[Carol.hope]

Good idea, A.A.!
I am just reading a book called "The Myth of Alzheimer's" in which the MD did decide to take the meds he prescribed, and gave them up because of the side effects! They made very little difference for the patients' benefit anyway, and he offers them but lets the decision be the patient's.

Re AIs. I can't remember how big a benefit they are supposed to make. I think recently they've been tested against Tamoxifen. But what about their benefit compared to placebo? In Dr. Susan Love's Breast Book, 4th Edition (5th coming out soon), she says (page 309) refers to the test comparing letrozole (Femara) with placebo, after 5 years of tamoxifen. After 2 years, the letrozole group's survival rate was 98.9% and the placebo group's survival rate was 98.6%. I think this means that less than 1/2 of 1% of people taking the drug are benefitting from it.

Dr. Love says that sometimes the side-effects outweight the potential benefits. There's no way to know if you're in the less-than-1% benefitting, but you do know if you're in the group with unpleasant side effects. The choice is the patient's.

The same purpose - lowering amount of estradiol - is addressed with DIM, with no side effects in my case. A urine test can tell you if it's working.

In summary, why is the medical system taking the strong position that they need to make sure patients take the meds, when another option is to let the patient decide, especially when the likelihood of the drugs actually helping the patient is very small? Don't we deserve treatment that is patient-centered, rather than drugs-centered?