Question:
I mentioned in my earlier post on this study that they did find some other possible advantages to taking a combination of estrogen and statins over taking either alone but an additional increase in HDL by taking both drugs in combination was NOT one of them. On 27 Feb 2001 12:01:51 GMT, resa3…@aol.com (Resa3558) wrote:
Resa wrote: Estrogen alone and in combination raised HDL cholesterol more than simvastatin. By using estrogen alone, the HDL cholesterol was raised from 58 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) of blood to 68 mg/dL. Using simvastatin raised the HDL cholesterol level from 58 mg/dL to 61 mg/dL. The combination therapy raised HDL cholesterol from 59 mg/dL before therapy to 69 mg/DL after therapy. Kathryn wrote: Big difference. I think it is a big difference–10 points.
No way! Do the arithmetic! There was no difference in HDL increase by taking the estrogen statin combination over taking estrogen alone. Go check your original comments on same on the new google usenet archives. Kathryn kathr…@telus.net
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Resa3558 wrote:
Resa3558 wrote: … HRT is a hell of a lot safer than the niacin that is frequently prescribed. From Pat: Um, wrong. Listed side effects of niacin (courtesy of the National Institutes of Health’s Medline system at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/niacinforhighcholesterols… m202404.html#SXX19 <snipped Readers may judge for themselves which drug is "a hell of a lot safer." you want to beat the drum for HRT, that’s fine. But if you’re going to do it with sweeping misstatements of fact, expect to be challenged. There is a world of difference between the confirmed toxic effects of niacin medications on the liver and studies which show a possible slight increase of breast cancer with the older heavy doses of HRT. Also do you understand that side effects and contraindications/warnings are not the same thing?
Yes, of course I do. See http://www.rxlist.com for a list of contraindications and warnings about the use of estrogen, with or without progesterone. They include possible stroke, high blood pressure and, what do you know, liver damage.
If you looked up statistics about the percentages of liver toxicity for those who use therapeutic doses of niacin vs percentages of women who experienced a blood clot while using older heavy doses of hrt you might be enlightened.
I’ve looked at the references you provide. I have no argument with them. Like many drugs- including HRT – niacin should not be used in high doses without a doctor’s supervision. My argument is with your statement that "HRT is a hell of a lot safer than the niacin that is frequently prescribed." Safer for the liver – perhaps. But HRT has broad, systemic effects, some of which may not show up for a long time, which can be just as life-threatening as liver damage. –Pat Kight kig…@peak.org
Response:
On 23 Feb 2001 13:14:36 GMT, resa3…@aol.com (Resa3558) wrote:
http://www.americanheart.org/Whats_News/AHA_News_Releases/01-25-99100… "Estrogen added to cholesterol-lowering drug may exert extra protective effect against heart disease for postmenopausal women"
Note the word *may*. That release was over two years old Resa. This was a prospective study with 28 post menoapause women average age 57 lasting six weeks. Any longer and they would have to add a progestin for those women with a uterus I assume. Here were the findings.
Estrogen alone and in combination raised HDL cholesterol more than simvastatin. By using estrogen alone, the HDL cholesterol was raised from 58 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) of blood to 68 mg/dL. Using simvastatin raised the HDL cholesterol level from 58 mg/dL to 61 mg/dL. The combination therapy raised HDL cholesterol from 59 mg/dL before therapy to 69 mg/DL after therapy.
Big difference. Oh you were referring to the anti inflammatory effects found with the estrogen. Research results are pretty mixed on this depending on which factors looked at. See the abstract on C-Reactive protein levels in my earlier post. Kathryn kathr…@telus.net
Response:
On 23 Feb 2001 13:14:36 GMT, resa3…@aol.com (Resa3558) wrote:
Obese women do not seem to derive the same benefits and probably should not use HRT long-term. Also many obese women have blood clotting factors that put them at much great risk than thinner women. Once researchers start weighing these differences in women in the studies, they will be able to determine who derives long term cardiovascular benefits from use of HRT.
Did you see the url for the story I posted yesterday about BMI and cardiac risk? Someone has noticed that thinner women are increasingly at risk for heart disease too. http://www.americanheart.org/Reuters/pro/20010219epid001.txt.html
BMI unreliable as solo marker for cardiac risk in women WESTPORT, CT (Reuters Health) – Body mass index (BMI) should not be used as a sole marker for risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) in women, according to the results of a large British epidemiologic study.
<snip
Although 84% of the women with a ‘healthy BMI’ of less than 25 had a low-risk profile, 60% of the women classified as obese also had a low-risk profile."
Hmmm, nah I thnk I will stick with my opinion that women might consider using hormones for severe symptom control but using hormones on spec that they have the correct body type to get heart benefits by long term use is pretty iffy at best. Kathryn kathr…@telus.net.
Response:
Resa wrote:
Estrogen alone and in combination raised HDL cholesterol more than simvastatin. By using estrogen alone, the HDL cholesterol was raised from 58 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) of blood to 68 mg/dL. Using simvastatin raised the HDL cholesterol level from 58 mg/dL to 61 mg/dL. The combination therapy raised HDL cholesterol from 59 mg/dL before therapy to 69 mg/DL after therapy.
Kathryn wrote:
Big difference.
I think it is a big difference–10 points. In both men and women HDL levels are predictive of future cardiovascular problems. Kathryn wrote:
see the abstract on C-Reactive protein levels in my earlier post.
Is C-reactive protein may or may not be an important factor. Heart artery endothelial responses or vasodilation which are improved by HRT may be a key factor. More news about the importance of C-reactive protein. Title: C-reactive protein alone does not predict subclinical atherosclerosis http://www.americanheart.org/Reuters/pro/20010223clin009.txt.html Resa
Response:
Pat Kight wrote:
My argument is with your statement that "HRT is a hell of a lot safer than the niacin that is frequently prescribed." Safer for the liver – perhaps. But HRT has broad, systemic effects, some of which may not show up for a long time, which can be just as life-threatening as liver damage.
Drugs which are toxic for the liver are pretty scary. There is nothing, absolutely nothing reversible about liver damage and cancer of the liver frequently occurs when the liver is damaged. The need for regular liver tests every 3-4 months for those who use niacin is not reassuring. "Answer: Niacin can affect the liver and regular tests of liver function are necessary about every 3-4 months for the first year and about 6-8 the ensuring years unless the dosage is increased. Three grams is a heavy dosage. Toxicity usually starts at about 2 grams, but each individual is different. You shouldn’t be taking Zocor with niacin unless your liver is watched very closely. Is your doctor doing these tests? If not you need another physician. However, I suspect they are. Make sure to ask about the frequency and the results. " http://www.druginfonet.com/faq/faqniacn.htm It is hard to respond to the inevitable broad, sweeping claims that HRT can seemingly be implicated in all disease that women experience after menopause. But as stated before- 80 percent of women who develop breast cancer have never used hormones. Women who use hormones and have breast cancer have better survivability. The study from the American Cancer Society cited here recently showed that there was no increase in deaths due to breast cancer for women who used estrogen…and so on and so on…. Does HRT have the long term systemic effects that you claim? In this article "Environmental Estrogens Differ from Natural Hormones" it is stated, "In contrast to natural estrogens, phytoestrogens and estrogenic drugs, synthetic environmental estrogens: are not easily or readily broken down. are long-lived, remaining intact in the environment and in living organisms for many years. can accumulate in the natural world and within the fat and tissue of animals and humans" http://www.som.tulane.edu/ECME/eehome/basics/eevshorm/ Not as easy to target who is to blame for environmental estrogen toxicity. But rectifying this wrong probably would change the course of breast cancer and cancer odds for a hell of a lot more women than having HRT banned. Resa
Response:
Kathryn wrote:
Hmmm, nah I thnk I will stick with my opinion that women might consider using hormones for severe symptom control but using hormones on spec that they have the correct body type to get heart benefits by long term use is pretty iffy at
Body weight is an important factor but it only one to consider if a woman is deciding to use hormones for heart benefits. I will quickly list a few of the others: lowering of hypertension, blood cholesterol improvements, vasodilation improvements, left ventrical function improvement and so on and so on. Women should be aware of these benefits, should consider their body weight and accurately assess their heart risk factors including hereditary ones before opting to use HRT. Resa Resa
Response:
BUT, the baby, born February 29 (the thing I -didn’t- want to happen) was absolutely perfect.
delurking for a moment here …I have a daughter born on feb 29 too
1976…not too many ive met
Lynda…. "My labby loves me just the way that I am"
Response:
Lynda <fleabitp…@aol.comnojunk
wrote in message
news:20010222211739.26059.00002199@ng-mo1.aol.com…
BUT, the baby, born February 29 (the thing I -didn’t- want to happen) was absolutely perfect. delurking for a moment here …I have a daughter born on feb 29
too
1976…not too many ive met
Mine was born in 1980. Strangely enough, though, she was engaged for awhile to a young man whose best male friend was also born on February 29. Also, both my daughter and the best friend have red hair. I often wondered if the erstwhile fiance had a thing for unusual birthdays or redheads…. Marilee – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Lynda…. "My labby loves me just the way that I am"
Response:
Linda wrote:
<snip The people were farmers, linen weavers, tailors, and fishermen. Until about 1780 they did not work more than 5 miles from home. We read all the records from 1669-1820 and entered them in database form, because three of my husband’s four families come from that village and there were many other immigrants from there to Fort Wayne, Indiana, whom we were tracing. We finished with about 35,000 souls.
That’s quite an undertaking! I’m very impressed. What a fascinating account you provided in the rest of your post. Thanks for sharing it. — Susan in WA
Response:
On 23 Feb 2001 01:50:51 GMT, resa3…@aol.com (Resa3558) wrote:
I am not beating the drum for HRT. It does effectively increase HDL levels.
What do you mean by ‘effectively’? Do you mean as in the increase in HDL in the women in the HRT group in the HERS study? Much good that did them. Or did you see the newest HRT study? [ abstract below] they didn’t even mention the HRT effect on HDL, but did mention LDL, but that didn’t make any difference either. Kathryn kathr…@telus.net – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2001 Feb;21(2):262-268 Effect of Oral Postmenopausal Hormone Replacement on Progression of Atherosclerosis : A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Angerer P, Stork S, Kothny W, Schmitt P, von Schacky C C Medizinische Klinik, Klinikum der Universitat Munchen-Innenstadt, Munchen, Germany. [Record supplied by publisher] -Postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is associated with low cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in epidemiological studies. Yet, no randomized trial has examined whether HRT is effective for prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) in women with increased risk. The objective of this study was to determine whether HRT can slow progression of atherosclerosis, measured as intima-media thickness (IMT) in carotid arteries. Carotid IMT is an appropriate intermediate end point to investigate clinically relevant effects on atherogenesis. This randomized, controlled, observer-blind, clinical, single-center trial enrolled 321 healthy postmenopausal women with increased IMT in /=1 segment of the carotid arteries. For a period of 48 weeks, subjects received either 1 mg/d 17ss-estradiol continuously plus 0.025 mg gestodene for 12 days every month (standard-progestin group), or 1 mg 17ss-estradiol plus 0.025 mg gestodene for 12 days every third month (low-progestin group), or no HRT. Maximum IMT in 6 carotid artery segments (common, bifurcation, and internal, both sides) was measured by B-mode ultrasound before and after intervention. HRT did not slow IMT progression in carotid arteries. Mean maximum IMT in the carotid arteries increased by 0.02+/-0.05 mm in the no HRT group and by 0.03+/-0.05 and 0.03+/-0.05 mm, respectively, in the HRT groups (P:0.2). HRT significantly decreased LDL cholesterol, fibrinogen, and follicle-stimulating hormone. In conclusion, 1 year of HRT was not effective in slowing progression of subclinical atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women at increased risk. PMID: 11156863
Response:
Kathryn wrote re HRT increasing HDL cholesterol:
What do you mean by ‘effectively’? Do you mean as in the increase in HDL in the women in the HRT group in the HERS study? Much good that did them.
It seems that raising HDL levels can help prevent future CAD. I am not inclined to advise women that HRT has a piddly effect on HDL levels. The use of estrogen and progestin (HERS) is not applicable to estrogen plus micronized progesterone use. In the PEPI study women who used estrogen with micronized progesterone had significantly raised HDL levels. In the thread, "OT:cholesterol(Re: FemHRT?)" of 1/8/01, I had provided two urls which had reports about how estrogen has an anti-inflammatory effect in the blood vessels. But, the change in HDL cholesterol levels with use of estrogen was significant according to the one report. http://www.americanheart.org/Whats_News/AHA_News_Releases/01-25-99100… "Estrogen added to cholesterol-lowering drug may exert extra protective effect against heart disease for postmenopausal women" "Estrogen alone and in combination raised HDL cholesterol more than simvastatin. By using estrogen alone, the HDL cholesterol was raised from 58 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) of blood to 68 mg/dL. Using simvastatin raised the HDL cholesterol level from 58 mg/dL to 61 mg/dL. The combination therapy raised HDL cholesterol from 59 mg/dL before therapy to 69 mg/DL after therapy" From Kathryn:
Or did you see the newest HRT study? [ abstract below] they didn’t even mention the HRT effect on HDL, but did mention LDL, but that didn’t make any difference either.
Estrogen and estrogen/progesterone have beneficial effects on cholesterol HDL and LDL but scientists have determined that that constitutes only about 20 percent of the cardiovascular benefits that estrogen provides. We have discussed the vasodilating benefits, the anti-inflammatory benefits, heart left ventricle functioning improvements, etc here before. Obese women do not seem to derive the same benefits and probably should not use HRT long-term. Also many obese women have blood clotting factors that put them at much great risk than thinner women. Once researchers start weighing these differences in women in the studies, they will be able to determine who derives long term cardiovascular benefits from use of HRT. Resa
Response:
MrsMeister <mrsmeis…@aol.com
wrote in message
news:20010222173921.26150.00002115@ng-mo1.aol.com…
Marilee writes:I retained the placenta in two of my deliveries. Fun isn’t it? Sort of feels like they are pulling your tonsils out
through your
vagina.BTDT Martha
Yup. Not my happiest moments. I lost so much blood during one of the two that I nearly had to have a transfusion. BUT, the baby, born February 29 (the thing I -didn’t- want to happen) was absolutely perfect. Marilee
Response:
Resa3558 wrote: … HRT is a hell of a lot safer than the niacin that is frequently prescribed.
From Pat:
Um, wrong. Listed side effects of niacin (courtesy of the National Institutes of Health’s Medline system at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/niacinforhighcholesterols…
m202404.html#SXX19 <snipped
Readers may judge for themselves which drug is "a hell of a lot safer." you want to beat the drum for HRT, that’s fine. But if you’re going to do it with sweeping misstatements of fact, expect to be challenged.
There is a world of difference between the confirmed toxic effects of niacin medications on the liver and studies which show a possible slight increase of breast cancer with the older heavy doses of HRT. Also do you understand that side effects and contraindications/warnings are not the same thing? If you looked up statistics about the percentages of liver toxicity for those who use therapeutic doses of niacin vs percentages of women who experienced a blood clot while using older heavy doses of hrt you might be enlightened. I am not beating the drum for HRT. It does effectively increase HDL levels. Of course we are not allowed to say this here at asm without an admonition. And, niacin can be quite toxic. -You could do a little more research to confirm this. http://www.upshersmith.com/products/niacor.html Quote: WARNINGS Liver Dysfunction Cases of severe hepatic toxicity, including fulminant hepatic necrosis have occurred in patients who have substituted sustained-release (modified-release, timed-release) nicotinic acid products for immediate-release (crystalline) nicotinic acid at equivalent doses http://www.pharminfo.com/pubs/msb/niacin.html article title : The toxicity of niacin Quote: "If niacin were being evaluated for efficacy and safety and our experiences were replicated by others, we do not believe that it would be approved by the FDA for use in the management of hypercholesterolemia." (McKenney JM et al. JAMA. 1994;271:672-677. Lasagna L. JAMA. 1994;271:709-710) http://www.pharminfo.com/pubs/msb/niacin.html http://www.druginfonet.com/faq/faqniacn.htm One quick search on niacin does not make you an authority. Who is making the sweeping statements here? Resa
Response:
Marilee writes:
I lost so much blood during one of the two that I nearly had to have a transfusion.
Me too, and then the doctor said in earshot of my mother that I should eat lots of red meat and liver once a day for a week.. gag!! Martha
Response:
Marilee writes:
I retained the placenta in two of my deliveries.
Fun isn’t it? Sort of feels like they are pulling your tonsils out through your vagina.BTDT Martha
Response:
Linda wrote:
Women who survived the first pregnancy did not usually die in childbirth thereafter.
Didn’t most of the women who died before or after childbirthing have septicemia or something like that? I think it interesting that women who survived the first pregnancy and childbirth survived subsequent birthings. from Linda:
A few women died in their late 40’s, often while having their last of perhaps ten babies. After that, women generally lived into their 70’s or 80’s, men into their 60’s.
How these women fared after menopause is not generally documented. I am not convinced that they had few health problems Wonder if the well- to-do who had servants lived longer or shorter lives? And I wonder about their diet? Did they have root cellars and vegetables in the winter back in the 1660’s? The rich feasted mainly on meats, I believe. Fascinating. thanks for the information. Resa
Response:
Resa3558 <resa3…@aol.com
wrote in message
news:20010221205632.03303.00001671@ng-cg1.aol.com…
Linda wrote: Women who survived the first pregnancy did not usually die in childbirth thereafter. Didn’t most of the women who died before or after childbirthing
have
septicemia or something like that? I think it interesting that
women who
survived the first pregnancy and childbirth survived subsequent
birthings. I retained the placenta in two of my deliveries. Had I been having those babies a couple of hundred years ago, I would probably have just bled to death. Strangely, though, they were my second and third babies. The first and fourth, the placenta was expelled as it was supposed to. Marilee, charged with having a "lazy uterus" by my doctor – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
from Linda: A few women died in their late 40’s, often while having their last of perhaps ten babies. After that, women
generally lived
into their 70’s or 80’s, men into their 60’s. How these women fared after menopause is not generally documented.
I am not
convinced that they had few health problems Wonder if the well-
to-do who had
servants lived longer or shorter lives? And I wonder about their
diet? Did they
have root cellars and vegetables in the winter back in the 1660’s?
The rich
feasted mainly on meats, I believe. Fascinating. thanks for the information. Resa
Response:
This did make for an interesting read. My mother has done years of genealogical research, so I have been able to remain very lazy. I must talk to her more before she passes and make sure I secure all of the info. she worked so hard to obtain. Thx. for giving me the nudge. On 21 Feb 2001 23:53:23 GMT, resa3…@aol.com (Resa3558) wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Can’t find the post on ERT/HRT. I wondered though how does the author Natalie Angier know that most women who survived their childbearing years lived to a healthy happy old age? Statistics prior to the 19th century are pretty hard to come by. People had rickets, scurvy, goiters and anthropologists have found arthritis in the bones of early American settlers. These are only a small sampling of the disease that affected people. It is true that there were centenarians as there are now. My post of Jan 15 title "Centenarians and HDL cholesterol" explains why some women have a genetic advantage. But good news estrogen or estrogen/progesterone can up the HDL levels. HRT is a hell of a lot safer than the niacin that is frequently prescribed. That entails frequent lab checkups of liver functioning. So wonder of wonder estrogen may help some women! Resa
— Colette tr…@one.net
Response:
From: tr…@one.net (CorlissDeb) Date: 2/22/01 5:40 AM Pacific Standard Time
speaking to Resa about her research:
This did make for an interesting read. My mother has done years of genealogical research, so I have been able to remain very lazy. I must talk to her more before she passes and make sure I secure all of the info. she worked so hard to obtain.
Oh,definitely. And heaven forbid your mother should get Alzheimers…do it soon. I wish so much that I’d found out certain information while Mother and aunts were still living…have had no luck tracing ancestry back to the Old Sod. Sharon…I live in Another Dimension, but I have a summer home in Reality
Response:
Linda <uscho…@yahoo.com
wrote in message
news:8vZk6.3$7G1.469@newsfeed.slurp.net… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Church records are probably the best source of information for
ordinary
people in Europe before 1800, where they have survived. My
husband’s
ancestral village, Windheim near Bremen, had its records
microfilmed by the
LDS. The records begin in 1669, and would have gone back to the
Reformation
except for a fire which burned the church and parsonage in the
autumn of
1669. The description of the fire is on the first page of the
record books.
Cause of death is listed for perhaps half the burials. Probably
50% of
children baptized died before reaching the age of 5, many in their
first
year. Smallpox and measles were the main diseases of babies.
Adults
generally did not die in these epidemics, presumably because they
acquired
immunity as children who survived. The main adult epidemic was
"bloody
diarrhea" which was probably cholera or typhoid. When this struck
adults of
all ages also died. In 1719 there were some 300 deaths in one week
in this
small village. Very few children between 5 and 20 died, and those who did were
generally
killed in farm accidents or drownings. But perhaps 1 in 5 brides
died having
their first baby. Women who survived the first pregnancy did not
usually die
in childbirth thereafter. A few women died in their late 40’s,
often while
having their last of perhaps ten babies. After that, women
generally lived
into their 70’s or 80’s, men into their 60’s. Causes of death
included
cancer (listed as carcinoma, usually of the mouth or face), stroke (apoplexy), and what is listed as senility of age. From 1669 to 1820 there was one listed infanticide, three listed
suicides,
and no murders. However, there were some suspicious accidents, in
which
mother-in-law "fell to her death from the hayloft" and one
gentleman who
drowned "falling into a barrel of wine." The suicides were the
occasion of
long notes about depression, presumably to permit burial in
consecrated
ground, and all were men. The one infanticide was of a child out
of wedlock
by its mother and was recorded as a sealed confession. There were
however a
suspicious number of stillborn out of wedlock infants compared to stillbirths for married couples. The people were farmers, linen weavers, tailors, and fishermen.
Until about
1780 they did not work more than 5 miles from home. We read all
the records
from 1669-1820 and entered them in database form, because three of
my
husband’s four families come from that village and there were many
other
immigrants from there to Fort Wayne, Indiana, whom we were
tracing. We
finished with about 35,000 souls. Linda
I found this to be tremendously interesting. Marilee
Response:
Resa3558 wrote:
… HRT is a hell of a lot safer than the niacin that is frequently prescribed.
Um, wrong. Listed side effects of niacin (courtesy of the National Institutes of Health’s Medline system at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/niacinforhighcholesterols… "Darkening of urine; light gray-colored stools; loss of appetite; severe stomach pain; yellow eyes or skin … Feeling of warmth; flushing or redness of skin, especially on face and neck; headache … Diarrhea; dizziness or faintness; dryness of skin; fever; frequent urination; itching of skin; joint pain; muscle aching or cramping; nausea or vomiting; side, lower back, or stomach pain; swelling of feet or lower legs; unusual thirst; unusual tiredness or weakness; unusually fast, slow, or irregular heartbeat". There is, indeed, a warning that high doses can lead to liver damage and that niacin should only be used for cholesterol-lowering under a doctor’s supervision. No drug interaction problems are listed. By comparison: Listed side effects of conjugated estrogen and medoxyprogesterone acetate (the most commonly prescribed combination HRT) also from Medline: "Menstrual periods beginning again, including changing menstrual bleeding pattern for up to 6 months (spotting, breakthrough bleeding, prolonged or heavier vaginal bleeding, or vaginal bleeding completely stopping by 10 months); vaginal itching or irritation, or thick, white vaginal discharge. … Breast lumps; discharge from breast; skin rash …Pain or tenderness in stomach, side, or abdomen; yellow eyes or skin … Abdominal cramps; breast pain or tenderness; diarrhea; dizziness; enlarged breasts; increase in amount of clear vaginal discharge; itching; joint pain; mental depression; nausea; painful menstrual periods; passing of gas; stomach discomfort following meals; unusual tiredness … Bloating or swelling of face, ankles, or feet; headaches, including migraine headaches; increase in sexual desire; tense muscles; unusual weight gain or loss … Mood changes; nervousness; trouble in sleeping; vomiting." Plus a warning about the potential for HRT to cause breast cancer, and a list of 27 seperate classes of drugs which can interact with HRT to cause problems. Estrogen alone, and progesterone alone, come with their own similarly long list of potential side effects, including blood clots leading to stroke, heart attack and death. Readers may judge for themselves which drug is "a hell of a lot safer." If you want to beat the drum for HRT, that’s fine. But if you’re going to do it with sweeping misstatements of fact, expect to be challenged. But then, you probably know that by now. –Pat Kight kig…@peak.org
Response:
Can’t find the post on ERT/HRT. I wondered though how does the author Natalie Angier know that most women who survived their childbearing years lived to a healthy happy old age? Statistics prior to the 19th century are pretty hard to come by. People had rickets, scurvy, goiters and anthropologists have found arthritis in the bones of early American settlers. These are only a small sampling of the disease that affected people. It is true that there were centenarians as there are now. My post of Jan 15 title "Centenarians and HDL cholesterol" explains why some women have a genetic advantage. But good news estrogen or estrogen/progesterone can up the HDL levels. HRT is a hell of a lot safer than the niacin that is frequently prescribed. That entails frequent lab checkups of liver functioning. So wonder of wonder estrogen may help some women! Resa
Response:
Church records are probably the best source of information for ordinary people in Europe before 1800, where they have survived. My husband’s ancestral village, Windheim near Bremen, had its records microfilmed by the LDS. The records begin in 1669, and would have gone back to the Reformation except for a fire which burned the church and parsonage in the autumn of 1669. The description of the fire is on the first page of the record books. Cause of death is listed for perhaps half the burials. Probably 50% of children baptized died before reaching the age of 5, many in their first year. Smallpox and measles were the main diseases of babies. Adults generally did not die in these epidemics, presumably because they acquired immunity as children who survived. The main adult epidemic was "bloody diarrhea" which was probably cholera or typhoid. When this struck adults of all ages also died. In 1719 there were some 300 deaths in one week in this small village. Very few children between 5 and 20 died, and those who did were generally killed in farm accidents or drownings. But perhaps 1 in 5 brides died having their first baby. Women who survived the first pregnancy did not usually die in childbirth thereafter. A few women died in their late 40’s, often while having their last of perhaps ten babies. After that, women generally lived into their 70’s or 80’s, men into their 60’s. Causes of death included cancer (listed as carcinoma, usually of the mouth or face), stroke (apoplexy), and what is listed as senility of age. From 1669 to 1820 there was one listed infanticide, three listed suicides, and no murders. However, there were some suspicious accidents, in which mother-in-law "fell to her death from the hayloft" and one gentleman who drowned "falling into a barrel of wine." The suicides were the occasion of long notes about depression, presumably to permit burial in consecrated ground, and all were men. The one infanticide was of a child out of wedlock by its mother and was recorded as a sealed confession. There were however a suspicious number of stillborn out of wedlock infants compared to stillbirths for married couples. The people were farmers, linen weavers, tailors, and fishermen. Until about 1780 they did not work more than 5 miles from home. We read all the records from 1669-1820 and entered them in database form, because three of my husband’s four families come from that village and there were many other immigrants from there to Fort Wayne, Indiana, whom we were tracing. We finished with about 35,000 souls. Linda
Response: