An Ecological Analysis of Menopausal Hormone Restoration
Reframing menopause as endocrine insufficiency, and weighing restoration against the harms of deprivation through an Evidence-Selective Medicine lens.
Loading the article…
The argument, in four moves
A methods-and-implications panel for clinicians.
The evidence framework
The appraisal moves through six ordered levels — each depending on the one before it — ending in clinician-facing, evidence informed, shared decision-making process.
Where restriction came from
Identify where policy generalized from formulation-nonspecific or age-blind evidence into class-wide restriction.
Two burdens of proof
Compare the standards of evidence sufficient to restrict therapy against those imposed on evidence contradicting those restrictions.
Replacement, not baseline
Assess modern bioidentical MHT within endocrine-replacement logic rather than treating menopause as palliative symptom management.
Route and molecule matter
Separate oral CEE+MPA signals from transdermal estradiol and micronized progesterone when weighing risk.
Counting deprivation harms
Recognize deprivation harms alongside treatment harms so the benefit-risk calculation is symmetric and integrates a woman’s full physiology.
Current, specific, defensible
Translate the evidence into physician-facing reasoning that is current, formulation-specific, and defensible under a modern malpractice orientation toward evidence-based practice.
Author archive
The complete publication index — related articles, essays, preprints, and ongoing scholarly work.