Menopause is the clearest split in the series: tested drugs that target the brain circuit behind hot flashes, versus an untested peptide market.

Menopause has its own peptide story, and it splits cleanly in two. On one side, two new nonhormonal drugs that quiet hot flashes by targeting the brain circuit that produces them. On the other, a peptide clinic market selling injections for menopause with almost no evidence behind them. Both use the word peptide. Only one side has trials.

Hot flashes start in the brain. A cluster of neurons that helps run the body’s thermostat uses signals including a peptide called neurokinin B. As estrogen falls in menopause, those neurons fire too easily, and the result is the sudden heat and sweat that millions of women know. The new drugs do not replace a peptide. They block the receptor that the overactive signal lands on. That is pathway pharmacology, and it went through clinical trials.

A woman who cannot or does not want to take estrogen now has real nonhormonal options that work. She also faces a market that will sell her unrelated injections labeled peptide therapy for the same symptoms. The difference between the two is the difference between a tested drug and a hopeful guess, and it is worth real money and real safety.

Paid subscribers continue below.

Read more

The most urgent peptide issue in obstetrics now, reduced to three numbers every woman on a GLP-1 should know.

Millions of women of reproductive age now take a GLP-1 drug. That makes semaglutide and tirzepatide preconception drugs, whether obstetrics planned for it or not. And the real risks around pregnancy are not the ones that make people panic.

GLP-1 drugs are not recommended during pregnancy. Animal studies suggest possible harm, and human data are still limited. So the standard advice is to stop before trying to conceive. The drug labels build in a washout window because these medications stay in the body for weeks. The catch is that fertility can return as weight drops, sometimes before a woman expects it.

Three numbers decide how this goes, and most women never hear them: how long before conception to stop the drug, whether the drug weakens the pill, and what happens to the pregnancy if the drug is stopped abruptly at the wrong moment. Get those three right and the picture is reassuring. Miss them and the avoidable problems show up.

Paid subscribers continue below.

Read more

Fertility medicine already runs on peptides. One of them is being oversold, and the mislabel has real consequences.

Fertility medicine already runs on peptides. The drugs that suppress or trigger ovulation in IVF, the hormones that grow the eggs, the brain signal that starts the whole cycle, all peptides. So when a weight-loss peptide starts bringing back ovulation in women who were not ovulating, it gets called a fertility drug. It is not one. And that mislabel can end in a surprise pregnancy on a medication that should be stopped before conception.

Polycystic ovary syndrome, or PCOS, is the most common hormonal cause of infertility. Many women with PCOS carry extra weight and insulin resistance, and that combination disrupts ovulation. GLP-1 drugs like semaglutide and liraglutide lower weight and improve insulin handling. When they do, ovulation can return. That is real, and for some women it is welcome. But improving the conditions that block ovulation is not the same as a drug designed to make you pregnant.

Here is what gets lost. A woman told her PCOS makes pregnancy hard, who then starts ovulating again on a GLP-1, can conceive without expecting to, while taking a drug not recommended in pregnancy. The fertility win and the medication risk arrive together. That is the part the marketing skips.

Paid subscribers continue below.

Read more

The Stoics had a precise name for people who apply principles only when convenient. We should use it.

“Don’t explain your philosophy. Embody it.” -- Epictetus, Discourses

A woman is hemorrhaging. Her doctor knows exactly what she needs. The government has decided she cannot have it.

Somewhere else, a parent is told: the flu shot is a personal choice now. Between you and your doctor. Your body. Your decision. Medical freedom.

Same government. Same week. Same principle -- applied to one patient, denied to another.

The Stoics called this akrasia -- acting against one’s own stated reason. But Epictetus, who began life as a slave and understood power better than most philosophers ever would, had a harsher word. He called it moral cowardice dressed in borrowed language. You do not actually believe the principle. You use it. That is the definition of hypocrisy. And hypocrisy, to a Stoic, was not a personality flaw. It was a corruption of logos -- of reason itself -- the gravest failure a thinking person could commit.

The Words They Used

Let the record be precise, because precision is what this moment requires.

In October 2025, when the CDC moved COVID-19 vaccination from a blanket recommendation to “shared clinical decision-making,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill announced it this way: “Informed consent is back.” (1)

Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. followed: “Government bureaucracies should never coerce doctors or families into accepting vaccines or penalize physicians for respecting patient choice. That practice ends now.” (2)

In December 2025, the White House ordered a restructuring of the entire childhood vaccine schedule -- from 17 recommended vaccines to 11. The stated reason: empowering families and clinicians to make individualized decisions.

Medical freedom.

Patient autonomy.

Shared decision-making.

Write those words down. We will need them.

What They Actually Did

In June 2025, this same administration rescinded the federal EMTALA guidance that had told hospitals across the country what every physician already knew: when a pregnant woman arrives in your emergency room and abortion is the medically necessary treatment to save her life, you treat her. (4)

EMTALA -- the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act -- has been federal law since 1986. The Biden guidance did not invent new rights. It clarified existing law at a moment when clarification was desperately needed, because in the wake of Dobbs, physicians in states like Idaho, Texas, Arkansas, and South Dakota were watching patients deteriorate while they calculated their legal exposure.

That guidance is now gone.

What replaced it is silence. And in medicine, when the government goes silent while state laws threaten criminal prosecution for providing standard care, silence is a decision. It is a decision against the patient.

The same officials who declared “informed consent is back” have made it a crime to exercise it.

In Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, there are no meaningful health exceptions to abortion bans. A physician can watch a patient’s blood pressure climb toward stroke. She can watch a septic uterus fail to respond to antibiotics. She knows the treatment. And in those states, the government has already made the clinical decision for her. (5)

Doctors describe it now as “waiting for the patient to get sick enough.” Waiting until she crosses whatever invisible threshold might satisfy a prosecutor who was never in the room and who has never managed a hemorrhaging patient at 2 in the morning.

This is not shared clinical decision-making. This is the government making the clinical decision -- and threatening the physician with prison if she disagrees.

Marcus Aurelius on Consistency

“If it is not right, do not do it. If it is not true, do not say it.” -- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations IV.17

Marcus Aurelius wrote that in the 2nd century. He was Emperor of Rome. He had more power than any person today, and he chose to write about the discipline of consistency -- the obligation to mean what you say and to say only what you mean.

The Stoics called the alignment between word and deed homologia -- agreement, coherence, integrity in the literal sense of the word. To live with homologia was the goal of the philosophical life. To live without it was to live against nature, against reason, against everything that made human beings distinct from animals.

Patient autonomy is a real principle. Informed consent is a real principle. A principle is only a principle if it applies universally. The moment you decide it applies to flu shots but not to ectopic pregnancies, you have revealed that it was never a principle at all. It was a political instrument. And the Stoics would say you have not merely failed the patient. You have failed yourself.

The Surgeon General Nomination Explains Everything

The administration’s nominee for Surgeon General -- the nation’s doctor -- is Dr. Casey Means. She holds a medical degree from Stanford. She left her surgical residency six months before completion. Her medical license has been inactive since January 2024. She is a wellness influencer and supplement brand collaborator whose primary professional platform is social media. (6)

This is not an attack on Dr. Means. It is a statement of what this administration believes the nation’s doctor should look like.

The Surgeon General is the most visible public health communicator in America. She issues advisories. She shapes what the public believes about medicine. And this administration chose someone who has not practiced medicine in years, whose license is inactive, and whose credentials are a bestselling book and a podcast audience.

You do not nominate a practicing clinician who might apply evidence consistently. You nominate a communicator who will deliver the message you need delivered -- even when the message contradicts itself from one medical procedure to the next.

Vaccine autonomy for parents who may choose to decline. Criminal prosecution for physicians who choose to save a pregnant woman’s life. Both positions, from the same office, in the same year.

What Epictetus Would Say

“Seek not that the things which happen should happen as you wish; but wish the things which happen to be as they are, and you will have a tranquil flow of life.” -- Epictetus, Enchiridion VIII

That is not the Epictetus I want to invoke here. I want the Epictetus of the Discourses -- the former slave who had seen what it looked like when powerful people used beautiful language to justify cruelty.

He wrote that the hypocrite is the most dangerous person in any community -- not because he does evil, but because he does evil while speaking the language of good. He confuses everyone around him. He makes it harder to name what is actually happening. He borrows the moral authority of real principles and spends it on their opposite.

“First say to yourself what you would be,” Epictetus wrote, “and then do accordingly.” This administration has said what it would be. Patient choice. Medical freedom. Informed consent. It has not done accordingly. It has done the opposite, to the patients who needed those principles most.

That is not a policy difference. That is not a values disagreement. That is a failure of logos -- of reason, of consistency, of basic human integrity.

Epictetus called it exactly what it is. We should too.

What Physicians Must Understand Right Now

If you practice obstetrics in a state with a near-total abortion ban, you are operating in deliberately manufactured legal ambiguity. The federal guidance that clarified your EMTALA obligations is gone. The federal government has no current enforcement position. Your state law may expose you to criminal prosecution for providing treatment that would be standard of care in 37 other states.

That ambiguity was not an accident. It was a choice. The administration that eliminated it had the option to clarify it in the other direction. It chose not to.

Document everything. Know your hospital’s legal counsel. Know your state’s specific exceptions, narrow as they are. And know this: the physician who hesitates while a patient hemorrhages because she is calculating her legal exposure is being asked to be something no physician should ever be asked to be -- a defendant deciding whether to treat.

What Women Must Understand Right Now

The administration using the phrase “between you and your doctor” is not applying that principle to you if you are pregnant.

If you live in a state with an abortion ban and you develop a life-threatening complication of pregnancy, the decision about your care is not between you and your doctor. It is between your doctor and a prosecutor. Your autonomy -- the autonomy this administration invokes loudly in every vaccine press release -- does not reach the emergency room when you need it most.

Know your state’s laws before you need them. Know which hospitals have the strongest legal and ethics support. Know that EMTALA still exists as federal law even without the Biden guidance -- the statute has not changed, only the enforcement posture. If you are denied emergency care you believe was medically necessary, contact the Center for Reproductive Rights, the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, or your state’s medical board. Document everything. You have rights that have not been abolished, only obscured.

“Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one.” -- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations X.16

This administration has wasted considerable time telling us what a patient-centered health system should sound like. It has not been one.

Medical freedom is not a slogan. Patient autonomy is not a press release. Informed consent is not a political instrument to be deployed against vaccines and withheld from pregnant women bleeding in emergency rooms.

Either the principle applies to every patient, or it is not a principle.

Either the doctor-patient relationship is sacred, or it is not.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot invoke medical freedom at a podium and then criminalize the exercise of clinical judgment in an operating room.

The Stoics understood that a person’s character is revealed not by what they say when it is easy, but by what they do when the principle costs them something. This administration has told us exactly who it is.

We should believe it.

References

1. O’Neill J. CDC Immunization Schedule Adopts Individual-Based Decision-Making for COVID-19. HHS Press Release. October 6, 2025.

2. Kennedy RF. Post on X (formerly Twitter). December 31, 2025.

3. White House Fact Sheet. President Donald J. Trump Begins Process to Align U.S. Core Childhood Vaccine Recommendations with Best Practices from Peer, Developed Countries. December 7, 2025.

4. Center for Reproductive Rights. Trump Administration Attacks Federal Protections for Pregnant People in Emergency Rooms. June 3, 2025.

5. PBS NewsHour. White House revokes guidance requiring hospitals to provide emergency abortions. June 5, 2025.

6. Wikipedia. Casey Means. Accessed February 2026.

7. Epictetus. Discourses. Trans. Oldfather WA. Harvard University Press; 1926.

8. Aurelius M. Meditations. Trans. Hays G. Modern Library; 2002.

9. [VERIFY] -- U.S. maternal mortality comparative data vs. peer nations. CDC/WHO.

The proven end of the spectrum: the peptides that run labor and delivery, and the open questions behind each one.

Oxytocin is one of the oldest and most-used drugs in obstetrics. It starts labor, it strengthens labor, and it stops the bleeding that still kills mothers. It is also classed as a high-alert medication, a category for drugs that can cause serious harm when the dose runs ahead of the evidence.

The delivery room runs on peptides. Three matter most. Oxytocin, the workhorse. Carbetocin, a longer-acting version built for places where refrigeration fails. And atosiban, a peptide that does the opposite job, relaxing the uterus to hold off preterm labor. All three are real drugs with real trials. That does not mean the questions are settled.

Here is the part patients are rarely told. After more than 50 years of using oxytocin, obstetrics still does not agree on the dose. The longer-acting option works about as well as the original and is not a magic upgrade. And the uterus-relaxing peptide that is standard across Europe was turned down by the FDA. These are not fringe debates. They shape what happens to a laboring woman and her baby.

Paid subscribers continue below.

Read more

Here is the problem.

Vitamin D is barely a food vitamin at all. Your body was built to make it in your skin from sunlight, not to pull it off a plate. Very few foods carry a useful amount. The richest is oily fish. A 3.5-ounce piece of wild salmon gives you somewhere around 570 to 650 units. Farmed salmon gives less, often closer to 440. Mackerel runs high, near 640. Canned sardines sit around 190, herring around 170. After that, the list falls off a cliff. An egg yolk has about 40 units. A glass of fortified milk has about 100. Most other foods have almost none.

Subscribe now

Now set that against what an adult needs each day: about 600 units under age 70, and 800 after.

To reach that with food alone, you would need oily fish on your plate nearly every single day. Most people eat fish twice a week if they are trying. And the fish itself is unreliable — wild salmon can carry three or four times the vitamin D of farmed, and you rarely know which one is on your fork. So for the average person, food does not get there. That part is not up for debate. It is arithmetic.

Sunlight is the natural answer, and for most of human history it was the only one. But modern life works against it. If you live in the northern half of the country, your skin makes almost no vitamin D from October to March. Sunscreen blocks it, which is the right trade when the other option is skin cancer. Office work blocks it. Darker skin needs more sun to make the same amount. Age cuts production too. So the natural source is real, but for most people it is not enough.

Share

This is where the story gets interesting, because the supplement world ran ahead of the evidence. For years the message was that everyone should take high doses, and that more was always better. Then the large trials arrived. VITAL, a study of more than 25,000 American adults, tested 2,000 units a day against a dummy pill. It did not lower cancer. It did not lower heart attacks or strokes. A companion study found it did not prevent broken bones either. In 2024 the Endocrine Society read all of this and made a quiet, sensible call: most healthy adults under 75 do not need to supplement beyond the basic amount, and most do not even need a blood test to check their level.

That sounds like an argument against the pill. It is not. It is an argument against the hype, and against treating a deficiency drug like a daily ritual for people who are already fine. Because the same trials, read honestly, show exactly who does benefit.

Pregnant women sit at the top of that list, and this is my field. The Endocrine Society recommends vitamin D in pregnancy because it is tied to lower rates of preeclampsia, preterm birth, babies born too small, and newborn death. Those are not small things. Children benefit too — vitamin D prevents rickets and lowers respiratory infections. Adults over 75 have a lower risk of death. And there is one finding that matters especially for women: in VITAL, vitamin D cut the rate of new autoimmune disease by about 22 percent — conditions like rheumatoid arthritis, thyroid disease, and psoriasis. The protection held up over seven years of follow-up, with 156 cases on vitamin D against 198 on placebo. Women develop autoimmune disease far more often than men, so this benefit lands harder for them. Then add the simplest case of all: anyone whose level is genuinely low. In VITAL, about 1 in 8 adults started out deficient, and another third were borderline. Fixing a true deficiency is not hype. It is repletion.

So what do I tell patients now?

Diet will not carry this nutrient for most people. Eat the oily fish and the fortified foods, get safe sun when you can, but do not expect your plate to close the gap. Then match the pill to the person, and to a real number.

For a healthy adult, the baseline target is 600 IU a day up to age 70, and 800 IU after that. If you are pregnant, aim higher: the trials behind the recommendation used 600 to 5,000 IU a day and averaged about 2,500, so a daily supplement of 1,000 to 2,000 IU, on top of the vitamin D already in your prenatal, is a sound and common target.

Children aged 1 to 18 do well on about 1,200 IU a day, and a baby under one needs 400 IU. If your blood level is genuinely low, 1,000 to 2,000 IU a day will usually bring it back up. If you are a healthy 40-year-old man with a normal level, you do not need to chase a higher number, and you should stay under the adult ceiling of 4,000 IU a day, because very high doses carry their own risk of harm.

More is not better here. Enough is better.

One honest caveat, because it cuts the other way. The big no-benefit trials enrolled mostly people who already had enough vitamin D. So no extra benefit may really mean no benefit on top of enough. That is a fair criticism, and it is exactly why I aim at deficiency rather than at the supplement aisle.

My take: this is not a debate about whether vitamin D is essential. It is. The real question is how you get it and who needs help getting it.

Food alone rarely gets anyone to the target.

Sunlight is unreliable in modern life.

And a cheap daily pill closes the gap for the people the evidence actually points to — pregnant women first among them. Replete the deficient, protect the pregnant, and stop megadosing the healthy.

Bottom line: skip the megadose, not the basics. If you are pregnant, older, or low, take the small daily dose — your dinner plate cannot do this job. If this helped you think more clearly about what is on your counter, subscribe to ObGyn Intelligence. The evidence here is better than the marketing, and it stays that way.

References

1. Manson JE, Cook NR, Lee IM, Christen W, Bassuk SS, Mora S, et al. Vitamin D supplements and prevention of cancer and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(1):33-44. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1809944. PMID 30415629.

2. LeBoff MS, Chou SH, Ratliff KA, Cook NR, Khurana B, Kim E, et al. Supplemental vitamin D and incident fractures in midlife and older adults. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(4):299-309. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2202106.

3. Hahn J, Cook NR, Alexander EK, Friedman S, Walter J, Bubes V, et al. Vitamin D and marine omega-3 fatty acid supplementation and incident autoimmune disease: VITAL randomized controlled trial. BMJ. 2022;376:e066452. doi:10.1136/bmj-2021-066452. PMID 35082139.

4. Costenbader KH, Cook NR, Lee IM, Hahn J, Walter J, Bubes V, et al. Vitamin D and marine n-3 fatty acids for autoimmune disease prevention: outcomes two years after completion of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2024;76(6):973-983. doi:10.1002/art.42811. PMID 38272846.

5. Demay MB, Pittas AG, Bikle DD, Diab DL, Kiely ME, Lazaretti-Castro M, et al. Vitamin D for the prevention of disease: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2024;109(8):1907-1947. doi:10.1210/clinem/dgae290.

The Distinction That Changes Everything

Empathy is the perception of another person’s emotional state and some resonance with it. It is cognitive and affective. It can be trained, scripted, and, as recent research confirms, convincingly simulated by a large language model. Patients shown AI responses to medical questions rated them as more empathic than physician responses. That finding has been replicated in oncology.

Subscribe now

Compassion is something else. It is empathy plus the moral commitment to act on it. The word means to suffer with. A compassionate oncologist does not just recognize her patient’s terror at a new cancer diagnosis. She is moved by it. She stays in the room with it. She follows this patient through four rounds of carboplatin and paclitaxel, through the scan that shows progression, and sometimes through the death. That staying is not a communication technique. It is a moral relationship.

You can sound empathic and be compassionless. You can produce the right words and be entirely absent. Patients in cancer care know the difference. They remember it. Gynecologic cancer diagnoses are recalled with the kind of detail that marks events that have reordered a person’s life. What patients remember is not tone. It is whether someone was actually with them.

— PAYWALL BREAK — Free readers see above. Paid subscribers continue below.

ObGyn Intelligence: The Evidence of Women’s Health is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Read more

A seven-part series on the peptides that already shape fertility, pregnancy, and menopause, and the booming peptide market that runs years ahead of the evidence.

One word covers the oxytocin running through an IV in the delivery room and the vial of “healing peptide” your patient ordered online last month. The FDA defines a peptide as any chain of 40 amino acids or fewer.¹ The definition is honest. Most of the marketing built on top of it is not.

Peptides are short strings of amino acids. Many of the body’s own signals are peptides. The hormone that starts labor is a peptide. So is the one that drives ovulation, and the one that tells your brain you are full. That is why peptides are easy to sell. A clinic can say the body makes this naturally and be telling the truth while selling you something that has never been tested in a pregnant woman.

The honest way to understand peptides in women’s health is to sort them into three groups, because they are not one thing.

The first group is established peptide drugs. Oxytocin, to start labor and to stop bleeding after birth. Carbetocin, a longer-lasting version that the World Health Organization added to its essential medicines list partly because it does not need refrigeration.³ The GnRH-based drugs that run IVF cycles and treat endometriosis. GLP-1 drugs like semaglutide. These have known mechanisms, regulated manufacturing, and clinical trials behind them.

The second group is the body’s own peptides. GnRH and kisspeptin in the brain, oxytocin, insulin, the peptides the placenta makes in pregnancy. These run the female reproductive system. Some have become drug targets. Most are simply how the body works.

The third group is the commercial market. BPC-157, ipamorelin, CJC-1295, thymosin alpha-1, and a long list of others. They are sold for healing, anti-aging, fat loss, and hormone balance. For fertility, pregnancy, and menopause, this group has little or no human safety data. The FDA has flagged several of these ingredients as compounds that may carry significant safety risks.²

Here is what is at stake. Peptides are not fringe medicine. They already sit at the center of women’s health. But the peptide clinic market has run years ahead of the evidence, and the gap is widest exactly where the danger is greatest: in women who are pregnant, trying to conceive, or moving through menopause.

Paid subscribers continue below.

Read more

What BMI Predicts

Body mass index is an imperfect measure. It does not distinguish muscle from fat. An athletic woman at BMI 27 is metabolically different from a sedentary woman at BMI 27. That is a legitimate criticism. But at the population level, BMI remains the best available screening tool for predicting pregnancy complications, because the data behind it is massive and consistent.

Here is what the numbers show. For gestational diabetes, the risk at a normal BMI (18.5-24.9) is about 2-4%. At BMI 30-34.9 (obesity class I), the risk is 6-10%. At BMI 40 or above (obesity class III), the risk exceeds 12-15%. A similar gradient applies to preeclampsia: roughly 3-4% at normal BMI, rising to 8-12% at BMI above 35. Cesarean delivery rates follow the same pattern (1).

ObGyn Intelligence: Safety analysis, the evidence critique, and the verdict are below -- for subscribers who want the full picture.

Read more

A 7-part series on the peptides that already shape fertility, pregnancy, and menopause, and the booming peptide market that runs years ahead of the evidence.

One word covers the oxytocin in the delivery room and the vial of healing peptide sold online.

The FDA defines a peptide as any chain of 40 amino acids or fewer.¹

That single word now stretches across the most trusted drugs in obstetrics and a booming wellness market with almost no evidence behind it. Over the next few weeks, ObGyn Intelligence is running a 7-part series that walks the entire distance between those two ends.

Peptides are not a side topic in women’s health.

They are its backbone, from the brain signal that starts puberty, to the hormone that drives labor, to the new drugs that quiet hot flashes. The problem is that the peptide market has run years ahead of the evidence, and the gap is widest where the stakes are highest: in women who are pregnant, trying to conceive, or moving through menopause. The series sorts the tested from the untested, one stage of life at a time.

What is coming

Part 1. From Oxytocin to Ozempic. The three kinds of peptides in women’s health, established drugs, the body’s own signals, and the gray-market wellness market, and why one word hides all three.

Part 2. The Delivery-Room Peptides We Still Argue About. Oxytocin, carbetocin, and atosiban. After 50 years, we still debate the oxytocin dose, where higher doses raise uterine overstimulation by about a third.²

Part 3. GLP-1 Can Restart Ovulation. That Does Not Make It a Fertility Drug. Why these drugs bring back ovulation in PCOS, what the evidence actually supports, and the surprise pregnancy risk nobody warns about.

Part 4. When to Stop Ozempic Before You Try to Conceive. The three numbers that matter: the 2-month washout,³ the pill interaction, and the 53 percent higher gestational diabetes rate from stopping the drug abruptly.⁴

Part 5. Real Menopause Peptides vs the Peptide Clinic. The new nonhormonal drugs cut hot flashes by about 73 percent versus 47 percent on placebo,⁵ and one carries a boxed warning.⁶ The peptide clinic offers neither the evidence nor a label.

Part 6. The Side Door: BPC-157, Research Peptides, and Compounded GLP-1. The compounding market is closing,⁷ and litigation has alleged impurities as high as 86 percent.⁸ What is actually in the vial.

Part 7. The Peptide Playbook. One question to ask at every visit, and a stage-by-stage action plan from trying to conceive through menopause.

How the series works

The series publishes over the coming weeks, one part at a time. In each post, the hook, the topic explainer, and the key stakes are free. The analysis, the specific numbers and doses, the honest limits, and the conclusion are for paid subscribers. The goal is the same every time: give you the numbers your doctor sees, not a watered-down version.

Conclusion

Peptides are quietly running women’s health, and the marketing is louder than the evidence. You do not need to resolve the science to protect yourself. You need to know which peptides have been tested. That is what these seven posts are for. Part 1 starts this week.

Subscribe to get every part as it publishes, including the paid analysis. Share this with someone who is pregnant, planning to conceive, or being sold peptide therapy. The evidence should travel.

References

1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Clinical Pharmacology Considerations for Peptide Drug Products. Draft guidance for industry. December 2023. Docket FDA-2023-D-3391.

2. Logue TC, Zullo F, van Biema F, et al. High- vs low-dose oxytocin regimens for labor augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2025;7(2):101604. doi:10.1016/j.ajogmf.2025.101604. PMID 39788427.

3. WEGOVY (semaglutide) injection prescribing information. Plainsboro, NJ: Novo Nordisk. (Discontinue at least 2 months before a planned pregnancy.)

4. Banerjee M, Dutta S, Dasgupta S. Pre-pregnancy GLP-1 receptor agonist or tirzepatide use and gestational diabetes risk. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2026. doi:10.1111/dom.70853. PMID 42098901.

5. LYNKUET (elinzanetant) prescribing information. Whippany, NJ: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals; 2025.

6. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA adds warning about rare occurrence of serious liver injury with use of Veozah (fezolinetant) for hot flashes due to menopause. Drug Safety Communication. September 12, 2024; boxed warning added December 16, 2024.

7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA proposes to exclude semaglutide, tirzepatide, and liraglutide on the 503B bulks list. News release. April 30, 2026.

8. FDA proposes to exclude GLP-1s from 503B bulk list. Drug Topics. 2026.

Amos Grünebaum, MD / ObGyn Intelligence | obmd.com

I have spent 50 years inside obstetrics and gynecology. I trust the WPSI Well-Woman Chart.

I created an interactive tool for it.

I wrote about it glowingly.

It is a careful, evidence-based summary of what women should be screened for at every age. So when we built an interactive version of it for our readers, I expected to find a clean chart and nothing to argue about.

Then I ran a deep research pass on it with Claude Fable 5 which was just released yesterday.

What it surfaced changed how I think about these charts.

What a deep research pass actually does

People hear “AI” and picture a chatbot guessing. That is not what happened here. I gave the model the chart and one instruction: compare it, line by line, against the published source — the WPSI 2026 PDF, the USPSTF recommendation statements behind it, the Bright Futures schedule it cites, and the ACOG and CDC guidance that sits next to it. Then tell me, for every single item, whether the tool is faithful to the chart, and where the chart itself goes quiet.

It did this without fatigue, without skimming, and without the thing every human reviewer brings to the table after the tenth page: the assumption that the chart is probably fine. It applied the same standard to row one and row forty. That consistency is the whole point. It is also why I have argued for some time that machine review is more even-handed than human review — not smarter, more even-handed.

Here is what it found.

One real error — and it was the one that mattered most

Intimate partner and domestic violence screening is on the WPSI chart for every age band, 13 to over 75, under General Health. Our tool had it only in the pregnancy and postpartum sections.

A non-pregnant 45-year-old would have moved through the entire tool and never seen it.

This is not a small thing. Asking a woman whether she is safe is not a checkbox. It is sometimes the only moment in a year when the question gets asked at all. The research pass caught it in seconds. We fixed it the same afternoon.

And created a tool HERE.

The gaps that were not errors — they were silences

The more interesting finding was not the mistake. It was the pattern of what the chart simply does not say.

The chart references Bright Futures for adolescents — and then buries five real recommendations in a footnote. Suicide-risk screening for teens 13 to 21 is one of them. A teenager using a preventive-care tool should see that on her list, not in fine print. We pulled all five out — suicide risk, vision and hearing, anemia, cardiac risk, fluoride — and put them where a 16-year-old can find them.

Oral health is absent entirely. Not on the chart for adults, barely implied for pregnancy. Yet roughly 40 percent of pregnant women have some form of gum disease, and dental care — including X-rays with shielding and local anesthesia — is safe in pregnancy. Here the research pass earned its keep: it surfaced the association between periodontal disease and preterm birth and the randomized trials showing that treating gum disease does not reduce preterm birth. So we said exactly that. Treat for oral health. Not as a preterm-birth intervention. The honest version, not the hopeful one.

And the prenatal panel was missing items no obstetrician would skip: hepatitis C screening in every pregnancy, and a real maternal-immunization entry — Tdap, influenza, COVID, and the maternal RSV vaccine at 32 to 36 weeks. These are among the highest-value preventive actions in all of obstetrics. The official chart leaves them implied. Implied is not good enough for a patient reading on her phone at night.

The absences worth defending

Some things are left off a chart on purpose, and the silence gets misread. A patient asks for a CA-125 to catch ovarian cancer early. It sounds responsible. It is not — for average-risk women, screening for ovarian cancer does not save lives and leads to unnecessary surgery. The chart’s silence there is correct. But silence teaches nothing.

So we added the deliberate absences as their own entries, each one explaining why it is not recommended: ovarian cancer screening, the routine pelvic exam, hormone therapy for disease prevention — kept carefully separate from hormone therapy to treat symptoms, which is a different and legitimate decision — and daily aspirin, whose guidance reversed while half my older patients kept taking it.

A preventive tool that stays quiet on aspirin leaves them on a regimen the evidence walked away from.

Why I am signing these additions

Every item we added beyond the official chart carries a visible mark: Add-On — AI and Dr. Amos, with a plain note explaining why it is there and where the evidence comes from. Nothing is smuggled in. The reader always knows what is WPSI and what is ours. That is not a disclaimer. It is informed consent applied to a chart.

I did not write this tool by hand and I am not pretending I caught all of this alone. A deep research pass found the gaps; I decided which ones to close and how to word them. That division of labor is the future of clinical content. The machine handles the memory — millions of pages, every footnote, the same scrutiny on every line. The physician handles the judgment — what matters for this patient, what to say, what to leave out, what to stand behind.

The chart was good. It is better now. And it took an afternoon, because the research was deep and the standard never slipped.

The tool is live

You can use the updated Well-Woman tool on ObGyn Intelligence.

Pick patient or clinician detail, choose an age, and watch the Add-Ons appear with their reasons attached. Link in the comments.

Why Timing Matters More Than Anything

The neural tube is the structure that becomes the brain and spinal cord. It closes between days 21 and 28 after conception. That is about one week after a missed period, and often before a woman even takes a pregnancy test. If the neural tube does not close properly, the result is spina bifida or anencephaly. These are among the most devastating birth defects, and they are among the most preventable.

Folic acid supplementation before conception reduces the risk of neural tube defects by 50-70%. This is one of the most robust findings in all of preventive medicine. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force gives it an A recommendation, their highest level (1). But the supplement must be in your system before the neural tube closes. Starting folic acid after a positive pregnancy test is better than nothing, but it misses the critical window.

The Standard Dose

For women at average risk, the recommended dose is 400 micrograms (mcg) daily. Start at least one month before conception. Three months is better, because it takes time for folate levels in red blood cells to reach the concentration needed for maximum protection. Most prenatal vitamins contain 800-1000 mcg, which covers the standard recommendation. If you are already taking a prenatal vitamin, check the label and confirm it contains at least 400 mcg of folic acid.

The rest of this post is for paid subscribers.

Read more

Reddit is where patients go at 2 a.m. when scared. I monitor dozens of communities for clinically meaningful posts: dangerous myths, gaps between belief and evidence, stories guidelines cannot capture. This series -- ObGyn Intelligence on Reddit -- dissects them against the literature, because ObGyns who ignore social media ignore the most unfiltered window into what patients think, fear, and do between appointments.

In 1983 I was among the first to report on and show an image of a HPV, Human Papilloma Virus, and show the asociation with cervical pre-cancer. I spend 3 months in an electromicroscopy lab to get good HPV images.

Summary

A woman 22 weeks pregnant posts to r/pregnant after her doctor confirms she has three genital warts. She reports being in a monogamous relationship; her partner had known finger warts. When she told him, he accused her of cheating. She is scared, ashamed, and confused. She is looking for anyone who has been through the same thing. What she gets instead is 136 comments — most of them telling her, with near-total certainty, that her partner cheated on her. A handful correct the virology. A few share their own experience of warts appearing during pregnancy and resolving after delivery. The thread captures something I see constantly in obstetric social media: a real clinical phenomenon — HPV dormancy and immune suppression in pregnancy — drowned out by a compelling but poorly supported narrative. The human stakes are high. This woman is pregnant, frightened, and now being told her relationship is a lie based on incomplete virology.

ObGyn Intelligence: Safety analysis, the evidence critique, and the verdict are below -- for subscribers who want the full picture.

Read more

Over the next three weeks, you will learn more about preparing for pregnancy than most people get in a standard office visit. Every email in this course is built on published evidence. Every number comes from a real study. Nothing is vague, nothing is filler, and nothing is based on what “most doctors recommend” without showing you the dat…

Read more

Welcome. I write this as a professor, an ethicist, and an obstetrician who has navigated the complexities of high-risk pregnancies for decades. My goal is to equip both patients and providers with the full, unvarnished truth about the first trimester—a period often shrouded in a professional silence that, while well-intentioned, can be profoundly disempowering. The narrative of early pregnancy, as often presented, is a sanitized one, a simplified story of "morning sickness" and the first heartbeat. My purpose is not to replace hope with fear, but to build a foundation of true informed partnership, grounded in intellectual and ethical honesty.

The Reality of Hyperemesis Gravidarum (HG)

Let us first address the euphemism of "morning sickness." In my clinical experience, this term is a gross oversimplification. While up to 80% of pregnant individuals will experience some degree of nausea, for a smaller but not insignificant number—up to 3%—this progresses to a debilitating and potentially dangerous condition known as Hyperemesis Gravidarum (HG). HG is not simply a matter of discomfort; it is a severe, systemic illness characterized by intractable vomiting, significant weight loss, nutritional deficiencies, and dehydration.

For patients, the ethical failure often begins with dismissive advice. Being told to "eat crackers" or "drink ginger tea" while suffering from severe vomiting is a profound invalidation of your experience. The physical consequences can be dire, leading to ketosis, electrolyte imbalances, esophageal tears, and in extreme cases, maternal and fetal morbidity. This is a medical condition that warrants aggressive intervention.

For providers, the ethical duty is to recognize the true clinical significance of HG. This requires moving beyond a symptom-based approach and proactively discussing and prescribing antiemetic medications, and, when necessary, arranging for intravenous hydration or hospitalization. The psychological toll of this condition—the profound sense of isolation and feeling of being dismissed—is a critical factor in a woman’s overall well-being and demands our empathetic and proactive attention.

Subscribe now

The Overlooked Psychological Landscape: PMADs in the First Trimester

Beyond the physical, the first trimester is a period of profound psychological flux. The hormonal cascade is potent, and for many, this is accompanied by a range of emotions that can include deep anxiety, ambivalence, and depression. This is the period of highest risk for the development of perinatal mood and anxiety disorders (PMADs), yet it is rarely a focal point of discussion in a standard prenatal visit.

The cultural expectation of unbridled joy can create a sense of shame or guilt for women who feel otherwise. In academic discourse, we refer to this as the "tyranny of the happy pregnant woman." This societal pressure can prevent women from disclosing their true feelings to their providers.

For patients, it is vital to know that your emotions are valid. If you feel overwhelmed, anxious, or depressed, know that you are not alone, and these feelings are not a personal failure. You have a right to discuss these with your provider and to seek support.

For providers, this is an ethical imperative. We must screen for PMADs from the very first visit. By normalizing the full spectrum of emotions a woman may experience and being transparent about the prevalence of these conditions, we can foster an environment where patients feel safe to disclose their struggles and access the evidence-based treatments that are both available and safe.

The Ethical Maze of Early Genetic Screening

The medicalization of pregnancy has brought with it an array of screening tests for chromosomal abnormalities, such as Trisomy 21 (Down syndrome). While powerful tools, these tests, including Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT), present significant ethical complexities that are often glossed over.

For patients, it is critical to understand the distinction between a screening test and a diagnostic test. A "high-risk" NIPT result is just that—a screening result, not a definitive diagnosis. It can provoke immense anxiety and lead to a cascade of decisions regarding more invasive procedures, such as chorionic villus sampling (CVS) or amniocentesis, each carrying its own risks. The potential for false positives is a source of immense psychological distress that is not always fully communicated.

For providers, a truly informed conversation about these tests must go beyond the mechanics of the blood draw. It must include a robust discussion of the potential for false positives, the psychological burden of uncertainty, and the availability of resources for genetic counseling. This is not a matter of simply checking a box on a consent form; it is an ethical duty to support a woman's full comprehension of the information and the potential for life-altering decisions.

The Silent Suffering: The Reality of Miscarriage

Perhaps the most significant professional omission in the prenatal narrative is the frank discussion of miscarriage. The silence around it is a profound disservice. The reality is that up to 25% of all pregnancies end in loss, often before the 12-week mark. This lack of open dialogue creates an immense burden of grief, guilt, and isolation for those who experience it.

For patients, if you experience a pregnancy loss, it is not your fault. It is a common biological event that should never be a source of shame or personal failure. You deserve to receive emotional and medical support without feeling isolated.

For providers, we have an ethical duty to be transparent about this risk from the outset. Acknowledging the statistical reality of early pregnancy loss does not diminish the joy of a healthy pregnancy; rather, it prepares a woman for the full spectrum of potential outcomes and normalizes an experience that should not be a source of shame.

In conclusion, the first trimester is not a simple rite of passage. It is a period of profound physiological, psychological, and ethical complexity. By moving beyond the pleasantries and embracing a model of full transparency and ethical candor, we can transform the prenatal experience from one of passive receipt of care to one of empowered, collaborative partnership. This, I would argue, is the essence of true obstetrical intelligence.

Barney Frank died this week. His final New York Times interview warned Democrats against “drastic social reconstructions that go beyond the politically acceptable.” The party’s abortion position is exactly that — and ACOG has walked straight into the same trap. The CDC data and the polling both say the same thing: reasonable laws have a constituency.

Barney Frank died Tuesday at 86. From hospice care in Maine, with congestive heart failure, he spent his last weeks giving interviews — to the New York Times, to CNN, to the Boston Globe — with a single closing message for his party.

“The key to liberal democracy being able to come back,” he told the Times, “is to get rid of the perception, that we have allowed to grow, that the entire Democratic Party is committed to a series of very drastic social reconstructions that go beyond the politically acceptable.”

Frank named Medicare for All and trans women in sports as the positions he had in mind. He did not name abortion. But the framework fits the US abortion debate better than almost any issue he could have chosen.

And the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the professional society that should set the medical center of this debate, has spent the past several years walking straight into the trap Frank described.

Start with what most patients may not know.

Most European countries allow elective abortion through 12 weeks of pregnancy. France raised its limit to 14 in 2022 and enshrined the right in its constitution in 2024.

Spain is at 14.

Sweden at 18.

Germany at 12, with mandatory counseling and the procedure still nominally in the criminal code.

The United Kingdom and the Netherlands are the outliers at 24 weeks.

The anti-abortion Charlotte Lozier Institute and the access-supporting Center for Reproductive Rights disagree about almost everything except the count: 47 of 50 European nations limit elective abortion before 15 weeks.

The Women’s Health Protection Act, the federal bill US abortion-rights advocates have pushed since 2021, does not codify European norms. It forbids any state restriction before viability — roughly 22 to 24 weeks. After viability, it forbids restrictions when the treating clinician determines that continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the patient’s life or health, with “health” defined broadly enough under Doe v. Bolton to include emotional, familial, and age-related factors. A willing clinician can document the indication. This is not a 12-week law with exceptions. It is closer to the Dutch model written without the upper limit.

Calling that “Europe” is rhetorically convenient and factually wrong.

ACOG has formally endorsed the WHPA. Its 2023 policy statement declares that “abortion bans must be repealed” — full stop, no gestational limit named, no European-style framework offered. ACOG’s standing position is that any gestational limit constitutes “political interference in the practice of medicine.” A 12-week elective limit is the law in most of Europe. ACOG calls it interference.

The CDC data show why this matters less clinically than politically. In 2022, 78.6 percent of US abortions were performed at or before 9 weeks of gestation and 92.8 percent at or before 13 weeks. Across the past decade, the share performed after 13 weeks has stayed below 9 percent. The overwhelming majority of women seeking abortion would be served by a 12- or 14-week elective limit with the usual exceptions for fetal anomaly, maternal life, and serious maternal health indications. That is the European model. The political position adopted by national Democrats and by ACOG is not the median patient’s position. Polling has been clear for two decades: Americans support legal abortion in early pregnancy, oppose most second-trimester abortion, and oppose nearly all third-trimester abortion except for serious medical indications.

This is Frank’s “drastic social reconstruction that goes beyond what’s acceptable to most people,” applied to obstetric policy.

When advocates invoke “Europe” as their model while supporting legislation that forbids the laws Europe actually has, two things happen. First, the argument fails any voter who looks up the comparison. Second, voters who would support a European-style framework — and they are the majority — are told there is no available compromise. The choice is presented as: no abortion, or no limits. That is not the choice most patients are asking for. It is also not a choice that wins elections.

My Take. I have written about the real harm done by US state abortion bans — the obstetric emergencies they cause, the women bleeding while waiting for legal cover, the doctors forced to override clinical judgment for a statute. I have not softened those harms and I will not. But the answer to bad law is honest law, not rhetorical inflation. ACOG, as the medical authority, should be leading the conversation toward an evidence-based framework: broad access in early pregnancy, narrow medical exceptions later, anchored in the CDC data on what is actually happening in US obstetric practice. Instead, ACOG endorses the maximalist political position and labels every limit “interference.” That is not leadership. That is alignment with an advocacy coalition that, as Frank said in his last days, has gone beyond what most Americans will accept. Democrats would get more votes if they sounded like the median patient. ACOG would have more credibility with its own members if it sounded like the median obstetrician.

Bottom line. Reasonable laws have a constituency.

Democrats lose voters by pretending they do not.

ACOG loses physicians by pretending the median patient agrees with the maximalist position. Barney Frank’s final warning was a gift to his party. The professional societies should read it too.

ObGyn Intelligence is free because the work matters. If you want to support it, a paid subscription keeps it independent.

References

1. Frank B [interview]. Quoted in: Barney Frank, Massachusetts congressman for 32 years, dies at 86. Boston: CBS News Boston; May 20, 2026. https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/barney-frank-dies-obituary-massachusetts-congressman/ ⚠️ UNVERIFIED: original New York Times interview not retrieved directly; quote verified through multiple secondary sources including CBS Boston, JTA, and The Forward.

2. Frank B. The Hard Path to Unity: Why We Must Reform the Left to Rescue Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press; forthcoming September 15, 2026.

3. Reilly A. Now in hospice care, Barney Frank warns Democrats against ‘litmus tests’ in new interview [radio segment]. Boston: GBH News; May 6, 2026. https://www.wgbh.org/news/politics/2026-05-06/now-in-hospice-care-barney-frank-urges-political-left-to-avoid-litmus-tests-in-new-interview

4. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Statement for the Record — The Women’s Health Protection Act. Washington, DC: ACOG; June 16, 2021. https://actforwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/6.16.21-SJC-WHPA-Hearing-Testimony-ACOG.pdf

5. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Understanding ACOG’s Policy on Abortion. Washington, DC: ACOG; September 22, 2023. https://www.acog.org/news/news-releases/2023/09/understanding-acog-policy-on-abortion

6. Kortsmit K, Nguyen AT, Mandel MG, Hollier LM, Ramer S, Goodman D, et al. Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2022. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2024;73(SS-7):1-28. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/ss/ss7307a1.htm ⚠️ UNVERIFIED page range; figures verified at source URL.

7. Kortsmit K, Nguyen AT, Mandel MG, Clark E, Hollier LM, Rodenhizer J, et al. Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2020. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2022;71(SS-10):1-27. PMID: 36417304.

8. Center for Reproductive Rights. European Abortion Law: A Comparative Overview [report]. New York: Center for Reproductive Rights; 2023. https://reproductiverights.org/resources/european-abortion-law-comparative-overview-0/

9. Charlotte Lozier Institute. Gestational Limits on Abortion in the United States Compared to International Norms [report]. Washington, DC: Charlotte Lozier Institute; April 2024. https://lozierinstitute.org/new-study-mississippis-15-week-limit-on-abortion-in-the-mainstream-of-european-law/

10. Women’s Health Protection Act of 2023, S. 701, 118th Cong. (2023). Washington, DC: US Congress; 2023. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/701

11. Doe v. Bolton, 410 US 179 (1973).

Painting by Susan L. Pollet

A woman in her mid-40s sits across from her doctor, describing symptoms that started subtly but have become impossible to ignore. She can’t focus at work. She loses her keys constantly. Her mind races but produces nothing. She wonders aloud if she might be developing dementia.

Her doctor tells her it’s probably just menopause.

She’s half right. But she’s also missing something that might have been there all along.

A Diagnosis Designed Around Boys

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder affects roughly 3-4% of children and 2-3% of adults worldwide. But if you look at who actually receives a diagnosis, you’ll find boys outnumber girls by at least two to one. In some studies, the ratio is closer to five to one.

Is ADHD really that much more common in males? Probably not. The more likely explanation is that we’ve been looking for the wrong symptoms in the wrong people.

The diagnostic criteria for ADHD were developed primarily from studies of young boys. The classic picture we learned in medical school — the fidgety child who can’t stay seated, who blurts out answers, who disrupts the classroom — describes how ADHD often looks in males. Girls and women with ADHD typically present differently.

In women, ADHD tends to show up as inattention rather than hyperactivity. Difficulty staying focused on a task. Getting easily distracted. Trouble organizing. When hyperactivity does appear, it often manifests as being excessively talkative rather than physically restless. And critically, girls seem to mask their symptoms more effectively than boys. Social pressure drives them to work harder to appear normal, keeping their internal chaos hidden.

“Because their symptoms are less obvious or familiar to others, girls tend to not meet the diagnostic criteria,” explains Julia Schechter, a clinical psychologist at the Duke Center for Girls & Women with ADHD.

Subscribe now

Read more

The Visit That Hadn’t Changed in 20 Years

Karen was 46 and prided herself on staying on top of her health. Annual mammogram, check. Pap smear, check. Cholesterol, check. She walked three miles a day, ate salads for lunch, took a multivitamin, and hadn’t missed a doctor’s appointment in a decade.

So when she woke up one morning and couldn’t remember the word for “refrigerator,” she figured she was just tired. When her periods started coming every two weeks — then not at all for three months — she assumed stress. When she lay awake until 2 a.m. with her heart pounding for no reason, she Googled “anxiety in your forties” and ordered magnesium gummies.

What Karen didn’t know — because nobody told her — was that she was in perimenopause. That her bone density had been quietly declining for five years without a single scan. That the “heart pounding” deserved a cardiovascular workup, not a supplement. That her mother’s colon cancer diagnosis three years ago should have triggered a colonoscopy referral that never happened. That the antidepressant her primary care doctor prescribed for her insomnia was actually masking symptoms that had a hormonal explanation.

Karen’s doctors were all competent. Her visits were all thorough — by the standards of a 25-year-old patient. But Karen wasn’t 25 anymore, and her medical care hadn’t caught up.

The Decade Nobody Prepares You For

Your forties are when the math changes.

Cancer risk rises. Cardiovascular disease — the number one killer of women, and it’s not even close — starts its slow climb. Bone loss accelerates, especially in the years surrounding menopause. Metabolic shifts make weight management genuinely harder (no, it’s not your imagination). Thyroid function can quietly go sideways. Autoimmune conditions that were simmering for years can surface. And the hormonal transition of perimenopause can start as early as your late thirties, bringing symptoms that mimic — and get misdiagnosed as — depression, anxiety, ADHD, thyroid disease, cardiac arrhythmia, and a dozen other conditions.

This is the decade where early detection matters most and where missed opportunities are hardest to recover from.

And yet, for millions of women, the annual visit at 44 looks almost exactly like the annual visit at 28. Same checklist. Same questions. Same fifteen minutes. Same “everything looks fine, see you next year.”

It shouldn’t.

This Post Is Your Wake-Up Call — And Your Cheat Sheet

I’ve practiced obstetrics and gynecology for over 50 years. I’ve watched women in their forties get spectacular care and I’ve watched women in their forties fall through every crack in the system. The difference almost always comes down to the same thing: whether someone asked the right questions at the right time.

This post is for every woman over 40 who suspects her medical care is still running on the script it was written when she was in her twenties. It’s for the woman who feels like something has shifted but can’t get anyone to take it seriously. It’s for the woman who wants to be proactive but doesn’t know what to ask.

These are the ten questions that should be part of every medical conversation after 40. If your doctor isn’t asking them, bring them yourself.

Subscribe to Obstetric Intelligence for more straight talk about women’s health — and share this with every woman in your life who’s hit the decade where everything changes and nobody handed her the manual.

Read more

A 2020 Cochrane review shows supervised pelvic floor training cuts that risk by 62%. Most women are told to wait and see. Most doctors have never heard about it. Here is what the evidence actually supports, and what to do about it.

A patient came to me frustrated. She had asked her prenatal team for pelvic floor physiotherapy during her third pregnancy. She was told she was being proactive. The implication was that proactive was unusual. She had also been advised to avoid sneezing where possible.

That exchange tells you everything you need to know about the state of antenatal pelvic floor care.

Subscribe now

The evidence does not support watchful waiting. It supports early, structured, supervised intervention. This post explains what the options are, what the data show, and exactly how to act on them.

How Common Is This?

Urinary incontinence during pregnancy is not a minor nuisance affecting a small subset of women. The weighted average prevalence across 36 observational studies with more than 2 million women is 41%. In the third trimester specifically, about 34 in 100 pregnant women report involuntary urine loss (1).

After delivery, the problem does not simply resolve.

At 6 weeks postpartum, prevalence is 24%.

By 12 months, it climbs back to 32% (2). Women who develop urinary incontinence during pregnancy carry a fivefold increase in odds of still having it at 7 years (OR 5.4, 95% CI 2.6 to 11.5) (3).

The pelvic floor also faces structural stress beyond the bladder. Pelvic organ prolapse, anal incontinence, and dyspareunia are all documented consequences of the mechanical and hormonal demands of pregnancy and delivery. These are not rare outcomes. Pelvic organ prolapse occurs in an estimated 14 in 100 women who deliver vaginally (4).

None of this is inevitable. The question is what can be done about it, starting now.

Paid subscribers can access the full instructions:

PAYWALL BREAK | Free readers see above. Paid subscribers continue below.

Read more

She did not have a rare disease. She had endometriosis — a condition affecting roughly 1 in 10 women worldwide. It is not obscure. It is not subtle. And yet the average time from first symptoms to confirmed diagnosis has been, for the past decade, approximately eight years.

I have been practicing obstetrics and gynecology for more than 50 years. I have seen this delay happen. I have also seen us — as a field — look away from it.

What Endometriosis Is

Endometriosis is a condition where tissue similar to the lining of the uterus grows outside the uterus — on the ovaries, fallopian tubes, bowel, bladder, and sometimes further. It causes chronic pelvic pain, painful periods, pain during sex, and in many cases, infertility.

The symptoms are not vague. Chronic pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, and dyspareunia are present in more than 80% of women with the condition. These are not silent findings. They are the reason women come to our offices.

And yet a New Zealand study found that patients who reported being dismissed by a clinician waited an average of 9 years for a diagnosis. Those who were not dismissed waited 4.6 years. The gap is not biology. It is clinical behavior.

Subscribe now

Why the Delay Happens

The most common explanation is that period pain is normalized — by patients, by families, and by physicians. Women are told that painful periods are part of being a woman. Many believe it. Many of us have reinforced it.

There is also a diagnostic problem. The gold standard for diagnosing endometriosis is still laparoscopy — a surgical procedure. Without visible proof, the diagnosis lives in a clinical limbo. Physicians are reluctant to refer for surgery without clear imaging findings. Most endometriosis does not show on routine ultrasound. So the loop closes on itself: no proof without surgery, no surgery without proof, and the patient continues waiting.

The result is measurable suffering. Endometriosis leads to an average of 19 missed work days per year. It is among the leading causes of years lived with disability in women of reproductive age. These are not estimates. These are documented, published findings.

What Patients Are Doing Instead

They are going to Reddit at 2 a.m. They are buying books subtitled ‘what your doctor won’t tell you.’ They are spending money on supplements and elimination diets and wellness programs because someone on social media told them that medicine had failed them — and in this case, medicine had.

The r/endometriosis community has hundreds of thousands of members. The posts follow a pattern that any clinician should recognize: years of symptoms, multiple physicians, repeated reassurance that nothing is wrong, and finally — sometimes after a decade — a diagnosis that changes everything they thought about their own body.

This is not a failure of patient education. It is a failure of clinical attentiveness.

A Tool for the Conversation

I built a symptom screener — free, evidence-based, aligned with the 2026 ACOG Clinical Practice Guideline on endometriosis — to help patients organize their symptoms before a clinical visit and help clinicians see the pattern more clearly. It takes about five minutes. It produces both a patient-facing summary and a clinical differential that you can use in practice.

Use it. Share it. The link is below.

tools.obmd.com/period-pelvic-pain

If your doctor has already dismissed you — or if you are preparing for a conversation you have had before and lost — the next section is for you. I will give you the five questions that move physicians from dismissal to action, and tell you exactly when it is time to find someone else.

ObGyn Intelligence: Safety analysis, the evidence critique, and the verdict are below -- for subscribers who want the full picture.

Read more