Right-USA STUDY used PREMARIN- a mixture of different estrogen type molecules that was/maybe still is- extracted from the urine of PREGNANT MARES- hence the "mare"
It is LONG out of patent protection-but it was a HUGE SELLER money maker-and they hoped to extend its indications with the 1,000,000 women study
I was wrong about Danish study and breast cancer-I said I "thought" it showed same breast cancer risk-i but it showed NO increased breast cancer risk-now I wouldn't take that answer to the bank-there are good theoretical reason to expect increase breast cancer risk(but they MIGHT be no worse than average cancers-or even not too aggressive cancers that show up earlier because of a growth Boost

In any case the 1,000,000 woman study-in hindsight- was a goof-not a great idea to suddenly dump potent hormones on women who haven't had them in 12 years-yeah-hindsight 20/20 "seemed like a good idea at the time"

Of course-anti HRT thinking became "standard of care" and it won't be reversed very quickly
We-USA-E-INS are puritans-and taking something "just because it makes you look better feel better" is frowned on
Here is a report on the Danish study- COMPLETE OPPOSITE FINDINGS of the other study-except BOTH found "good for bones"-a BIG DEAL since FX hip spine-ticket to NURSING HOME for older folks
BELOW IS REPORT DANISH COULD BE GAME CHANGING HRT STUDY


October 12, 2012 (Hvidovre, Denmark) — Hormone-replacement therapy (HRT) in postmenopausal women with a mean age of 50 significantly reduced the risk of the combined end point of mortality, MI, or heart failure in a new randomized Danish study published online October 9, 2012 in BMJ [1]. The participants, who used HRT for more than 10 years, were not at significantly increased risk of breast cancer or stroke either, report Dr Louise Schierbeck (Hvidovre Hospital, Denmark) and colleagues.

"This is the longest randomized trial with hard end points, and we found a 50% reduction in cardiovascular end points for the women who took HRT, and there was no increased risk of cancer," Schierbeck told heart wire . The women were also followed for a further six years after discontinuation of randomized treatment, she noted.

Schierbeck says the findings, in 1000 women, confirm the "timing hypothesis." In 2002, primary results from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) showed no cardiovascular benefit from HRT--something that had been suggested by numerous observational trials--and even an indication there may be harm; this led to the widespread abandonment of this therapy. But subsequent analyses of WHI, and data from other studies, have suggested that the time at which HRT is first prescribed is key. The women in this Danish study were 13 years younger, on average, than the women in WHI (mean age 63 years). "It doesn't make much sense to start treating women 13 years after menopause for menopausal symptoms. It's important to initiate the treatment at menopause and not many years later," she observes.