question: What are the reasons given for forbidding HRT after age 60yrs.   S.
ANSWER:     Hysteria on the part of   self-proclaimed experts  who supported  the misguided plan of the Wyeth  premarin-provera Womens’s Health Initiative  WHI 13 years ago, then misinterpreted  and swallowed the patently wrong  results when they were examined in 2002-4 together with the largely meaningless Million Women Study MWS- both of which the International Menopause Society has consistently refuted. 
  In 2003 no less than the chairman of the German Commission on the Safety of Medicines Professor Bruno Muller-Oerlinghausen, reportedly described HRT as a “national and international tragedy after evidence emerged that it had caused thousands of deaths. More women have probably died from the … hormone therapy than damaged children were born in the wake of the thalidomide scandal.” This was pure hysteria, there was no such evidence.
The N American Menopause Society (NAMS) has repeatedly since 2002   been urged  to  recant from the WHI –  and MWS-generated hysteria (Utian 2007), and has now done so at
The  gynecologist- led SA Menopause society SAMS  followed the  Wyeth lead of the N American Menopause Society NAMS, rather than  evidence and the International Menopause Society.
 Despite Dr Utian’s review last year, and the now balanced  IMS and NAMS position, the SAMS website still damagingly  (17 August 2008) declaims publically: “The guiding principle should be to take the smallest possible dose for the shortest time necessary. After the first five years, women – with guidance from their doctors – should try and come off  hormone therapy and see how they cope without hormones.”  

As IMS and Dr Utian point out, all  reason, observational and scientific evidence reject such  limited approach which  focuses largely  on symptoms, instead of the far more important long term prevention of degeneration of mood, mind, skin, hair, bones, muscles, heart, circulation etc,  which  prevention  appropriate physiological supplements provide for the second half of lifespan after menopause/ “andropause” – which can defer disability, add decades to health. . 
 The WHI tested only Wyeth’s oral HT –  the xenohormones  premarin and provera – in mostly overweight  elderly women, it did not test physiological parenteral balanced human  hormones as we have evolved on for millennia, as used in men and in all other branches of endocrinology, and has been used appropriately and safely worldwide for over fifty year. . The WHI cost almost a billion US$  (for both the HT – in 15400 women for a mean of almost 6 years- and diet and calcium trial arms),  likely the costliest  trial that will ever be done. The HT  caused a few  older  women problems,  but the hysteria  (in USA, UK & Europe) resulted in perhaps millions of women since then suffering   from stopping or avoiding HRT. But  like all wars, it produced some  invaluable results.
We stopped using oral HRT pills  where possible here in the early ’90s because we saw such bad results overall in overweight stressed women.
Despite  the warnings about high risk:benefit problems,   Wyeth – like Robert Wilson’s Feminine Forever- 1966-   persuaded the NIH & the American Menopause Society, the  FDA and  most American doctors and women-  that postmenopausal women need & will benefit from premarin-provera forever, or just premarin after hysterectomy. . This was despite the massive evidence against commercial HT pills in the Seamans’ book Women and the Crisis in Sex Hormones (UK 1978).
But when the WHI  trial after about 7 years  was misreported to show that  (at age 50-79yrs), the only benefits  OVERALL were reduction in the (5 to 10year) menopause SYMPTOMS, and  reduction in fracture and colon cancer   BUT  apparent increase in vascular disease dementia and breast cancer, the WHI  panicked and stopped both trials (premarin-provera, and premarin alone) – and worse, roundly condemned all  post menopausalsex hormone replacement .
It has taken  the International Menopause Society 6 years to get them to understand what was obvious from the original planning paper of 1998, and the first trial result of 2002 with their poor statistics, that the results apply ONLY to  those  commercial  oral pills they used, and to the older women they inappropriately put on horsepills despite them being overweight, smoking, hypertensive etc- ie at high risk.
When the WHI belatedly published results by  age breakdown (first in 2004), it confirmed what we always knew – that horsepills STARTED FROM MENOPAUSE are ok for symptom control for up to 10 years , they reduce all deaths and most degenerative disease by almost 40%  (except for insidious increase in obesity, DVT, urinary incontinence, and gallstones.- and this in an age when, as the BBC reports  14 Aug 2008,* Obesity ‘equal to terror threat’  The threat to the nation and the NHS from rising obesity is as grave as that posed by terrorism, a government adviser says”. ). 
This low risk:benefit advantage  was well shown in both WHI and the 10 year Oulu Finland trial (Heikkinen 2006) when even women on lowdose  ie 1mg/d estradiol  +- 2.5mg  progestin did brilliantly.
 But we have known for decades that the oral combination gradually promotes breast cancer, which increases after 12-15yrs (Henderson ea 1980).
So all  HRT after  age 60yrs was wrongly condemned  by “Authorities” , when it has been known for decades that in lower dose started from menopause even appropriate oral HT  long term does far more good than harm . The major risks are when it – ie megadose estrogen-progestin = hormone therapy -is started  in the overweight or well after age 60yrs, when it is more likely to trigger already threatening  thrombosis, cancer or dementia – as has been well shown with tibolone started at a mean of 68yrs (Cummings ea LIFT trial NEJM August 2008).
So all hormone-deficient people benefit from permanent physiological  replacement– ie HRT- as with eg thyroid or adrenal failure, started the earlier the better.
But sex hormones for both men and women are best taken parenterally [ie not by mouth- when they are absorbed via the liver (hepatic 1st pass) , digested & broken down]. So with tablets, 10 times more is needed for symptom control, while the risks rise for hepatitis-gallstones, hypertension, thrombosis & breast cancer.
So like men, women should take permanent appropriate human HRT based on their blood levels and response- but ideally parenterally, (not orally = HT) – 
 estradiol around 0.025 to .07mg/d (compared to oral  dose around 0.5 to 1mg/d)
 – testosterone  0.3 to 1mg/d (compare the old  oral methyltestosterone 1.25mg/d, or for  men  oral testosterone  undecanoate 120mg/d vs about 8mg/d by  eg fortnightly or injection)
 – progesterone 1 to 5mg/d (oral 200mg/d)
by subcutaneous  injection fortnightly- very cheap;  or expensively by creams, implants, patches, sprays, suppositories .
Lowdose micronized human hormones are also effective and safe (Dr Lee Vliet), but only micronized estradiol is  available here.Major clinics around the world have used such  balanced parenteral or oral replacement for over 50 years, and seen nothing but good results- some women of over 90yrs just keep coming for eg their implants every 6 months (Gambrell 2004 personal communication). All the common degenerative diseases are reduced eg Alzheimers perhaps by 90% (Cache County Study).
Even supplements, including HRT,  can never abolish death and disease permanently!  only defer and minimize disease. That’s why patients have to be screened first,  and then periodically thereafter, so already active disease eg cancer can be promptly dealt with.
Part of the problem with oral HT is that the synthetic progestins – while protecting the uterus- have some bad effects like blocking estrogen benefit on the heart, brain and bone. The natural human progesterone on the other hand does only good (apart from lack of benefit on bone, and association with failing hearing).
The major problem with HRT is that  (in men and women), doctors and patients mostly take a shortterm view- just treat symptoms & sexual complaints. They negligently refuse to recognized that all supplements are essential for the second half of life, and act accordingly. This is the danger of focussing on symptoms instead of the whole patient’s needs. Its like ignoring a  knock in  the engine/bearings; or  smoking, or ignoring  increasing obesity till the patient dies or first gets diabetes, heart attack,  stroke, cancer, dementia, fracture – when it is often too late to restore health. This is criminal negligence.
On the other hand, calcium supplement  alone has slight benefit on bone, but increases coronary calcification disease.
In the WHI, Calcium plus lowdose vit D 400iu  lowered hip fracture  by 30%, but increased kidney stones by 17%. it is better and safer to take  a complete supplement which includes calmag boron zinc manganese proline and the vitamins B,C,D & K.  Adding the other trace elements plus bcarotene + vit E plus the biologicals gives major protection against not just fractures but also all major common disease. So ideally (in addition to thyroid, cortisol, insulin resistance & sex hormones),   the vit D level should be measured, and if low the supplement increased to 1000 to 7000iu./day or 50 000iu/week.
Why not phyto(plant) -estrogen or drug substitutes for HRT? on the one hand, the only proven supplements that reverse osteoporosis and restore   are HRT plus the basket of other supplements;  and the only supplements proven to improve menopause symptoms are appropriate HRT, or  the supplement GABA (the main brain neurotransmitter).,
But kava and black cohosh have been restricted/ banned because they may rarely be associated with fatal  hepatitis.
Soy and other phytoestrogens may reduce menopause symptoms, but have not been shown to be safe longterm, and there is concern that they may increase breast/ prostate cancer. And no modern designer drugs– statins, prozacs, tibolone, raloxifen, biphosponates, tranquilizers, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories, the viagras  – despite all their  costs, risks and  heavy marketing-produced multibillion $$  sales  – have shown anywhere near the global benefits of the natural supplements discussed above.-  (unlike the natural supplements), none of the modern wannabe substitutes  reduce all-cause mortality and morbidity as do supplements including appropriate HRT.  
See the HRT  and supplement papers  above and below , and the recommended condition-specific supplement product information.. For specialist  internist consultation on appropriate supplements including HRT for individual circumstances, email your concise health details to
see also











  1. Article writing is also a excitement, if you be acquainted with then you
    can write if not it is complex to write.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s