Hormone Replacement Therapy Quotes

She's a lot more than nice," Gran said with a leer, "after our last date, I came home with my face looking like a glazed donut. That gal's juices are flowing. She must be on some kind of hormone replacement therapy.

If I hear of one more article sourcing the WHI as the standard by which hormone replacement therapy advice should be generated, I think I'm going to puke.

Citing the WHI for Hormone Replacement Therapy standards equates with attending the Flat Earth Society Conference and listening to people try to prove the earth is flat.

She’s a lot more than nice,” Gran said with a leer, “after our last date, I came home with my face looking like a glazed donut. That gal’s juices are flowing. She must be on some kind of hormone replacement therapy.” “Gran!

The study reported a 24 percent relative increase in the risk of breast cancer among a subset of women taking HRT, and headlines all over the world condemned HRT as a dangerous, cancer-causing therapy. All of a sudden, on the basis of this one study, hormone replacement treatment became virtually taboo. This reported 24 percent risk increase sounded scary indeed. But nobody seemed to care that the absolute risk increase of breast cancer for women in the study remained minuscule. Roughly five out of every one thousand women in the HRT group developed breast cancer, versus four out of every one thousand in the control group, who received no hormones.

I’m so sick of that argument. I’ve been hearing it for centuries. Playing God. Wolfgang, we played God when people believed they could dictate their baby’s gender by having sex in a certain position. We played God when we invented birth control, amniocentesis, cesarean sections, when we developed modern medicine and surgery. Flight is playing God. Fighting cancer is playing God. Contact lenses and glasses are playing God. Anything we do to modify our lives in a way that we were not born into is playing God. In vitro fertilization. Hormone replacement therapy. Gender reassignment surgery. Antibiotics.

My main point is to show how so-called health values of therapy, hormonal treatment, and surgery have replaced ethical values of choice, freedom, and autonomy; how these same “health” values have diffused critical awareness about the social context in which the problem of transsexualism arises; how more and more moral problems have been reclassified as technical problems

Consider taking L-tyrosine, vitamin D3, vitamin K2, vitamin A, and zinc supplements to achieve healthy hormone levels. If possible, get your vitamin D and zinc levels tested first to see if yours are low. •​Go through your toiletries and personal care products and get rid of everything containing phthalates and parabens, which mimic hormones in the body and disrupt your natural hormone function. •​If you can, see a functional medicine or anti-aging doctor for a full hormonal workup. If you are deficient in certain hormones and the above advice does not work, explore bioidentical hormone replacement therapy under the care of a trusted physician. •​If you are over forty and have clear signs of low sex hormones, it’s probably safe and likely beneficial to try 25 to 50 mg of DHEA without a lab test.

oncologists met to discuss a replacement for the ASTRO definition. They decided to define treatment failure as a PSA level that has risen 2 ng/ml higher than a man’s PSA nadir (the lowest level it reached following treatment). This definition has been correlated more accurately with long-term results in all patients, and it takes into account such factors as hormonal therapy and the PSA bounce. Failure is now considered to occur when the PSA level reaches the nadir + 2 value. This is called the Phoenix definition. Still, it takes time to determine this value, so this equation should not be used to gauge the success of treatment in men with less than two years’ worth of PSA tests after radiation therapy. Furthermore, the consensus panel that developed this definition cautions,

[on Infect Your Friends and Loved Ones] What this contagion effectively ushers in is a near-global reliance on exogenous hormones—an intensification fo what Paul Preciado calls the "pharmacopornographic era" and a quite literal reimagining of Halberstam's early-career assertion that "we are all transsexuals. There are no transsexuals." While we certainly live in a world that is (albeit discontinuously) biomedicalized and in bodies, whether cis or trans, that are deeply imbricated with and reliant on all sorts of exogenous hormones—whether we're on birth control, supplementing ostensibly low T, on hormone replacement therapy to mitigate menopause, or taking hormones to transition—Peters removes the question of agency, establish a new biological baseline that asks everyone to choose and thus to deal with questions of access, scarcity, and gatekeeping the way trans folk have had to for the last several decades.

Though I’m not opposed to hormone therapy (more on that shortly), I reject the notion that every woman needs hormone “replacement” therapy to stay young.

(also called body-identical) was a viable and safe alternative to conventional hormone replacement therapy or HRT. This treatment is now known as menopausal hormone therapy or MHT.

Women figured out the aging hormone connection decades ago with hormone replacement therapy. Aging men are kept dumb by the medical profession about their need for testosterone replacement therapy!

There are many examples of how Medicine 2.0 gets risk wrong, but one of the most egregious has to do with hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for postmenopausal women, long entrenched as standard practice before the results of the Women’s Health Initiative Study (WHI) were published in 2002. This large clinical trial, involving thousands of older women, compared a multitude of health outcomes in women taking HRT versus those who did not take it. The study reported a 24 percent relative increase in the risk of breast cancer among a subset of women taking HRT, and headlines all over the world condemned HRT as a dangerous, cancer-causing therapy. All of a sudden, on the basis of this one study, hormone replacement treatment became virtually taboo. This reported 24 percent risk increase sounded scary indeed. But nobody seemed to care that the absolute risk increase of breast cancer for women in the study remained minuscule. Roughly five out of every one thousand women in the HRT group developed breast cancer, versus four out of every one thousand in the control group, who received no hormones. The absolute risk increase was just 0.1 percentage point. HRT was linked to, potentially, one additional case of breast cancer in every thousand patients. Yet this tiny increase in absolute risk was deemed to outweigh any benefits, meaning menopausal women would potentially be subject to hot flashes and night sweats, as well as loss of bone density and muscle mass, and other unpleasant symptoms

of menopause—not to mention a potentially increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease, as we’ll see in chapter 9. Medicine 2.0 would rather throw out this therapy entirely, on the basis of one clinical trial, than try to understand and address the nuances involved. Medicine 3.0 would take this study into account, while recognizing its inevitable limitations and built-in biases. The key question that Medicine 3.0 asks is whether this intervention, hormone replacement therapy, with its relatively small increase in average risk in a large group of women older than sixty-five, might still be net beneficial for our individual patient, with her own unique mix of symptoms and risk factors. How is she similar to or different from the population in the study? One huge difference: none of the women selected for the study were actually symptomatic, and most were many years out of menopause. So how applicable are the findings of this study to women who are in or just entering menopause (and are presumably younger)? Finally, is there some other possible explanation for the slight observed increase in risk with this specific HRT protocol?[*3] My broader point is that at the level of the individual patient, we should be willing to ask deeper questions of risk versus reward versus cost for this therapy—and for almost anything else we might do. The fourth and perhaps largest shift is that where Medicine 2.0 focuses largely on lifespan, and is almost entirely geared toward staving off death, Medicine 3.0 pays far more attention to maintaining healthspan, the quality of life. Healthspan was a concept that barely even existed when I went to medical school. My professors said little to nothing about how to help our patients maintain their physical and cognitive capacity as they aged. The word exercise was almost never uttered. Sleep was totally ignored, both in class and in residency, as we routinely worked twenty-four hours at a stretch. Our instruction in nutrition was also minimal to nonexistent. Today, Medicine 2.0 at least acknowledges the importance of healthspan, but the standard definition—the period of life free of disease or disability—is totally insufficient, in my view. We want more out of life than simply the absence of sickness or disability. We want to be thriving, in every way, throughout the latter half of our lives. Another, related issue is that longevity itself, and healthspan in particular, doesn’t really fit into the business model of our current

It is a well-known fact, and one that has given much ground for complaint, that after women have lost their genital function their character often undergoes a peculiar alteration, they become quarrelsome, vexatious and overbearing, petty and stingy, that is to say that they exhibit typically sadistic and anal-erotic traits which they did not possess earlier during their period of womanliness,” Sigmund Freud declared in 1913.8 Well, you can argue that he was a man of his time; the first couple of decades of the twentieth century weren’t exactly known for their respect for women’s finer qualities. But unfortunately, the nonsense didn’t stop there. “The unpalatable truth must be faced that all postmenopausal women are castrates,” pronounced American gynecologist Robert Wilson in a 1963 essay;9 he then elaborated fulsomely on this theme in his 1966 bestseller Feminine Forever.10 This frighteningly influential book, it later emerged, was backed by a pharmaceutical company eager to market hormone replacement therapy. “Once the ovaries stop, the very essence of being a woman stops,” psychiatrist David Reuben wrote in 1969 in another bestseller, Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex but Were Afraid to Ask.11 The postmenopausal woman, he added, comes “as close as she can to being a man.” Or rather, “not really a man but no longer a functional woman.” Half a century on, has anything really changed? Sadly, I don’t think so. It might not be acceptable in most circles to write that kind of thing anymore, but menopausal women are too often the butt of men’s jokes for me really to believe that the attitudes themselves have shifted. They’ve just gone a little more underground. So if these are the stories men are telling about us, where are the stories we’re telling about ourselves? Unfortunately, they’re not always very much more helpful. A surprising number of self-help or quasi-medical books by female authors toe the male line, enjoining women to try to stay young and beautiful at all costs, and head off to their doctor to get hormone replacement therapy to hold off the “symptoms” of the dreaded aging “disease” for as long as possible. Their aim, it seems, is above all a suspension of the aging process, an exhortation to live in a state of suspended animation. And although more women are beginning to write about menopause as a natural and profoundly transformational life-passage, in the culture at large it is still primarily viewed as something to be managed, held off, even fought.

But I did it. I imagined myself, muscular, lean and deliciously male, in a suit, holding my completed dissertation. I was accepted to the PhD program in History at Yale University today, as well as starting hormone replacement therapy: subcutaneously-injected testosterone in a solution with cottonseed oil. The universe, fate, or what I chose to call God, has an incredible way of working things out like that. And then I plunged the needle into my skin. I did it with clear intention and the surest, most earnest heart I have ever felt beat inside my chest...I breathed in and exhaled as I pushed the testosterone into my body for the first time. Little pinch. A leap of faith into the rest of my life.

Western society doesn't make it easy to increase our longevity potential. Our youth-driven culture and our neglect of the aged promote a wholesale denial of the realities of aging. The marketplace is full of products and devices promising to make us look and feel younger. In addition, conventional Western medicine focuses on treatment and replacement therapy, prescribing expensive drugs, removing a failed organ and transplanting a new one, or replenishing a depleted hormone. Very little emphasis has been placed on preventing disease and maintaining a vigorous state of health day to day.

Spartan Medical Associates are bio-identical hormone replacement specialists and Doctors in Huntersville, NC and Charlotte, NC. We specialize in hormone replacement therapy for men including TRT, testosterone replacement therapy and hormone replacement therapy for women including treatment for symptoms of menopause, hot flashes and night sweats and perimenopause. Experienced bio-identical hormone doctors have state of the art training to a personalized hormone replacement treatment plan.