SusieJD
02-28-2004, 03:47 PM
I knew that I was right to refuse to take hormone replacements....I went through menopause at the age of 16 due to forced anorexia in my childhood (my father chose to starve us as punishment at times). I took hormones for only 5 yrs. I didn't feel as if they were doing more good than harm.
Artical from The Canadian Cancer Society:
Due to increased cancer risk, women should avoid combination hormone replacemnt therapy (HRT) for any reason other than to relieve severe menopausal symptoms that have not responded toany other form of treatment. This statement and news release from the Canadian Cancer Society is one of many recommendations made in the United States as well.
A recent research study involving 16,600 postmenopausal women over the aged 50 to 79 with a uterus that took HRT consisting of both progestin and estrogen. The planned 8.5 year trial was stopped after 5.2 yrs. due to increased rish of invasive breast cancer and other overall health risks. The study found the following:
* 8 more women with invasive breast cancer (38 taking HRT vs. 30 not taking HRT.
* 7 more women with a heart attack (37 vs 30).
* 8 more women with stroke.
* 18 more women with blood clots in a vein (34 vs 16) including 8 more with blood clots in the lungs.
* 8 few cases of colo-rectal cancer (10 taking HRT vs 16 not taking HRT)
* 5 fewer hip fractures (10 vs 15)
If you count up the added cases of breast cancer, heart attacks, strokes and blook clots in the lungs and subtract ther fewer cases of colo-rectal cancer and hip fractures,there are 30 more harmful events amoung the 10,000 women taking hormones after 5.2 years, the period the studay ran.
Even though I developed severe osteo by not taking the drugs, I have a healthy heart and so far, no broken (major) bones. This proves a case for natural living!
Susie in MN
Artical from The Canadian Cancer Society:
Due to increased cancer risk, women should avoid combination hormone replacemnt therapy (HRT) for any reason other than to relieve severe menopausal symptoms that have not responded toany other form of treatment. This statement and news release from the Canadian Cancer Society is one of many recommendations made in the United States as well.
A recent research study involving 16,600 postmenopausal women over the aged 50 to 79 with a uterus that took HRT consisting of both progestin and estrogen. The planned 8.5 year trial was stopped after 5.2 yrs. due to increased rish of invasive breast cancer and other overall health risks. The study found the following:
* 8 more women with invasive breast cancer (38 taking HRT vs. 30 not taking HRT.
* 7 more women with a heart attack (37 vs 30).
* 8 more women with stroke.
* 18 more women with blood clots in a vein (34 vs 16) including 8 more with blood clots in the lungs.
* 8 few cases of colo-rectal cancer (10 taking HRT vs 16 not taking HRT)
* 5 fewer hip fractures (10 vs 15)
If you count up the added cases of breast cancer, heart attacks, strokes and blook clots in the lungs and subtract ther fewer cases of colo-rectal cancer and hip fractures,there are 30 more harmful events amoung the 10,000 women taking hormones after 5.2 years, the period the studay ran.
Even though I developed severe osteo by not taking the drugs, I have a healthy heart and so far, no broken (major) bones. This proves a case for natural living!
Susie in MN