After two and a half decades of unnecessary suffering I have finally been prescribed HRT at 66 for my osteoporosis - 25 years after menopause at 41. It was in fact a very senior cardiologist who first suggested HRT - which greatly relieved me given the many, largely overinflated risks, generated by misinterpretation of the data of the landmark Womens Health Initiative report 2002. This denied generations of women HRT . I have now been on bio- identical low dose estradiol and progesterone for 3 months. I found it instantly effective for all my estrogen deprived conditions - from anxiety and severe insomnia to over active bladder. And, based on the evidence, I fully expect to see a significant improvement of my osteoporosis within a year. I do appreciate there may be some risks - largely because initiating HRT over 65 has simply not been the subject of any research since the WHI. But HRT has so substantially increased my quality of life I believe it is worth any unknown risks. And given that biosphonates are the only alternative for osteoporosis and can only be taken short term, why wouldn't those of us over 65 opt for life long HRT instead? After all, I will count myself among the lucky few if l live beyond 85.