1. Contradicted, "statins raise breast-cancer risk in women." The literature points the other way: statin use is associated with neutral-to-reduced breast and gynecologic cancer incidence and mortality. Do not repurpose this claim; it's wrong as stated.

2. Partly contradicted, "HRT cuts Alzheimer's risk ~32% if started early." The confident 32% figure isn't supported by the largest recent data. A Danish nationwide study found menopausal hormone therapy associated with increased dementia rates even in early or short-term users, and QResearch/CPRD found no overall association. Reframe as "mixed and unsettled," not a benefit headline.

3. Not supported beyond libido, testosterone "for bone, muscle, brain." Per the most recent ISSWSH guideline (weighted per the testosterone rule of validating against newest research), the only evidence-based indication for female testosterone is postmenopausal HSDD (libido). Bone, muscle, cognition, mood, and anti-cancer claims are explicitly rated insufficient. The libido claim itself is solidly supported: keep that, drop the rest.

4. Supported and repurposable, the HRT "timing/window" story. The flagship video "Is it ever too late to start HRT?" rests on solid ground: the ELITE trial and timing-hypothesis reviews support cardiovascular benefit when HRT begins within about 10 years of menopause or before 60, and explain why WHI (mean age 63) showed harm. This is the strongest evidentiary asset for the flagship.

5. Supported with a caution, estrogen-alone and vaginal estrogen safety. WHI's CEE-alone trial and the findings-in-context review support that estrogen-alone doesn't raise (and may lower) breast-cancer risk, and that progestin drives the combined-HRT signal. Vaginal estrogen appears safe, including for many survivors, but absolute phrasings like "safe for 99.9%" overstate the evidence and need an aromatase-inhibitor caveat.