plant lover, cookie monster, shoe fiend
20078 stories
·
20 followers

when i was younger and stupid and in the (glass) closet i was dating the son of a pharmacologist….

1 Share

inkskinned:

when i was younger and stupid and in the (glass) closet i was dating the son of a pharmacologist. this man had made millions developing medications. he was fond of me and privately told me i was too funny and smart to be dating boys.

he also said that it was incredibly unlikely that sexism will ever be resolved in the medical field. that the majority of medications i will ever take - even some of which are “for women” - will not be clinically tested on my body.

the problem, he said, was in getting any human clinical trial approved. to test on a body with a uterus - any body, even elderly patients or those who have been sterilized - was often nigh-impossible, because the concern was that the test patient may, at any point, become pregnant. once/if the patient became pregnant, the study would not be about “the effects of New Medication on the body.” instead, the trial would fail - the results would be “the effects of New Medication on a developing fetus/pregnant patient.”

it was massively easier, he said, to just test without accounting for a uterus. that’s how he phrased it - accounting for a uterus.

at the time, i remember him talking about the ethical implications of testing on a developing fetus; how such testing could theoretically bankrupt a company if a lawsuit was filed. he talked about informed consent and about how long it took for any legislation to be passed about this - that in 1993; the year i was born, it finally became illegal to outright exclude women and minorities from clinical trials.

i remember him shrugging. “that’s not to say it doesn’t happen,” he said. my ears were ringing.

i was thinking about how every time i have been rushed to the ER, the first thing they have asked me is if i am pregnant. when i broke my wrist at 16 years old - despite never having had sex - they made me wait three hours for the test to come back negative before they gave me pain meds. the possibility of a child haunts my health.

how many people have died on the table because they were waiting for the pregnancy test before treatment. how many people have died on the table because they were pregnant, and the only thing we care about is the fetus.

it is hard to explain to other people, but it feels like some kind of strange ghost. our entire lives, we are supposed to “save” our bodies for our future partners. but really we are just saving the body for the future child, aren’t we? that hovering future-almost that cartwheels around in a miasma. you can’t get your tubes tied, what if you change your mind? think of the child you must have, eventually.

who cares about you and your actual safety. think about what you could be carrying.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
3 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Harvard Slashes Ph.D. Admissions

1 Share

Readers may remember the following chart. Bear it in mind.

Here’s a summary from Chris Brunet of the cuts:

According to the Crimson report, which quotes five anonymous faculty sources, the reductions are as follows:

  • Science PhD admissions slashed by more than 75%
  • Arts & Humanities cut by about 60%
  • Social Sciences reduced 50–70%
  • History down 60%
  • Biology down 75%
  • The German department will lose all PhD seats
  • Sociology will go from six students to zero

In addition to slashing PhD admissions, FAS has also instituted a hiring freeze for full-time staff, announced it would keep its budget flat for fiscal year 2026, and ceased work on all “non-essential capital projects and spending.”

These austerity measures follow a wave of layoffs across other Harvard schools, including the T.H. Chan School of Public Health, the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, the Kennedy School of Government, the School of Dental Medicine, and the Graduate School of Design.

I urge you to read Chris’s entire article, but I’ll summarize part of it:

  • Harvard lost 113 million on operations last year BUT made 4 billion in its endowment, which stands at 56.9 billion.
  • 2025 has so far been a record year for donations: 629 million, up from 528 million last year, and 2025 isn’t over yet.
  • Trump promised to restore 2.4 billion in frozen grants IF Harvard runs some trade schools for automotive plant, motors and engines.

Anyway, obviously Harvard can afford to make up its operating deficit of 113 million and doesn’t need to cut Ph.D. admissions. Making up for grants out of its own pocket would be harder, but not impossible, since 4 billion (its endowment gain) is more than 2.4 billion. The reason for the endowment is so that Harvard can, when times are bad, for whatever reason, continue to operate normally. Since the next administration may reverse Trump’s policies, it makes sense to just keep going for now. If it turns out that Trump’s policies are a bi-partisan consensus, then Harvard should make adjustments.

Harvard is, as Chris notes, acting very much as if it is an endowment fund with a university, and not a university with an endowment fund. Instead of using the endowment to protect the university, it is protecting the endownment with cuts to the university.

Now this is just Harvard. The Crimson article has this lovely quote:

The reduction in admissions slots puts a figure to FAS Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra’s announcement in late September that the school would be admitting Ph.D. students at “significantly reduced levels.” Hoekstra cited uncertainty around research funding and an increase to the endowment tax — which could cost Harvard $300 million per year — as sources of financial pressure.

Hoekstra also wrote in her message that the FAS decided to continue admitting Ph.D. students only “after careful deliberation.” She noted that many peer institutions paused Ph.D. admissions altogether, suggesting the FAS may have considered a complete halt in line with its peers. (my emphasis)

Wait. A complete halt at many other universities? No new Ph.D. students?

So, OK, the US is DONE. DONE. OVER. OK? They’re mass cutting universities admissions and research at the same time as China is pulling away, funding its universities even more? This is some of the sheerest stupidity I have ever seen. Right wing ‘tards hate universities, so they’re going to cut America’s throat.


We’re about 3 weeks into our annual fundraiser. Our goal is $12,500 (same as last year). So far we’ve raised $8,610 from 76 people out of a readership of about 10,000. 

If you read this blog, you’re usually ahead of everyone else. You know, years in advance, much of what’s going to happen. The intelligence from this blog is better than what people pay $10,000/year for. Without donations and subscriptions, this blog isn’t viable. If you want to keep it, and you can afford to, please give. If you’re considering a large donation, consider making it matching. (ianatfdl-at-gmail-dot-com).


I get also that we’re in a profoundly anti-intellectual, culture hating period where the idea that history, literature, languages and social sciences matter has given way to chants of “STEM, STEM, STEM!” but note, for example, that biology is getting slashed and that most of the research cuts and freezes are in the hard sciences. This as China has overtaken the US in biotech and is poised to overtake in pharma.

I cannot wrap my mind around how stupid and foolish this all is. It’s not that American universities don’t need fixing. If I were in charge I’d probably force them to keep faculty and student numbers up and reduce administrative bloat by at least half in 2 years. I’d also force every university to restore control to the faculty senate, and make it so that if you aren’t a faculty member (and teaching plus either writing or researching) you cannot have any actual authority. There’s also a question of research cost padding, but the solution to that isn’t wholesale cuts at the exact moment when one is in peer competition with a challenger.

But this sort of insanity, of reducing or outright cutting the pipeline of future scholars and scientists is outright deranged and self destructive to a remarkable degree.

As for Harvard, the people who run it are scum, who have lost sight of the fact that the endowment serves the university. I cry few tears for Harvard, the people it graduates are usually conformist careerists. But Harvard is the bell-weather for all US universities, if this is happening even at Harvard, what is happening down the chain?

America’s in trouble, and that trouble could be used to fix things. But all Trump is doing is tearing everything down, generally in the stupidest way possible.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
5 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Jay Shetty and his health advice are everywhere. It's by design

1 Share

Looking directly at the camera with alert, empathetic eyes, Jay Shetty asks: “Do you feel like you try and eat healthy, but you’re constantly tired by 3 p.m.?  Or maybe you’re trying to cut out junk food, and you’re finding it really difficult. Or maybe you’re someone who always feels bloated.”

“Or,” he adds, “maybe you’re one of those people who’s thinking, ‘Jay, I need to get a gut test. I need to know what’s going on because I’m not feeling great,’” he says, hand gestures punctuating “not feeling great.”

Pause. “If any of those are true for you,” he says, “this episode is for you.”

The video, titled “5 Nutrition EXPERTS: The SHOCKING Healthy Foods That are Making You Fat (Food Lies HIDDEN From Us!)” is classic Shetty, exuding earnestness, promising change, and optimized for social media traction. 

Over the last few years, the 38 year old has built a wildly popular brand as a health and wellness public figure. He’s best known for his podcast, “On Purpose,” where he interviews doctors, psychologists, business leaders, motivational speakers, and A-list celebrities on their best practices for healthy living. With guests like Bill Gates, Khloe Kardashian, Casey Means, and venture capitalist-turned-immortality seeker Bryan Johnson, “On Purpose” has nearly 4.5 million subscribers on YouTube. It’s even bigger as audio, consistently listed as one of the top five health and fitness podcasts on Apple, with a reported 35 million downloads per month.

And Shetty’s influence extends far beyond the world of podcasting. He’s well-connected in Hollywood, where he’s reportedly offered spiritual guidance for celebrities like Will Smith (who Shetty has called a “dear, dear spiritual brother and friend”) and Jennifer Lopez (who had Shetty officiate her 2023 wedding to Ben Affleck and later appeared in her 2024 film “This Is Me … Now: A Love Story”). In 2023, Shetty was invited to the White House to interview President Joe Biden about his mental health.

Shetty is also the Chief Purpose Officer at the meditation app Calm, an ambiguously defined role that involves daily in-app meditations and HR webinars on self care. He’s written two books and founded the Jay Shetty Certification School life coaching program, the brand agency House of 1212, as well as the tea line Juni. He’s also spoken about mindfulness to corporate clients like Deloitte, Google, and Novo Nordisk.

Altogether, Shetty’s suite of businesses and public appearances portray him as a figure of health and spirituality for a fast-paced, modern world. But Shetty blends his message of mindfulness and healing with health guidance that’s often stripped of context, designed to prop up his own interests, or downright unsubstantiated by science.

His show has shared vague advice on how to “cancer proof” your body and misleading claims about inflammation, which one guest blamed for the high number of Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. while overlooking other, more significant factors. Shetty’s guests often have no formal health training or background. And even the doctors and other licensed health professionals on the show tend to be entrepreneurs selling their own three-day cleanse kits, anti-glucose spiking supplements, or member-exclusive medical spas. Shetty did not respond to multiple requests to be interviewed for this story.

Experts told STAT that the monk entrepreneur is less of a health resource and more an example of the increasingly lucrative and poorly regulated wellness industry. Nevertheless, millions of people are listening to what Shetty has to say — a phenomenon that speaks as much to his successful branding as it does to people’s eagerness for solutions outside the current health care system.

Who is Jay Shetty? From monk to mogul

When it comes to Shetty’s origin story, there are two, periodically overlapping narratives — the one that Shetty offers up about himself and the one that has been documented by investigative reporters, former colleagues, and Shetty’s own digital paper trail.

As Shetty tells it, which he does frequently, he grew up in north London and was attending university at Bayes Business School when he heard Gauranga Das, a Hindu monk, speak. He instantly felt connected to Das’ peaceful message and confident aura.

After graduating, Shetty moved to an ashram in Mumbai for three years to meditate, study ancient scripture, and “serve with my fellow monks,” according to his 2020 book “Think Like a Monk.” Shetty eventually moved back to London after, he writes, Das told him “he believed I would be of greater value and service if I left the ashram and shared what I learned with the world.”

But before that greater value and service could be fully realized, Shetty got a job in digital marketing strategy at the consulting firm Accenture, and became fascinated with social media. 

By 2016, he left the company to begin his career as a content creator, first as a video host and producer with HuffPost and then as an independent online personality. Shetty launched “On Purpose” in 2019 with the tagline, “The place you come to become happier, healthier, and more healed.”

“On Purpose” elevated Shetty from a social media influencer into a mental health authority with his own Kenneth Cole fashion campaign and hand in multiple celebrity marriages. He has earned several fans in positions of power, such as Michelle Obama and Mehmet Oz, who leads the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Earlier this summer, “On Purpose” partnered with Chase Sapphire to host a North America live podcast tour, complete with VIP packages with exclusive meditation sessions and meet-and-greets.

But controversies regarding Shetty’s monk backstory and business practices have been well-documented.

In 2019, comedian and YouTuber Nicole Arbour posted a video chronicling numerous incidents of Shetty presenting inspirational anecdotes and quotes online as his own without proper citation. Shetty later quietly added retroactive citations to his social media posts.

And in 2024, journalist John McDermott published a scathing investigation into Shetty in the Guardian, detailing issues with online plagiarism as well as conflicting details surrounding his time as a monk.

The investigation found that not only had Shetty been involved in the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (also known as Iskcon or the Hare Krishna movement) years before he claimed to have met a monk for the first time, he also seems to have exaggerated the actual amount time spent at an ashram in India. 

While Shetty does not explicitly deny his ties to Iskcon now, he’s careful to never mention the religious organization in any capacity, which is notable given how much he otherwise discusses his monk history.

Shetty’s brand merges health and spirituality

Without medical credentials or professional mental health experience, much of Shetty’s authority stems from his years as a monk. He says as much in “Think Like a Monk,” where he writes, “If you wanted to innovate, you might investigate Elon Musk; you might study Beyoncé to learn how to perform. If you want to train your mind to find peace, calm and purpose? Monks are the experts.”

And despite the inconsistencies in his backstory, Shetty has been able to build a highly visible, lucrative brand off his monk reputation. In “On Purpose,” Shetty covers a vast range of health-related topics, including depression, anxiety, finding motivation, building confidence, sleep hygiene, ADHD, dating and friendships, weight loss, gut health, cancer prevention, narcissism, manifestation, and telepathy.

Experts with varying degrees of credentials are interviewed without any disclaimers or fact-checking. In one podcast episode, Shetty interviews nutritionist and podcaster Shawn Stevenson, who claims that just by adopting a healthy diet and exercise routine, he was able to cure his degenerative bone disease and herniated discs. It’s a sweeping claim with little nuance: While eating healthy has been shown to somewhat improve spinal and bone disease symptoms, total recoveries are rare, and rely on other factors beyond diet such as genetics and disease severity.

In another interview, nutritionist and “cleanse expert” Elissa Goodman says that stage 4 cancer can be healed without “Western modalities” using a positive mindset and healthy diet. “I do believe you can heal from anything, almost,” Goodman said, also extolling detox cleanses, hypnotism, and at-home, shaman-guided psilocybin treatments.

Not everything Shetty platforms on his show is unconfirmed by science. Numerous episodes feature doctors advising listeners to reduce ultra-processed foods for a healthier diet, sleep enough to support memory retention, and other life habits that have strong scientific consensus. The problem, experts told STAT, is that this advice is muddled together with unproven theories and soundbites that aren’t backed up by clinical studies.

“Celebrities have the capacity to influence online without the domain expertise to provide health and medical advice,” said Stephanie Alice Baker, an associate professor in sociology at City St. George’s, University of London. “Their experience stands in for expertise, yet there are seldom consequences for sharing false, misleading or harmful advice.”

Shetty “does spread a skewed view of health at times,” Mariah Wellman, an assistant professor at the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University who researches the wellness industry, told STAT. For example, in an interview, surgeon, public speaker, and consultant Vonda Wright discusses the important role of sleep health in weight loss, a link that’s been demonstrated in numerous studies. A few minutes later, she tells listeners to avoid ingesting seed oils and inflammatory foods that can accelerate aging, advice that’s not fully substantiated by medical research and mentioned only in passing without additional context.

While Wellman said that she sees Shetty as “someone who is trying to do right by the public in most cases,” she separately noted that “he uses themes tied to heavy emotions, combined with the use of experts to situate himself as the ultimate authority, when in fact, he has come under fire for his confusing backstory.”

Outside of “On Purpose,” Shetty’s other entrepreneurial projects also rely on messaging that promises a healthier life. His tea brand Juni (short for “Just You And I”) features the slogan “where happiness meets function” and claims its adaptogen ingredients such as ashwagandha and reishi mushroom can protect brain health, improve memory, and reduce fatigue. Can a 12-ounce can of carbonated yuzu pineapple tea deliver on this promise? Not really, experts said.

Adaptogens are a broad term used to describe any plant-based ingredient that helps your body adapt to stress, explained Rashmi Mullur, a clinical professor of medicine and director of Integrative Medicine Education at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. Although some adaptogens have been studied in research trials and Mullur herself has suggested some patients take adaptogens tailored to their needs, she pointed out that products sold as supplements can advertise such ingredients as generally healthy irrespective of the actual science or quality of the product.

“The only rule in the United States is that they cannot be a pharmacologic drug and can’t be thought of as a medication,” Mullur said. “If you’re looking for a trial on the benefits of drinking this tea, or any product with adaptogens that’s sold on the market, you will never find one. That is just not something the wellness industry participates in.”

Shetty did not respond to requests for an interview with STAT, but has previously commented on criticisms about his paradoxical status as a monk and social media figure. “They want me to not be who I truly am,” Shetty said of his critics in a 2023 interview. “And they want to find that angle on me constantly, because they don’t want to accept that someone who is trying to be good at heart, is doing good at the work, and winning is okay.”

For $7,400, a Shetty credential

In his business efforts, Shetty’s career has been buoyed by people who empathize with his calls for healthier, happier living. Nowhere is that dynamic more evident than in his life coaching program, the Jay Shetty Certification School.

Composed of online group classes, practice coaching sessions, and self-study, the school program costs up to $7,400 to enroll in and is accredited by the Association for Coaching. (Prior to the Guardian investigation, the JSCS website falsely claimed accreditations from other institutions as well.) Life coaches, who are not licensed therapists or medical practitioners, lead most of the program, and Shetty himself only appears periodically for group sessions or in pre-recorded videos.

Andrea Borges first discovered Shetty from “On Purpose” and quickly became a fan. Burnt out from her managerial role at work, she decided to enroll in the Jay Shetty Certification School, saying she “resonated deeply with a lot of the messaging.” Two years after graduating and now working as a mindset and healing coach, Borges remains grateful for the lessons and relationships she gained regardless of Shetty’s controversies.

“This to me is an important lesson not to put any one person on a pedestal,” she said. Borges told STAT that she was not aware of Shetty’s controversies until after she graduated from JSCS, and had an “overall very positive” experience with the program.

Veronica Caulfield, another JSCS graduate and life coach, feels similarly. After completing the certification program last April, Caulfield, 43, founded her own life coaching practice and left her career in operations management. “It’s been a year of transformation … and it’s amazing,” Caulfield said.

Caulfield also credits JSCS — which she first learned about through social media ads — with helping improve her relationships with friends and family members.

She views her journey as separate from any messy details involving Shetty. JSCS encouraged her to “explore my authentic self, and I got to work with other coaches and be coached,” she said. “That’s what I want to see more of in the world.”

What Shetty’s popularity says about health institutions

Borges’ and Caulfield’s experiences speak to a critical aspect of Shetty’s popularity and influence: His message to take mental health and physical wellbeing seriously is compelling to millions worldwide, misinformation and controversies be damned.

“People aren’t getting duped by the wellness industry because they can’t figure out something better,” Mullur said. “They’re desperate for help and they’re desperate for information.”

The rise of wellness influencers like Shetty also coincides with a period of unique health stressors and a loss of trust in the medical mainstream, experts said. “Insurance rates are going up for many, costs in general are increasing, and the relationship with medical professionals is strained as we rely more heavily on technology like telehealth and chatbots to connect with medical staff,” Wellman noted. “People are willing to try anything to secure their wellbeing, including purchasing products and participating in trends they find online.”

Irrespective of Shetty’s problematic record in delivering health information, his growing influence speaks to health institutions’ failure to meet the need for trustworthy medical insights. 

“I don’t know any of my patients who are not struggling with the weight of the world right now,” Mullur said. “But I think it gives us an opportunity in medicine to broaden our conversation around how psychosocial and traumatic stress influence and impact our health outside of just the conventional medical model.”

Read the whole story
sarcozona
15 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

When Women Initiate Estrogen Therapy Matters | The Menopause Society

1 Share

New large-scale analysis shows potential long-term benefits of initiating hormones during perimenopause

CLEVELAND, Ohio (Oct 21, 2025)—Menopause may take a toll on women physically and emotionally due to declining estrogen levels. For some, the use of hormone therapy has proven valuable in managing bothersome menopause symptoms. A new study suggests that when a woman starts taking hormones makes a major difference in longer term health outcomes. Results of the study will be presented at the 2025 Annual Meeting of The Menopause Society in Orlando October 21-25.

A large percentage of women will experience some type of menopause symptoms, with the most common symptom being hot flashes. Many women will actually start to experience menopause symptoms during perimenopause, the transitional period before the final menstrual period. Perimenopause can last for years, during which time a woman’s estrogen levels fluctuate and decline.

Estrogen therapy has been shown to be one of the most effective and generally safe means for managing bothersome menopause symptoms. However, there is a lack of data regarding the impact of initiating hormone therapy in perimenopause in terms of longer-term health outcomes. A new retrospective cohort analysis based on data from more than 120 million patient records aimed to compare the impact of menopausal estrogen therapy when started during perimenopause or after menopause or not at all. Specifically, the study looked at breast cancer, heart attack and stroke rates associated with estrogen therapy.

The findings revealed that perimenopausal women who had used estrogen within 10 years prior to menopause had no significantly higher associated rates of breast cancer, heart attack and stroke compared to the other two groups. These findings highlight the potential benefit of earlier initiation of estrogen therapy during perimenopause for minimizing risk and optimizing long-term health outcomes. More detailed results will be discussed at the 2025 Annual Meeting of The Menopause Society as part of the poster presentation entitled “The Timing of Estrogen Therapy: Perimenopausal Benefits and Postmenopausal Risks.”

“There has long been a debate about if and when estrogen therapy should begin, so hopefully the use of large-scale electronic health record data will help resolve that question,” says Ify Chidi, lead author from Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland.

Her mentor, Dr. Rachel Pope, Menopause Society Certified Practitioner at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center and Ms. Chidi’s public health professor agrees. “We know that the safest time to start hormone therapy is within the first 10 years of menopause, but we wanted to know if it was also safe to start hormones prior to that when many women begin noticing symptoms—that is, during perimenopause. Hopefully, these results start a larger conversation about prevention in women’s health and will incite more prospective research. If we can better understand the effect of hormones throughout menopause, we can improve the quality of life and reduce disease burden,” says Dr. Pope.

Further clinical research is needed to confirm these results and to explore the long-term effects of estrogen therapy during perimenopause.

“The findings of this study suggest lower risk and potentially greater benefit of estrogen-based therapy when started in perimenopause. While the observational study design is subject to known potential biases such as healthy user bias, these results may pave the way for additional research on the risks and benefits of hormone therapy when initiated earlier in the menopause transition,” says Dr. Stephanie Faubion, medical director for The Menopause Society.

Ms. Chidi, Dr. Pope and Dr. Faubion are available for interviews after the presentation.

For more information about menopause and healthy aging, visit <a href="http://menopause.org" rel="nofollow">menopause.org</a>.

The Menopause Society is dedicated to empowering healthcare professionals and providing them with the tools and resources to improve the health of women during the menopause transition and beyond. As the leading authority on menopause since 1989, the nonprofit, multidisciplinary organization serves as the independent, evidence-based resource for healthcare professionals, researchers, the media, and the public and leads the conversation about improving women’s health and healthcare experiences. To learn more, visit <a href="http://menopause.org" rel="nofollow">menopause.org</a>.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
22 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Timing is everything - by Deborah Copaken - Ladyparts

1 Share

I was in the middle of researching a different story yesterday when I happened upon a new study that not only stopped me in my tracks, it made me decide that getting this information out there today was more important. It also made me more than a little enraged, both for myself and for every Gen-X and Boomer woman who was either taken off hormone therapy, deterred from starting, or, like me, never even told that she and her body might benefit from it.

Millennial and Gen-Z women, however? Listen up. I know many of you are not necessarily thinking about your body’s dramatic loss of estrogen in the near or far future, but if you’re in your forties right now or younger, you have a unique opportunity, if you start taking estrogen early, not only to outlive us estrogen-deprived oldsters but also to feel like yourself and have fewer symptoms while thriving. As long as your doctors—many of whom received no training in the menopause transition whatsoever—are made aware of this new data: a big caveat, I know, and one we will all have to work hard to overcome.

This new retrospective study out of Case Western Reserve School of Medicine, of 120 million patient records in the TriNetX Research Network, is called “The Timing of Estrogen Therapy: Perimenopausal Benefits and Postmenopausal Risks.” It was just presented by its lead author, Ify Chidi, MPH, at the Menopause Society’s annual meeting in Florida. The study’s dramatic results suggest that a much earlier timing of initiation of estrogen therapy in perimenopause—ideally ten years prior to menopause and continuing on it for that same length of time—is not only helpful in alleviating the many debilitating symptoms of the menopause transition, but that starting HRT (aka MHT) in perimenopause should now be considered standard preventative medicine. Here’s the direct quote from the Menopause Society’s initial announcement: “The findings revealed that perimenopausal women who had used estrogen for at least 10 years prior to menopause had significantly lower odds of developing breast cancer, heart attack and stroke compared to the other two groups—approximately 60% lower.”

Um, a SIXTY PERCENT reduction in our chances of getting three lethal diseases if only we’d started taking estrogen in perimenopause? I read that line and teared up, wishing I could go back in time. And because I always love a good personal example of what can happen when a female body is deprived of a hormone she needs, allow me to provide my own soap operatic tale of As the Estrogen Turns.

I lost my uterus to a hysterectomy in 2012 due to adenomyosis. I was 46 years old. Right in that key window of perimenopause, but now that I no longer had a uterus shedding its lining, I also had no way of marking the natural end of menses. Nor was I provided any information about perimenopause or what it might do to me. I was simply wheeled out from my hysterectomy with a handful of flowers and instructions for recovery and wound care.

Here’s what happened over that next decade, when—we now know—I should have been treating my body with estrogen both preventatively for my heart, breasts, and circulatory system as well as to treat symptoms such as hot flashes, depression, recurring UTIs, migraines, and brain fog that are essentially the body’s way of saying, “Hey, Deb! WTF? Where’s the estrogen? We can’t operate this way…”:

2013: I was diagnosed with DCIS of the left breast. Before that, I’d already fallen into a funk so deep that I—a normally cheerful and optimistic person—leaned my head out a window and seriously considered throwing myself out of it. Yes, my marriage had just ended, and my financial situation was bleak, but it was much more than situational trauma. It was a full-bodied darkness that left me feeling as if I were drowning. 2014: I essentially stopped sleeping through the night, for years, because I kept being awoken, drenched in hot-flash sweat. 2015: I started fainting, frequently, sometimes injuring myself on the way down. I was also having heart palpitations, so I went to a cardiologist who put me on a Holter monitor for a month and diagnosed a near constant tachycardia, for which I was prescribed metoprolol, a beta blocker which made me tired, even dizzier, and even foggier. 2016: I began getting migraines so intense, I asked my neurologist, “Could this be hormone related?” She rolled her eyes and said, “No.” Not a fan of belittling contempt from those in charge of my medical care, I switched neurologists. The new one said, “Yes, I personally think this could be hormone related, but we haven’t really studied it,” and put me on a CGRP inhibitor, which worked. This was when I also started getting recurring UTIs. As in 12-15 times a year. The constant need for antibiotics wreaked havoc on my body and made it resistant to one of them. 2017: I was diagnosed with pre-cancer of the cervix and had it removed. Two weeks later, I bled out from vaginal cuff dehiscence. Why? Possibly because my vaginal tissue was now so estrogen-starved and thin, the stitches holding it and me together simply broke right through that thinning tissue and came undone, so I nearly died. 2018: I started forgetting common words, like the artichoke I was holding in my hand. 2019: The UTIs continued, unabated, until Dr. Rachel Rubin, who read a story I wrote in The Atlantic, reached out over twitter DM, and told me to get some estrogen in my body, stat. I ignored her because I was erroneously worried about the flawed WHI reporting that had stopped estrogen treatment in its track back in 2002. 2020: diagnosed with post-Covid POTS. It lasted a year. Could it also have been hormone related? Who the hell knows? 2021: Finally, fed up with the recurring UTIs, I listened to Dr. Rubin and started taking estrogen, both vaginal and systemic. But first I had to find a menopause specialist in my area who took my insurance, which took forever and was a massive hurdle to care. 2023: Diagnosed with osteoporosis.

After I started using vaginal estrogen and dabbing a small circle of systemic estrogen gel on my thigh every morning? My body stopped rebelling. Or, better put, both it and I felt as if we’d reverted back to our pre-hysterectomy self, even if my bones were now as brittle as an 80-year-old’s. No more tachycardia. No more night sweats. No more UTIs. No more dizziness, brain fog, sleeplessness, all of which are outward signs of the internal dysregulation of estrogen loss.

Life, I now realize, did not have to be that way. I did not have to lose an entire decade to medical chaos. Hopefully, once the data in this study is published, and we can get gynecologists and primary care providers not only to read it but to act on its findings, this next generation of women entering perimenopause will have it easier. Until then, if you are (or know or love) a woman who is or will soon be entering her forties, consider hopping on the estrogen bandwagon ten years prior to menopause. 120 million patient records is a substantial number of female bodies to have included in a study, even retrospectively. And a 60% reduction in breast cancer, heart attacks, and stroke is a substantial reduction in female morbidity and mortality, especially considering that heart disease is the number one killer of women.

I know we’ve all been feeling a lack of good news these days, but despite the fact that this news cannot help me and my generation personally, I see it as a welcome exception for the next generation of women as well as a boon to our understanding of our own bodies in particular, and women’s health in general.

Share

Leave a comment

Read the whole story
sarcozona
22 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Why Are Electricity Prices Rising? - by Michael Thomas

1 Share

Few daily necessities have become more expensive recently than electricity. The average American’s bill is likely to be anywhere from 8% to 26% higher this year than it was in 2022.

In New Jersey, electricity prices rose 22% in the last year alone. Rising bills are now seen as a top election issue in the state’s upcoming governors race. “Electricity is the new eggs,” one consumer advocate told the New York Times recently.

Everyone has a take on why electricity bills are rising. Trump’s Energy Secretary Chris Wright argued this summer that solar and wind subsidies were to blame. Fossil fuel lobbyist Alex Epstein recently argued that electrification mandates are the main cause. Some progressive groups, like More Perfect Union, point the finger at data centers.

But look at the data and most of these arguments quickly fall apart.

If solar and wind were to blame for high prices, you’d expect states with the highest renewable energy penetration rates like Iowa and South Dakota to have the highest bills. Instead, they have some of the cheapest. There’s basically no correlation between renewable penetration and electricity prices.

For most Americans, the proliferation of data centers don’t explain their high utility bills either1. Not yet at least.

The state with the highest electricity price increase last year was Maine. There are virtually no data centers in the state—and certainly none of the gigascale projects that have the potential to distort rates significantly.

If big tech and their data centers were to blame, you’d expect states like Nebraska and Iowa—where Google is building its largest cluster of data centers—to have some of the fastest growing rates. But inflation-adjusted rates were negative in both states.

In North Dakota, crypto and AI companies have driven some of the fastest electricity demand growth in the country. You’d expect the state to have seen the fastest growth in utility bills. But again, intuition would fail you. North Dakota is the only state in the US that didn’t see its electricity prices rise between 2019 and 2024. Over that period, rates actually fell in inflation-adjusted terms.

Most of our intuitions and political biases on this topic draw us to the wrong conclusions for a simple reason: electricity ratemaking is complicated. The fact that rates are set by hundreds of different utilities and regulated by 50 different state regulatory commissions doesn’t make things any easier.

This month, researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) published a report that attempts to clear up some confusion on the topic.

So what did these researchers find? Surging electricity prices are like Tolstoy’s unhappy families, each unhappy for their own reasons. There isn’t a single cause of high electricity bills. And most of the popular arguments you read about on social media and in the news are misleading or not true.

Here are some takeaways from the report:

  • Extreme weather is driving some of the largest cost increases—especially on America’s coasts.

  • The rising cost of “poles and wires” are behind rate increases in most states.

  • The natural gas price spikes that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are still costing Americans a lot on their utility bills.

  • Rooftop solar programs probably added some costs in some states. (But this claim is likely to be refuted by distributed energy advocates and is a part of a larger long-running debate).

  • Rising demand from electricity (e.g. from data centers) was associated with lower costs, not higher costs as many people might assume. But this relationship isn’t guaranteed to exist in the future.

One of the largest causes of recent price increases comes from extreme weather and natural disasters, which have been made worse by climate change. Utilities across the country are rebuilding their grids due to recent disasters and in anticipation of future ones. And they’re passing the costs on through bills.

In Maine storm recovery costs rose from 0.1 cent per kilowatt hour (kWh) in 2020 to 1.8 cents per kWh in 2024. This year, they’ll be 3.2 cents per kWh. Or to put it another way, Mainers are paying 32 times more for storm damages this year than they were just five years ago.

Utilities across the Southeastern US are passing similar price increases on due to Hurricane Helene, which was one of the most expensive natural disasters in US history.

On the other side of the country, utility bills are rising as result of wildfire mitigation. Over the last decade, downed transmission lines have caused multiple wildfires across the West Coast. In some cases they’ve literally bankrupted utilities, like California’s PG&E. Now utilities are trying to prevent future fires by doing things like sticking their transmission and distribution lines underground where they can’t light trees on fire.

In California this has come at an enormous cost. PG&E customers are paying 7 cents per kWh for wildfire mitigation alone. That’s equivalent to about half the cost of electricity in many states—all going to prevent future wildfire risk.

Read the whole story
sarcozona
23 hours ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories