This is how misinformation creeps back in.

In February, a paper dropped in Menopause with a very reasonable title:

“Health Outcomes of Hormone Therapy Initiated or Continued After Age 65.”

I read it and immediately thought:

Watch—this will be used against women.

And here we are.

Because when you actually read the study, here’s the problem:

👉 They didn’t study the hormones.

No data on:

– what formulation

– what dose

– what route (oral? transdermal?)

Let that sink in.

We’re talking about completely different medications being lumped together and conclusions being drawn as if they’re the same thing.

That’s not science.

That’s noise. Fear

So I co-authored a letter with a breast oncologist and menopause specialist to say what needed to be said clearly:

You cannot make meaningful claims about hormone therapy without knowing the actual therapy.

And yet… studies like this get picked up, simplified, and used to reinforce fear.

This is how women lose access.

This is how clinicians get confused.

This is how progress gets rolled back.

We’ve spent decades trying to bring nuance to hormone therapy:

Individualized care.

Risk stratification.

Route matters.

Dose matters.

Details matter.

And when those details are missing?

The conclusions shouldn’t stand.

I’ll keep saying it:

Bad data doesn’t just sit quietly—it causes harm.

If you want the full breakdown (and what the study actually means for you), it’s in today’s Substack.