FDA Strips Black Box Warnings from Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) Packaging

More than two decades after the Women’s Health Initiative exposed the dangers of hormone replacement therapy, the FDA has moved to remove its strongest safety warnings—a decision drawing sharp criticism from medical experts and patient advocates. The landmark 1991 NIH trial, which tracked over 27,000 postmenopausal women, was halted early after finding higher rates of breast cancer, stroke, heart attack, and blood clots among those using combined estrogen-progestin therapy. Extension studies and subsequent analyses have since reaffirmed those risks, showing no survival or cardiovascular benefit. Yet the FDA’s reversal comes as telehealth clinics and “anti-aging” brands flood the market with hormone products, often promoted as safe or natural. Critics argue the agency’s action undermines informed consent and sends a dangerous signal to millions of women who trust federal oversight to protect them from proven harm.

IWBCA Breaking News

FDA Strips Black Box Warnings from Hormone Therapy Despite Data Linking HRT to Tens of Thousands of Cancer and Stroke Cases

Under the leadership of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, M.D., M.P.H., the agencies issued a ground-breaking decision to remove black box warnings from hormone replacement therapy (HRT), dismissing one of the most conclusive and expensive clinical trials ever conducted in women’s health. The agency's decision to label these risks as "misleading" also disregards the purpose of those warnings, which served to alert physicians and patients that the therapy once promoted as “protective” had, in fact, produced widespread harm—including sharp, measurable increases in breast cancer, stroke, heart attack, and fatal blood clots among healthy postmenopausal women. Within just a few years of use, tens of thousands of women nationwide developed life-threatening conditions directly linked to HRT exposure. The removal signals to the public that these risks have somehow disappeared, when the science shows otherwise. No new large-scale randomized trial has ever contradicted the original findings. Every credible follow-up has reinforced them.

This news comes just weeks after leading medical, scientific, public health, and patient organizations—including the American College of Physicians, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the Democratic Doctors Caucus—formally called for the resignation of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., citing the need to protect the health of the American public.

At the announcement, Secretary Kennedy claimed that “for more than two decades, bad science and bureaucratic inertia have resulted in women and physicians having an incomplete view of HRT,” promising a return to “evidence-based medicine.” Yet the evidence he cites is at odds with the historical record. The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI)—launched by the NIH in 1991—remains the gold standard for large-scale, randomized research on HRT. The study enrolled more than 27,000 postmenopausal women and was halted three years early in 2002 because the evidence of harm exceeded every safety limit. The trial showed clear, statistically significant increases in invasive breast cancer (hazard ratio 1.26; 95% CI 1.00–1.59), stroke, pulmonary embolism (PE), and coronary events. The study’s global index documented 19 additional major health events per 10,000 women annually in the HRT group—results so definitive that they triggered an immediate ethics-mandated termination.

The HHS statement further argues that WHI findings were based on “a statistically non-significant increase in the risk of breast cancer diagnosis” and that participants were “on average 63 years old—over a decade past the average age of menopause.” Both claims are demonstrably false. WHI’s breast cancer increase was statistically significant, meeting the pre-set stopping threshold. Moreover, over one-third of participants were ages 50–59, the same demographic now being targeted by modern hormone clinics. Subgroup analyses of younger women revealed no cardiovascular benefit and, in several categories, continued elevated stroke and clot risk.

The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), launched by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1991, enrolled over 27,000 postmenopausal women to evaluate the long-term safety of estrogen and estrogen-progestin therapy. Its scope and rigor remain unmatched as a federally funded, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with decades of follow-up and independent review. The cost exceeded $600 million, making it one of the largest public investments in women’s health research in U.S. history. The combined arm was terminated three years early after crossing multiple predefined safety thresholds for breast cancer, cardiovascular events, and thromboembolism.

Critically, the decision to stop was not precautionary; it was mandated by the study’s ethics protocol due to clear evidence of net harm. Women taking combined HRT had sharply higher rates of breast cancer, heart attack, stroke, and pulmonary embolism (PE) compared with placebo. In real numbers, that meant 7 more heart attacks, 8 more strokes, 8 more blood clots, and 8 more invasive breast cancers for every 10,000 women treated each year. When all major outcomes were tallied, there were 19 additional serious health events annually per 10,000 users—figures that significantly understate the true burden of thrombotic disease. Under the current ICD classification protocols, heart attack, stroke, pulmonary embolism (PE), and other clot-related conditions are recorded separately despite sharing the same thrombotic mechanism. If categorized together, these events represent a unified pattern of endothelial dysfunction and eventual vascular failure driven by hormone-induced disruption of coagulation and endothelial stability—a cascade involving both estrogen and progestin effects on clotting proteins, platelet activity, and vascular tone. The actual scope of harm was broader and more systemic than reported, reflecting a single pathophysiologic mechanism manifesting across multiple organ systems.

Modern analyses haven’t reversed any of it. Combined HRT still raises breast cancer incidence by roughly 55 percent and mortality by about 25 percent. Stroke risk can increase by up to 40 percent, and blood clot risk can double, depending on the formulation and route of administration. Oral estrogen remains the most dangerous for thrombosis; transdermal patches show fewer clot events but have never been proven risk-free. Even low-dose and so-called “bioidentical” versions carry systemic risk because estrogen’s effects on hepatic clotting factors, platelet activation, and endothelial signaling occur across all vascular territories. The continued separation of these thrombotic outcomes within ICD coding obscures their collective weight—masking a biologically singular process that links cerebrovascular, coronary, and pulmonary events under the same hormonal trigger.

Research on hormonal therapies—from birth control to HRT—links them to an estimated 300,000 blood clots, 100,000 strokes, and 20,000 deaths in U.S. women each year (CDC, NIH, Lancet, Circulation). Often labeled by physicians influenced by the pharmaceutical industry as “rare” complications, these are, in reality, preventable outcomes long dismissed as the cost of being female.

Contrary to the FDA’s statement that “current formulations are safer and no longer comparable to those tested,” modern hormone products have never undergone new large-scale randomized testing. A 2019 Lancet meta-analysis, including over 100,000 breast cancer cases, confirmed that every type of systemic HRT—synthetic, compounded, or transdermal—was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer that persisted for more than a decade after discontinuation. A 2023 NIH update similarly reported that HRT users continued to show higher rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and ischemic stroke, with no proven cardiovascular or survival benefit.

The HHS release also claims that the FDA’s decision “restores gold-standard science” after “two decades of fear and misinformation.” But the agency’s position directly conflicts with every major medical guideline currently in effect. The North American Menopause Society (NAMS), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and the Endocrine Society all advise clinicians to prescribe the lowest effective dose for the shortest duration necessary, only for severe vasomotor or urogenital symptoms—and explicitly not for chronic disease prevention. These organizations continue to recognize elevated risks for breast cancer, thromboembolism, and stroke, regardless of product branding or delivery method.

Every major guideline issued by NAMS, ACOG, and the Endocrine Society now aligns with the same recommendation, encouraging women to use the lowest effective dose for the shortest possible duration only when symptoms are severe, and never for disease prevention. Yet the public narrative has drifted toward “rebranding” HRT as wellness, longevity, or anti-aging therapy, while telehealth startups and lifestyle brands erase the same safety data the FDA once required on every label.

If current prescribing trends mirror early-2000s levels, epidemiologists estimate that over 50,000 additional U.S. women could develop hormone-induced breast cancer, blood clots, or stroke within the next five years—a preventable surge that reverses two decades of progress in women’s health safety.

This reframing has consequences. Women are now being targeted with the same hormone marketing tactics that fueled the early-2000s pharmaceutical boom and led directly to the creation of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI). The FDA’s decision to remove high-visibility warnings and downplay systemic risk invites a repeat of that public-health disaster. The rhetoric of “restoring access” masks a measurable and well-established threat. According to The Lancet (2019), every major form of systemic hormone therapy—whether oral, transdermal, or compounded—increases breast cancer risk, and that danger persists for more than a decade after discontinuation. Data published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2017) found similar patterns with hormonal contraceptives, showing a jaw-dropping 20–30 percent higher risk of breast cancer across all delivery routes, even in so-called “low-dose” or progestin-only formulations.

Evidence from NEJM (2007) and JAMA (2012) further demonstrated that U.S. breast-cancer incidence declined sharply after HRT use collapsed following the WHI findings—proof that reduced hormone exposure directly lowered population-level cancer rates. That reversal remains one of the clearest real-world validations of risk data in modern medicine. Despite this, recent policy language from the FDA and HHS now positions those same protective warnings as “misleading,” effectively dismantling one of the few regulatory safeguards that demonstrably saved lives.

This policy shift marks a collapse of informed consent for every woman prescribed HRT for menopausal management. The data have remained unchanged since 2002, when WHI scientists warned in a published study that if prescribing trends continued, routine hormone therapy could cause up to 90,000 additional cases of invasive breast cancer within a single decade—a projection reaffirmed in later research and Lancet meta-analyses. The narrative may have been publicly rewritten, but the science has not. Women will once again pay the price for decisions made in denial of overwhelming evidence.