::::I will not ask you if you work for Erika Schwartz, or any of the other famous practitioners who push these drugs on women against the clear consensus of the scholarly community, because I realize that it is a horribly weak and flawed argument.  The difference between us is, and has always been, that I can clearly substantiate my edits by reference to high-quality journal articles and many, many many consensus statements from three different countries.  Call it ad hominem or poisoning the well, either logical fallacy is an intellectually lazy way of avoiding having to deal with the actual substance of anothers' argument.  Short of invoking Hitler, it's pretty much the fastest way to lose an argument with someone on a scientific matter.  Bioidentical hormones are better than conventional?  Prove it with sources.     Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex