niyad
niyad's JournalThis FDA Decision Could Transform Menopause Care
This FDA Decision Could Transform Menopause Care
PUBLISHED 11/12/2025 by Sharon Malone and Jennifer Weiss-Wolf
The end of the FDA’s “black box” era for estrogen could reshape conversations between women and their doctors.
Examples of estradiol-based hormone therapies: Oesclim transdermal patch; Oestrodose dermal gel; Aerodiol nasal spray; Climaston tablets (estradiol and dydrogesterone); and progesterone capsules. (BSIP / UIG Via Getty Images)
This story was originally published by Katie Couric Media.
Inaccurate labeling and classification of menopausal hormone treatments have thwarted women’s access to quality healthcare for more than two decades. The good news? We are in the midst of major reform momentum. On Monday, Nov. 10, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced that the Food and Drug Administration would eliminate the “boxed labeling” requirement for estrogen products. The “black box warning,” as it’s commonly called, is part of the fallout from a press conference that occurred more than 20 years ago, announcing the findings of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI). It’s also been the subject of a half-century-long push and pull with the federal government.
The Backstory
When estrogen became all the rage in the 1970s, the FDA issued a mandate to provide stringent written warnings about its benefits and risks. At the time, this move was widely celebrated as a feminist win and a way to ensure women were armed with information to make decisions for themselves without medical gatekeeping. By the 1990s, the FDA initiated a more iterative labeling process for menopause treatments in order to keep up with new observational research. All that changed following the WHI’s misread of its data and the public frenzy it stoked. As a result, the FDA revisited the warning on estrogen, and in 2003 the agency upgraded the requirement to the most stringent “boxed labeling” format, which is applied to products that cause serious life-or-death reactions. In this case, the label warned of numerous conditions, including breast cancer, heart disease, blood clots and probable dementia. Apart from an increased risk in blood clots, none of the other warnings were statistically significant. (In medical research parlance, a non-statistically significant finding is not a finding.) Not surprisingly, the warning language and prominent placement caused undue alarm among patients and doctors alike. Usage plummeted—and a generation of women suffered.
Fast Forward to Today
With menopause advocacy gaining global attention, a modern campaign for better policies has emerged. Over the past year, the online citizen’s petition organized by Let’s Talk Menopause in support of removing the boxed warning from vaginal estrogen garnered more than 26,000 signatures. Nineteen states have introduced more than three dozen bills to improve menopause education and care. And the FDA, too, has now stepped up. In July, it convened a first-ever publicly broadcast roundtable discussion on menopausal hormone treatments; a dozen physicians presented, urging regulators to finally align policy with the data. The panel was followed by an open public comments and feedback period over several weeks. At Monday’s press conference and in a corresponding piece in JAMA, FDA commissioner Dr. Marty Makary shared that this process led the agency’s internal experts to determine that removing the boxed labeling requirement was the right thing to do. Make no mistake, this has been a longstanding demand—it’s neither new nor MAHA-driven. Doctors and scientists have made the case for its removal since the start to no avail, arguing the data from the WHI—the largest, most expensive, and only randomized placebo-controlled study of post-menopausal women—never supported putting it there in the first place.
.. . . .
For the here and now? Our advice is to trust the physicians, researchers and scientists who have advocated for this for decades regardless of who happened to be in charge of the FDA. This includes the Menopause Society and ACOG, among others. And importantly, don’t let polarization muddle the message. This is about policy, not politics. Our job is to continue to discuss hormone therapy the same way we would any medication. At long last, we are free to have this conversation without the unnecessary fear factor that the black box warning engendered.The FDA’s reversal of the labeling requirement is a major win for evidence-based medicine. Now it’s up to us to responsibly inform women of their choices.
https://msmagazine.com/2025/11/12/menopause-estrogen-fda-hormone-replacement-therapy-black-box-breast-cancer-women-health/
This FDA Decision Could Transform Menopause Care
This FDA Decision Could Transform Menopause Care
PUBLISHED 11/12/2025 by Sharon Malone and Jennifer Weiss-Wolf
The end of the FDA’s “black box” era for estrogen could reshape conversations between women and their doctors.
Examples of estradiol-based hormone therapies: Oesclim transdermal patch; Oestrodose dermal gel; Aerodiol nasal spray; Climaston tablets (estradiol and dydrogesterone); and progesterone capsules. (BSIP / UIG Via Getty Images)
This story was originally published by Katie Couric Media.
Inaccurate labeling and classification of menopausal hormone treatments have thwarted women’s access to quality healthcare for more than two decades. The good news? We are in the midst of major reform momentum. On Monday, Nov. 10, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced that the Food and Drug Administration would eliminate the “boxed labeling” requirement for estrogen products. The “black box warning,” as it’s commonly called, is part of the fallout from a press conference that occurred more than 20 years ago, announcing the findings of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI). It’s also been the subject of a half-century-long push and pull with the federal government.
The Backstory
When estrogen became all the rage in the 1970s, the FDA issued a mandate to provide stringent written warnings about its benefits and risks. At the time, this move was widely celebrated as a feminist win and a way to ensure women were armed with information to make decisions for themselves without medical gatekeeping. By the 1990s, the FDA initiated a more iterative labeling process for menopause treatments in order to keep up with new observational research. All that changed following the WHI’s misread of its data and the public frenzy it stoked. As a result, the FDA revisited the warning on estrogen, and in 2003 the agency upgraded the requirement to the most stringent “boxed labeling” format, which is applied to products that cause serious life-or-death reactions. In this case, the label warned of numerous conditions, including breast cancer, heart disease, blood clots and probable dementia. Apart from an increased risk in blood clots, none of the other warnings were statistically significant. (In medical research parlance, a non-statistically significant finding is not a finding.) Not surprisingly, the warning language and prominent placement caused undue alarm among patients and doctors alike. Usage plummeted—and a generation of women suffered.
Fast Forward to Today
With menopause advocacy gaining global attention, a modern campaign for better policies has emerged. Over the past year, the online citizen’s petition organized by Let’s Talk Menopause in support of removing the boxed warning from vaginal estrogen garnered more than 26,000 signatures. Nineteen states have introduced more than three dozen bills to improve menopause education and care. And the FDA, too, has now stepped up. In July, it convened a first-ever publicly broadcast roundtable discussion on menopausal hormone treatments; a dozen physicians presented, urging regulators to finally align policy with the data. The panel was followed by an open public comments and feedback period over several weeks. At Monday’s press conference and in a corresponding piece in JAMA, FDA commissioner Dr. Marty Makary shared that this process led the agency’s internal experts to determine that removing the boxed labeling requirement was the right thing to do. Make no mistake, this has been a longstanding demand—it’s neither new nor MAHA-driven. Doctors and scientists have made the case for its removal since the start to no avail, arguing the data from the WHI—the largest, most expensive, and only randomized placebo-controlled study of post-menopausal women—never supported putting it there in the first place.
.. . . .
For the here and now? Our advice is to trust the physicians, researchers and scientists who have advocated for this for decades regardless of who happened to be in charge of the FDA. This includes the Menopause Society and ACOG, among others. And importantly, don’t let polarization muddle the message. This is about policy, not politics. Our job is to continue to discuss hormone therapy the same way we would any medication. At long last, we are free to have this conversation without the unnecessary fear factor that the black box warning engendered.The FDA’s reversal of the labeling requirement is a major win for evidence-based medicine. Now it’s up to us to responsibly inform women of their choices.
https://msmagazine.com/2025/11/12/menopause-estrogen-fda-hormone-replacement-therapy-black-box-breast-cancer-women-health/
When the Headline Gets It Wrong: Feminism Isn't the Problem--Patriarchy Is (trigger warning)
(and the PATRIARCHAL, MISOGYNIST, CHRISTOFASCIST, THEOCRATIC WAR ON WOMEN continues apace!!!)
When the Headline Gets It Wrong: Feminism Isn’t the Problem—Patriarchy Is (trigger warning)
PUBLISHED 11/8/2025 by Jodi Bondi Norgaard | UPDATED 11/13/2025 at 9:49 A.M. PT
A march on International Women’s Day, March 8, 2025, in New York City. (Robert Nickelsberg / Getty Images)
When I saw the headline “Did Women Ruin the Workplace? And if so, can conservative feminism fix it?” in The New York Times Opinion section, my heart sank. It felt like a headline torn from another era—a provocation that had no place in 2025. After predictable backlash online, the headline was softened to “Did Liberal Feminism Ruin the Workplace?” and then “Have ‘Feminine Vices’ Taken Over the Workplace?” The wording changed, but the message didn’t.
Curious—and frustrated—I listened to the accompanying podcast, Interesting Times. What I heard wasn’t analysis; it was a polished repackaging of old patriarchal ideas dressed up as intellectual debate. The podcast opens with the statement, “Men and women are different,” calling this “the core premise of conservatism in the age of Trump.” The host goes on to say that liberalism and feminism “have come to grief by pretending that the sexes are the same.” No one—least of all feminists—is pretending men and women are “the same.” According to Merriam-Webster, feminism is “the belief in and advocacy of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” Equality does not mean sameness, it means fairness: the right to opportunity, autonomy and dignity regardless of gender.
By suggesting feminism “pretends” the sexes are identical, the host misrepresents a movement that has always sought to expand human possibility, not erase difference. He then poses the question: Should the right “roll back the feminist era” or is there a “conservative feminism” that corrects liberalism’s mistakes? There is no such thing as conservative feminism. The phrase exists because patriarchy has learned to speak the language of empowerment. It borrows feminist words—“choice,” “agency,” “strength”—but drains them of their radical meaning, using them to defend inequality. It’s liberation without justice. It’s empowerment without equality.
. . . . . . . .
The writer’s podcast claims to explore “the big questions of our era.” But when those questions ask whether feminism has “ruined” the workplace, the format becomes less conversation than provocation—a way to make misogyny sound like intellectual inquiry. The Times’ decision to amplify these voices is disappointing. Women are not the problem. Feminism is not the problem. The problem is a culture still too comfortable questioning women’s legitimacy, ambition and anger.The message from the writers is clear: Women should know their place. But women already do—it’s everywhere decisions are made, everywhere power is exercised, everywhere the future is being built. We’re not staying in our lane. We made the road. And we’re not going anywhere.
https://msmagazine.com/2025/11/08/conservative-feminism-new-york-times-headline-liberal-feminism-ruin-workplace/
krasnov threatens to sue bbc for over a billion over the edited J6 bund rally
I posted yesterday about BBC bending the knee to krasnov. Apparently, they did not bend enough. Per a Guardian article from earlier today.
I have very sad news to report. The Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest* is no more.
After a mere 42 years, Prof. Scott Rice has the NERVE, the AUDACITY, to. . .to. . . gasp. . .retire! As if being merely a year older than Joe Biden is a legitimate excuse, the layabout!
The only consolation is that the contest winners have been archived.
*For those unfamiliar with the BLFC, it was a contest to write the worst possible opening sentence of an imaginary novel, inspired by Bulwer-Lytton's "It was a dark and storrmy night. . .", co-opted by Snoopy.
I am inconsolable! Devastated! Grieved beyond measure!
JFC!!! BBC caves to krasnov and henchmen. Perhaps our British
members could help us understand what just happened? I would be grateful, because my head hurts, and a glitch in my computer does not allow me to link articles or videos. The BBC Director General Tim Davie, and News Director Deborah Turness resigned yesterday over accusations from a former advisor of "serious and systemic bias" including on coverage of krasnov, Gaza, and LGTBQ+ issues.The nterlocking relationships between the accuser and boris johnson, teresa may, robbie gibb, and others determined to shift the BBC politically.
As I said, my head hurts.
The Daily Bitch*: "I wish people would work as hard to avoid me as I
work to avoid them."
*Both a noun, and a verb, depending on usage.
Nicole Curtis-Rehab Addict. When I was watching, horrorstruck, the
sadistic, hate-fillled, monstrous, evil, destruction of a major part of OUR HOUSE, without our permission or approval, I kept thinking about Nicole's show, how carefully, respectfully, things were done, and I am filled with rage and hatred for the evil now in charge.
"Take Care Of This House" is something those monsters will never understand.
Jackie Kennedy's Rose Garden. Eleanor Roosevelt's East Room. How many
other special things promulgated by strong, competent women is he going to destroy??? Beides all our rights, of course.
Soooooo.7 MILLION + people. Two arrests (that we know of so far,
both trumphumping ammosexuals.
Profile Information
Member since: Tue Jul 29, 2003, 03:30 PMNumber of posts: 133,793