On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 12:46:23 -0500, ardeith l carter <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>Justin sent:
>It seems obvious to me that, in general, 99% of postmenopausal women will
>benefit from an effective HRT program.  I learned long ago that most
>people
>are still against HRT - they view it as artificial, unnecessary, and
>counterproductive.
>
>Ardeith writes:
>Yes, it is artificial, unnecessary and only profits the drug companies.
>Menopause is not a disease!!!   It is a naturally occurring drop in
>hormone production.  This might be considered "un-natural" if it
>only occurred for a scattered few women....but it happens for
>all healthy women.   I find it hard to believe that something that
>happens to all the healthy female members of a species should
>be considered a disease to be treated.

Why prevent any disease, which left unchecked
could infect the entire human species, if we use "unnatural" means
to do so? The destruction of our species could have been its natural course.

Biology doesn't have a reason for anything, except perhaps from
the point of view of selfish genes -- and "natural" is not
necessarily "better". Sometime we confuse "paleodieting" with being
good because if is more "natural" in terms of our evolutionary
existence. Well we can support our claim that avoiding grains is
good because it is based on this, but really that is beside the point,
since the practical result of the paleodieting, and hopefully
some scientific studies, that is the ultimate determiner of what is better.

The fact that our biological bodies grow old and perhaps at some stage
in our lives HRT can provide a youthful extension, that is not necessarily
bad. The medical and drug industry may have its pluses and minuses,
but I am grateful for the pluses.


Philip Thrift
http://www.paleofitness.com