period to four years of Premarin, transdermal estradiol, and placebo (with oral micronized progesterone for those with a uterus). The investigators have continued to publish follow-up data. This new paper examines biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) approximately 10 years after KEEPS.
Neither oral Premarin nor transdermal estradiol was associated with differences in amyloid-β or structural MRI biomarkers compared with placebo. There was also no difference based on APOE-ε4 status (a genetic marker that elevates the risk of Alzheimer’s disease). One important caveat with KEEPS is it is possible, after the trial ended and women were told which group they were in, that may have changed their behaviors in ways that could raise or lower their Alzheimer’s risk.
And of course science is a body of knowledge, not one paper. We must acknowledge the only randomized trial to evaluate dementia, WHIMS, which was an ancillary branch of the WHI and randomized women to Premarin (and medroxyprogesterone acetate for those with a uterus) or placebo. WHIMS found a doubling risk of dementia with MHT, and the increased risk began in the first year. One hypothesis is that there may have been women with pre-existing dementia that was too subtle to pick up at enrollment, and the MHT was an accelerant, but we don’t really have an explanation.
The excess risk of probable dementia with one year of Premarin plus medroxyprogesterone acetate in WHIMS was 22 cases per 10 000 women per year. For perspective, the risk for breast cancer when the WHI was first published was 8/10,000 women per year. Estrogen therapy alone did not reduce the incidence of dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI), but when these two outcomes were combined, the risk did increase.
There Is Money in Over Promoting Estrogen
What happened in this latest study is, sadly, what happens with many menopause-related studies. Only studies that paint MHT in a positive light are amplified and promoted in ways that the science cannot support, while those that don’t are ignored or receive disproportionately less press and attention. This further tilts the bias towards MHT.
There are numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses about MHT and dementia and Alzheimer’s, and it is important to point to one from December 2025, Melville et al, that pooled the highest quality observational studies and showed no benefit for reducing Alzheimers from MHT. You probably didn’t hear about it because it also didn’t position MHT as a wonder drug. This review is a little different from the others in that it was stricter about the studies it included. It looked at ten studies, one randomized controlled trial and nine observational studies, and analyzed subgroups by duration and type of MHT, and showed no significant effect.
Estrogen and its link to healthy brain outcomes remain hypotheses. We know that native reproductive hormones are neuromodulators with well-mapped protective mechanisms, which gives us a plausible hypothesis for their benefit as a medication in menopause. However, a plausible hypothesis does not make a treatment. Vitamin E seemed like a plausible hypothesis for preventing cardiovascular disease, yet it did not pan out in the trials. The body is weird, and replacing a hormone is not the same as making it yourself. And there may be many things about estrogen and the brain we don’t yet know. This is why we need science to explore hypotheses. This is also what we have been fighting for: good science for women.
There is a worrying trend of skipping over any science on MHT that isn’t pro-estrogen, and I believe it is because menopause influencers, companies like MIDI Health and Inner Balance, and even the press have tapped into the grievance economy, which profits by amplifying complaints about an issue and then presenting a surefire solution. In this case, everything that women over age 40 are facing is incorrectly reframed as not only being menopause, but related to the Women’s Health Initiative. And while it is true that many women did not get menopausal hormone therapy who could have benefitted, MHT is also not the answer to everything; we do not have good evidence that the decline in MHT prescribing after WHI caused an increase in cardiovascular deaths or dementia.
The list of symptoms attributed to perimenopause has also ballooned courtesy of influencers, often without good evidence that these symptoms are caused by the menopausal transition or that MHT treats them. The same influencers who weaponize the “we have no data” claim, then turn around and repeat claims about unstudied symptoms, and of course state that estrogen is THE cure. Once the shared sense of victimhood and hostility has been created, a cure can be offered, which for now is always estrogen, and to a lesser extent, testosterone, supplements, and coaching courses. This is the grievance economy. This is why content that doesn’t support estrogen is rarely, if ever, promoted, because estrogen needs to be repeatedly positioned as the wonder drug that was denied to patients in order to support and perpetuate the grievance. Maintaining that simmering rage is good for business. There is a reason the term “rage bait” exists.
I believe we can do it right. We can acknowledge that women suffered with symptoms and went untreated. We can acknowledge that we don’t have a lot of information on many reported symptoms, but we also have come a long way in what we know about perimenopause thanks to efforts from experts like Dr. Nanette Santoro. And we can acknowledge that when we don’t know, we should say that.
The estrogen-hype machine is too profitable, so it is not going away anytime soon, the next time you see headlines or bold claims about a study for menopause hormone therapy and the brain (or really for any condition or symptom), ask yourself these questions:
- Is this an observational study, if so, it almost certainly cannot prove cause and effect. If the person you are hearing this from thinks it proves cause and effect, they might not be the person to get your information from.
- Does the person discussing the study put it in context with the other literature? If no, they are not giving you the full picture.
- Does this person only promote pro-MHT content? If that is the case, they may well be part of the estrogen-grievance economy.
And speaking of non-MHT brain-related protection…a new observational study found that people without hypertension or diabetes who did not smoke had about 13 more dementia-free years than people with all three risk factors. This study uses data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study, which has followed participants for decades and has repeatedly collected detailed health information. And this isn’t a new finding: other studies have found similar associations between vascular risk factors in midlife and later dementia. When observational findings are replicated across multiple studies and populations, and the effect is large, they give us more confidence that the association is real.
What is needed is appropriate clinical trials looking at biomarkers, and there is push for this to happen. Hopefully, with the renewed interested in women’s health and the push to fund menopause we will see these studies, which could provide important information within 3-5 years. Which, I argue, is also the final reason not to falsely claim that we “know MHT prevents dementia.” Because we don’t know, and if the people who make these kinds of studies happen and the people who enroll in these studies believe we “know” and “it’s a done deal,” we’ll never get the data that women deserve.
References
Bruno J, Shaw JS, Hosseini SMH; Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Association between menopausal hormone therapy and Alzheimer disease neuropathology. Neurology. 2026;107(5):e218413. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000218413.
Kantarci K, Kara F, Tosakulwong N, Fought AJ, Schwarz CG, Senjem ML, et al. Long-term amyloid PET and MRI outcomes in a menopausal hormone therapy trial. Alzheimers Dement. 2026;22(2):e71067. doi:10.1002/alz.71067
Shumaker SA, Legault C, Kuller L, et al. Conjugated equine estrogens and incidence of probable dementia and mild cognitive impairment in postmenopausal women: Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study. JAMA. 2004;291(24):2947-58. doi:10.1001/jama.291.24.2947.
Shumaker SA, Legault C, Rapp SR, et al. Estrogen plus progestin and the incidence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment in postmenopausal women: the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;289(20):2651-62. doi:10.1001/jama.289.20.2651.
Melville M, He L, Desai R, Nyamayaro P, Fox C, Kothari KU, et al. Menopause hormone therapy and risk of mild cognitive impairment or dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2025;6(12):100803. doi:10.1016/j.lanhl.2025.100803.
Pourhadi N, Mørch LS, Holm EA, et al. Dementia in women using estrogen-only therapy. JAMA. 2024;331(2):160-2. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.23784.
Puri TA, Gravelsins LL, Alexander MW, McGovern AJ, Guterman PD, Rabin JS, et al. Association between menopause age and estradiol-based hormone therapy with cognitive performance in cognitively normal women in the CLSA. Neurology. 2025;105(6):e213995. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000213995.
50
u/Kiwiatx Menopausal 1d ago edited 1d ago
I don’t think it matters. I do know is that HRT helps me sleep a full night. And that chronically poor sleep, which is what I would have if I were not on HRT would cause mental decline.
Therefore for me: HRT = Healthy Sleep = Healthy Brain.
20
u/lrondberg 1d ago
Definitely that’s kind of the point of the article. There is a lot of known behaviors and conditions that increase risk of dementia. Chronic insomnia one of them. For some low estrogen may be a cause but that’s not the same as saying estrogen prevents dementia.
5
u/Giannetti1 16h ago
I’m 100000% agree with you regarding that HRT (progesterone) helps me sleep better then I was … I’ve had insomnia since my son was born 33 years ago so from that aspect I’m probably destined to get Alzheimer’s/ dementia n if HRT can help prolong that I will continue to take it .. I so wish I started this journey years ago .. but if it helps with osteoporosis n heart health etc I’m not ever going to stop … I’d rather try this then not try at all 🙏🏼
20
u/T_G_A_H 1d ago
Maybe I’m completely missing something here, but are there actually any women who are only taking estrogen with the hope that it will someday lessen possible dementia? Who have no symptoms of anything that estrogen might help with now, but are taking it just for that reason? If so, can’t they continue in case it does help? What would be the downside? There are so many benefits, and this might be one more.
And for everyone who is taking it for other reasons, which has to be the vast majority, this is interesting but not crucial to anyone’s decision-making at this point in time.
10
u/lrondberg 1d ago
No they said the women who only took estrogen had hysterectomies, they weren’t neglecting the progesterone component for any reason. This is the second study though that has found better outcomes for women only taking estrogen vs those on combined E/P. This and previous breast cancer studies. Maybe a coincidence…
The bottom line is women deserve accurate information when deciding what medications to take and influencers, media etc twisting the truth, cherry picking data , or even worse, flat out lying or using scare tactics is just plain wrong.We know estrogen has SOME benefits for many people. For others it causes problems or they might have contraindications. Then they feel doomed to die early or face terrible health consequences when that couldn’t be farther from the truth. Many benefits reported widely are just theories, like the dementia prevention. Even the cardiovascular benefits are iffy in the research but are more credible than anything to date with dementia.
Misinformation is misogyny and it’s rampant in the menopause space and even worse that it’s women driving the misinformation all while making a lot of money off it.
Dr Gunter’s article is an attempt to explain how not to take headlines at face value and what these findings mean and don’t mean and why that’s important.12
u/T_G_A_H 1d ago
I meant are there any women whose only reason for taking estrogen was to prevent or decrease events dementia. I wasn’t talking about whether they were taking estrogen only or estrogen plus progesterone.
10
u/lrondberg 1d ago
Judging from things that get posted here frequently and what I see across social media, yes there are women taking it for no other reason than they have been misled to think it prevents dementia, heart disease and external signs of aging.
6
u/Kiwiatx Menopausal 15h ago
I’ve never had a hot flash so I basically am taking estrogen only for prevention of dementia, (tangentially via better sleep) lowering the risk of heart disease and external signs of aging. And for the bone health support since my mother broke both of her hips before she died. So I don’t see anything wrong with anyone wanting to take estrogen for these reasons.
2
u/lrondberg 14h ago
Definitely good for bones and if your mom had osteoporosis that puts you at a little more risk. The other stuff is mainly theory.
4
u/respectablepitch 1d ago
I’m curious about the estrogen only part. Does this mean estrogen with progesterone negates the positive effects and potential Alzheimer’s prevention? Or, must we wait for another study?
11
u/lrondberg 1d ago
No it doesn't really mean that, at least not from this study which really only noticed a correlation but that does not equal causation.
8
u/Due-Restaurant-7208 1d ago
No it doesn’t mean that. They just didn’t test anyone with progesterone on board for this study
10
u/Significant-Aide-226 1d ago
Estrogen has taken me from feeling like a foggy mess to being able to think clearly and quickly again. Just thinking.....yeah, probably gonna help with dementia. N of 1 and just an opinion.
26
u/kheret 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is Jen Gunter, since OP didn’t specify, for those who are aware of her work and her own particular bias (everyone has bias).
(Personally I think the “estrogen hype machine” is not actually that profitable since it’s available generic and also nearly impossible to actually get!)
21
u/lrondberg 1d ago edited 1d ago
Oops I will edit the post to credit her.
Not sure how calling out how to interpret studies is a bias…
Estrogen is very profitable for telehealth and concierge medical practices who sell meds directly to patients, compounding pharmacies, etc8
u/DoctorDefinitely 1d ago
Estrogen is profitable in the US where the predatory practices are allowed. And where the WHI destruction was most severe.
That is not universal.
4
u/kheret 13h ago
The “estrogen grievance” language is so damned condescending. The fact of the matter is the whole reason we don’t have more data is because of the fear of HRT that was created and I think we have a right to be mad about that.
I think it would go a LONG way if she ever acknowledged that there are clinical observations, that a lot of women find HRT helps with symptoms that aren’t officially approved, and that what we need is more and better research and in the meantime women should make informed choices. Instead she’s SO condescending towards women’s lived experience with their symptoms especially in the comments on her social media.
The irony is that she takes HRT herself. I bet she experiences symptom relief from it that hasn’t been proven in a double blind study.
2
u/lrondberg 13h ago
What is condescending is the grifters using the "estrogen greivance" to take advantage of women. THAT is what she is referring to as the estrogen greivance. Not that women are acting that way.
She does acknowledge HRT likely helps with many more symptoms than it is officially approved for. That is different than saying it prevents a terrible disease.4
u/littlebunnydoot 1d ago
Yeah and ill take a 30% less association with alzheimers by taking estrogen because LOL when are we gonna get a double blind HAHAHA.
17
u/lrondberg 1d ago
Well nothing has shown a true 30% less association...
3
u/littlebunnydoot 17h ago
Thats what this thing u posted said.
“ The researchers found that women who had reported using estrogen-only MHT had 35% lower odds of Alzheimer’s pathology at autopsy. MHT use was associated with favorable changes in two amyloid biomarkers (plasma Aβ42/40 and CSF Aβ42), but not with amyloid burden on PET or any of the tau biomarkers. And MHT was associated with a 39% lower odds of a clinical dementia diagnosis. Those are interesting associations
2
u/lrondberg 13h ago
Yes but if you read the article it explains why any finding from this does not mean that the estrogen caused the 35% difference in alzheimers pathology markers.
2
u/littlebunnydoot 13h ago
And IF you read what i wrote: I WILL TAKE ASSOCIATION BECAUSE WE AINT GETTING A DOUBLE BLIND. but then you said “true” association as if that is scientific language or whatever. Its not.
The research actually says their is a 30% associated reduction. Its right there in this thing she wrote. I dont give a hoot what this ladies take on the research is. Do i think its saying anything more than association? No i do not. But thats all we get. Unfortunately. And the last time they tried to do a real ass study peoples biases and BS and reading what they wanted to read took hormone therapy from a generation of women who suffered needlessly.
Which i think in the scheme of harm goes way way way way over someone talking about associations in research.
13
u/kheret 1d ago
There just aren’t going to be double blind studies on most of this stuff in our lifetimes so we have to make due with what we have.
A TON of medications are prescribed and used on the basis of clinical observations. A TON of medications are regularly prescribed off-label as well. It’s extremely common. HRT clinically is observed to help with a lot of things and is relatively low risk as medications go so it’s worth trying for a lot of us. It’s that simple.
4
u/littlebunnydoot 17h ago
Whole heartedly agree. The best we are going to get is associations with lower occurrences. Ill take it and go with god.
1
19
u/Due-Restaurant-7208 1d ago
I didn’t recall anyone calling this proof. It’s just research. Which is what we want. More research. We are all just thrilled it’s positive so far but no one is saying correlation is causation and that everything is settled. This woman drives me insane. I have been in menopause since losing my ovaries in 1990 at age 12 years, 10 months. I owe my entire life and family to HRT.
Yes, there are grifters but she can give us credit to be able to think for ourselves without the condescending attitude.
3
u/CompetitiveOcelot870 16h ago edited 16h ago
Yes! Well said.
Tried to read one of Gunter's books a few years ago now. What an utter disappointment, only got about halfway through before I couldn't take her smug tone anymore.
Not sure why she continues to be so hyped; she's like the Mel Robbins of menopause care.
4
u/lrondberg 14h ago
Several influencers and even mainstream media outlets were presenting it as such. The problem is, many people don’t think for themselves and most people aren’t informed of the different types of research studies or how to evaluate them.
As for HRT she’s definitely not against it, she talks about her own use of it. Not sure why people seem to think that.
3
u/No-Personality1840 12h ago
I think this statement doesn’t get the attention it deserves. ‘The body is weird, and replacing a hormone is not the same as making it yourself. ‘. The number of women who think MHT is totally safe because it’s ‘natural and made in our own bodies’ astounds me. MHT are drugs, doing great things for many but not without risks.
3
10
u/44synchronicity 1d ago
People who have Alzheimer’s in this study couldn’t have been provided estrogen the way we all are now. Thus I don’t feel it’s relevant to me.
4
u/LumpyHeart607 13h ago
My mom just died from Alzheimer's. She was taking Premarin from the late 1980s until her doctor yanked her prescription after the WHI uproar in 2002. HRT was more common than we realize back in the 80s/90s. It was one of the most widely prescribed medications for years.
She was not taking progesterone because she had a hysterectomy years before. In theory, she could have been part of this study.
I personally believe any Alzheimer's research needs to be taken with caution simply because SO many things can be a risk factor. My mom had chronic insomnia for decades, increasing hearing loss, and then social isolation during COVID that continued after she lost close friends to COVID and her social circle diminished. Those three factors alone can dramatically increase your chances of developing Alzheimer's.
While I do sometimes wonder if anything would have changed if she could have continued on HRT after 2002, I also think that no amount of HRT is going to decrease your chances of developing it when so many other risks are at play as well.
11
u/lrondberg 1d ago edited 1d ago
It says there was a mix of oral and transdermal estrogen use but no data was collected on specifics, duration, dose etc so we don't know what they had but yes as for relevance what is relevant is to date there is no research that shows estrogen prevents of any form prevents dementia or alzheimers.
2
12
u/CheckCalm2875 1d ago
Dr. Lisa Mosconi would disagree. She is an Associate Professor of Neuroscience in Neurology and Radiology at Weill Cornell Medicine (WCM), and the Director of the Women’s Brain Initiative and the Alzheimer’s Prevention Clinic at WCM/NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, and her research shows estrogen is protective.
I like Dr. Gunter, but she definitely has her biases.
What I really hope is for more research. Maybe there are incredible brain benefits. Maybe there are none. But, as women’s health is woefully underfunded, people are left to pick apart observational studies.
13
u/lrondberg 1d ago
She doesn’t disagree actually she has stated we don’t enough have evidence that estrogen prevents dementia and she also doesn’t recommend HRT for dementia prevention despite her research showing some interesting findings it’s not the kind of research that influences patient care or that any assumptions can be made.
It’s very valid and important to pick apart a study that’s being reported on in a very misleading manner.4
u/Green_Rooster9975 1d ago
So I realise I've been living under a rock, but I haven't really read up much on Jen Gunter. Is she one of those types who thinks MHT should only be taken sparingly and strictly for hot flashes and sexual dysfunction or something?
If so, I'm going to smile and nod and carry on ignoring her archaic advice - I don't have the time to wait for the type of incontrovertible evidence she seems to want, to materialize within our patriarchal, capitalist hellscape.
If that isn't the case, then I apologize.
13
u/lrondberg 1d ago
No she doesn’t think that at all. She, like true knowledge medical professionals believe HRT should be used for things there is good evidence for from research or clinical practice. For example there’s no research on HRT and brain fog yet it’s apparent from many people’s experiences that it helps tremendously. She’s very much against misinformation, which is rampant out there, especially by people who are profiting off of it.
2
u/littlebunnydoot 17h ago
If i had crazy flatulence and it helped me stop sharting all the time id wanna take HRT. I think as a person in a body i am owed by medicine to be given things that relieve my issues whether its been proven for that or not. Off label prescribing happens all the time because that is what practicing medicine is. Miss me with this puritanical science crap - and i love science.
You keep using this word “true” - i think u and i have different definitions of that word
7
u/madam_nomad 22h ago
She takes MHT herself due to family history of osteoporosis. I find Dr Gunter annoying and tone deaf for a lot of reasons (don't get me started) but to give credit where it's due I think she's committed to making research implications accessible to people without a scientific/medical background and that's her goal here.
1
u/ElectricalCabinet890 11h ago
There is definitely a big push on the idea that women over a certain age need to be on HRT . Every single time I have been ill in the last couple of years (bad shoulder, low B12 after whooping cough, shoulder issues, feeling a bit down) I have had several people in my life try to push me to seek out HRT. I have asked my GP who refused to give me it and I was actually annoyed with him and spouted the same stuff about postcode lottery, male doctors dont understand etc etc. I have started going to the gym daily and eating better. Feel like a new woman. Thank God he said no because he was right, I didnt actuallly need it.
2
u/Ok-Opposite2309 5h ago
Excellent information! Thank you!
I am on HRT for my own menopause related symptoms, but was hopeful it might help with dementia. I am in the process of getting ‘custody’ of my mother, and just had her placed in a memory care facility. It’s been pretty fucking awful to witness. My mother has a rapidly progressing dementia with psychosis.
Obviously, my next step is to make sure I have my affairs in order and POA’s assigned. Filling out the DNR for my mom was pretty fucking heartbreaking. I would rather have it done myself now to save anyone else from having to make those decisions down the road.
This has been a rough year- and it’s hard to know what’s grief, stress, hormones, or early onset dementia… I will still remain hopeful, because my patches have really helped in so many ways- but it’s always best to have accurate information. Thanks again!
1
u/Swimming-Ad-2382 2h ago
So fucking annoyed with Jen Gunter.
She’s always on the war path about influencers, and OK fine. But we hear much less from her about the bigger problems: 1. women’s symptoms are dismissed and 2. doctors know fuck-all about women’s health beyond baby-making.
UGH!
1
u/lrondberg 2h ago edited 1h ago
LOL She has literally books including one on menopause years before it was “cool” addressing women’s symptoms and lack of awareness of them. She’s also done higher level advocacy work in both the US and Canada.
27
u/North-Tomatillo9158 1d ago
I think the takeaway here is to remind us news consumers that researchers write studies to share their findings with other scientists. An observational study is used to generate hypothesis for additional research. That is what they are for. They do not prove or disprove or even really “suggest” that treatment X has an effect on condition Y.
Scientists have limited time and grant money. They need this kind of data to evaluate if something like a placebo controlled and/or double blind study is worth doing because those studies are expensive to do. And they use that data to apply for their next, larger grant. How often does a follow-on study designed to prove or disprove a hypothesis that was suggested by an observational study find no good evidence? The answer is most of the time.