Many studies have suggested that estrogen replacement therapy isn't wise because it might increase breast cancer risk, even though estrogen has lots of healthful benefits for cognition, skin health, and not having hot flashes or heart disease. New research with rats suggests prompt estrogen replacement therapy after surgically induced menopause helps to prevent Alzheimers and stroke.

Surgical Menopause May Prime Brain for Stroke, Alzheimer's

Women who abruptly and prematurely lose estrogen from surgical menopause have a two-fold increase in cognitive decline and dementia.

In an effort to mimic what occurs in women, Brann and his colleagues looked at rats 10 weeks after removal of their estrogen-producing ovaries that were either immediately started on low-dose estrogen therapy, started therapy 10 weeks later or never given estrogen.

When the researchers caused a stroke-like event in the brain's hippocampus, a center of learning and memory, they found the rodents treated late or not at all experienced more brain damage, specifically to a region of the hippocampus called CA3 that is normally stroke-resistant.

To make matters worse, untreated or late-treated rats also began an abnormal, robust production of Alzheimer's disease-related proteins in the CA3 region, even becoming hypersensitive to one of the most toxic of the beta amyloid proteins that are a hallmark of Alzheimer's.

Both problems appear associated with the increased production of free radicals in the brain.

Tags: Alzheimers, dementia, hormone replacemeant therapy, stroke

Views: 46

Replies to This Discussion

We really are tampering with natural processes with our many new interventions. Time will tell, and for some, they become a proof of positive or negative results. That said, I am very grateful for modern techniques and chemistry. 

What really frightens me is the fooling around with seed research. GMO has so many red flags flying, I think we have to be very skeptical until more is known. 

From a "rational" perspective, atheists must realise the ridiculous conundrum transgenic companies find themselves in.

-On the one hand, they argue that their crops are unique enough to be patented.

-And on the other hand they argue that legally there is "no difference" between transgenic crops and historically naturally evolved crops, thereby rendering long term secondary effects studies "unnecessary".

Well I'm fucking sorry but they can't have it both ways!!!!! They're either different or they aren't!

I'm not sure how transgenic crops relate to hormone replacement therapy.

I never felt better than when on Hormone replacement therapy but I got cold feet and stopped it.  Breast cancer and all kinds of cancers run in my family so I just felt I could not take a chance.  I had no osteoporosis, my breasts were firm, my skin was clear and not wrinkled, etc., etc., etc.  This is no longer true and I just feel old.

My mother is 68. She was on HRT for a couple of years and also got cold feet. The fear-mongering shoved down our throats by the pharmaceutical industry is really hard to ignore. It comes down to philosophical decisions. Cancers don't run in my family, but stroke does. My mother quit smoking 15 years ago and has been vegetarian for 10 years, but her rheumatoid arthritis and other "bone pains" (PMR?) keep her on other addictive drugs, such as prednosone.

I have a DNR order and have no intention of living beyond my healthy years, whose time is nearing.

According to Statistics Canada,

Canadians' average duration of retirement is 19 years

Of which, according to Health Canada, 10 will be sick.

There is really no point in constantly fantasizing about prolonging human suffering. As biological entities, we are not evolved to go much past the age of menopause, for mammals, history has taken the evolutionary direction that we do not have ridiculously long lives.

It's why I now say, for all those diseases which we "catch" after age 50, they are not 'diseases', they are early symptoms of death. And for all our pharmaceutical fussing around... we do not prolong life, we only prolong death.

While human beings may not have evolved for long lives, I'd be happy to live longer and healthier. If there were a "live longer" pill I'd take it, wait - isn't that resveratrol (which I do take)?

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

Latest Activity

Patricia commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
6 minutes ago
Soren Sagan commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
6 minutes ago
The Flying Atheist commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
33 minutes ago
The Flying Atheist commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
47 minutes ago
Amy commented on Daniel W's group Godless in the garden
1 hour ago
Daniel W commented on Daniel W's group Godless in the garden
1 hour ago
Jim B posted a photo
1 hour ago
Loren Miller commented on Dyslexic's DOG's blog post Wendy Wright (Creationist) arguably the Dumbest Person I've Ever Seen on Youtube!
1 hour ago
Frank Moorman posted a status
"Heading to Las Vegas this weekend and hope to see the Tree of Knowledge, decorated with book covers, posted by the LV Coalition of Reason."
2 hours ago
Frank Moorman updated their profile
2 hours ago
Frank Moorman posted a status
"I signed up here four years ago, but did not participate, what with life taking some interesting turns. So I'll try again."
2 hours ago
Frank Moorman replied to scott martins's discussion IS EVERYBODY 100% POSITIVE THERE IS NO GOD?
2 hours ago

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service