"It would not be necessary for the story to discuss the costs of hormone therapy. The story adequately quantifies the increased risk in breast cancer. While the story does provide quantification in relative terms only for the WHI study (it mentions a 60% increase), it does use absolute numbers to quantify the increase in the American Cancer Society analysis (the story describes how the risk of breast cancer would increase from 1 in 52 to 1 in 26). The story mentions risk of stroke, heart disease and blood clots in addition to breast cancer. The story does a good job of describing the design of the current studies and pointing out that these ""observational"" retrospective survey studies are less reliable than more robust study designs. The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of breast cancer. Everyone quoted was either involved in the study or works for the drug manufacturer. This is the main flaw in an otherwise high quality story. Because the point of the story is to discuss the risk of breast cancer associated with hormone therapy, it would not be necessary for the story to mention alternative treatment options. Clearly hormone therapy is available. Clearly hormone therapy is not a new idea. It’s clear there was enterprise reporting involved in this story."
Hormone use: Studies suggest two years max