
'The M Factor' Makers Create A Perimenopause Film: 'Before The Pause'
Menopause got a dose of long-overdue attention with the hit documentary The M Factor: Shredding The Silence On Menopause , which revolutionized how women (and doctors) think and talk about menopause. It was screened in 700 cities around the world, including at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
But, as so many millennial and Gen X women know, the story doesn't start with menopause, which usually happens around 51 years-old. Hormonal changes can start as young as 35, which is a transition called perimenopause that's even less well-understood than menopause.
The team who made The M Factor are on the case—they're planning a March 2026 release of Before the Pause , a documentary that will focus specifically on perimenopause. Jacoba Atlas will be the director, and Joanne LaMarca Mathison, a former executive producer of the Today show as well as The M Factor, will be a co-producer.
'This film is going to focus on what women can do beforehand to start prepping for the next 30 years of their lives,' says Tamsen Fadal, an executive producer on both documentaries, a former news anchor, and author of the New York Times bestselling book How To Menopause .
Following screenings of The M Factor , women lined up to talk to the filmmakers, wanting to know 'When's the next film?'
So they put their heads together and realized the logical next step would be to start the story earlier in the timeline with perimenopause.
'We're going to start this conversation earlier—like at 35,' says Denise Pines, another executive producer of The M Factor and Before the Pause, and president of the Osteopathic Medical Board of California. 'Symptoms actually start to emerge then. Women know something's going on, their body is starting to change, but they're not thinking these are early perimenopause symptoms.'
That's why Before the Pause will focus on women in their 30s and 40s, who, when they report hormonal symptoms, are often dismissed by doctors.
'Women are still coming to us confused and scared, and honestly there's no area of your life that's untouched by this season of life, whether it's perimenopause or menopause,' Fadal says. Doctors Aren't Ready And Women Are Paying The Price
Despite her proximity to the medical profession, Pines says she was unprepared for her own perimenopausal symptoms.
'Not once did a doctor say—not my OB/GYN, not my general practitioner—'You know, Denise, you're 48 and you might start to see some of these things show up ... there are solutions and we can talk about some options,'' she said. 'Never, not once, never ever.
Countless women have similar stories, including Fadal, who said she thought she was too young for menopause symptoms in her late 40s. 'I was 49 when I hit menopause,' she says.
That disconnect between life experience and medical practice became the core of The M Factor , and continues to drive the new film. The documentary makers want women to understand that the health system isn't set up to usher women through this transition.
General practitioners have little time to spend with each patient, so they refer them to an OB/GYN. But, as The M Factor made clear, even OB/GYNs have surprisingly little training in menopause or perimenopause care.
'I'm tired of seeing smart, capable women feel blindsided by a stage of life that nobody warned them about,' Fadal says. Data Gaps, Misinformation, And The Legacy Of The Women's Health Initiative Study
When the filmmakers searched for data on how many women use hormone therapy, they were shocked by what they found.
Data showed that just 4.7% of women were taking hormone replacement therapy, also known as HRT, to treat their menopausal symptoms, which includes hot flashes, brain fog, depression, and a long list of many more. That number had plummeted from almost 27% in 1999.
But what was really shocking was data released just days before delivering final cut of the film. A new report put the number at just 1.8%. 'In some age groups it was even lower than that,' Pines says.
The steep decline is a direct result of lingering fear sparked by a 2002 blockbuster study released by the Women's Health Initiative. It linked hormone therapy to serious health risks, including breast cancer.
But the study was flawed in many ways—for example, the researchers recruited patients over 60 (about a decade older than the typical patient starting HRT).
A quarter of a century later—despite research showing that HRT is not only safe for most patients but also protective against other complications including cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis—a lingering fear of HRT remains among both patients and doctors.
'You still have doctors who will not prescribe HRT,' Pines said. 'They will tell you they don't believe in it.'
The M Factor began to mitigate that fear, and the filmmakers hope After the Pause will continue the trend by helping women begin a conversation about HRT with their doctors even earlier. Measuring The Power of Media
Despite systemic resistance, The M Factor proved that education can move the needle—and a new report shows just how widespread and impactful the film was.
'We were told there was no audience for this kind of topic,' Fadal says. 'That it was 'niche.' A niche topic that affects half the population of the world."
Following screenings in all 50 states and 50 countries around the world world, the filmmakers conducted pre- and post-screening surveys and found that a significant number of women who were not already taking HRT did a 180.
'It was crazy—around a 400% increase (in interest in trying HRT) from watching a 60-minute film,' Pines says.
They're hoping for a similar impact with the new documentary. 'If we start talking at 35 instead of 50, we change everything,' she says.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNN
31 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump's cynical bait-and-switch on IVF
Donald Trump Prescription drugs Health care policyFacebookTweetLink Follow To hear President Donald Trump tell it, he wields an almost magical ability to lower Americans' health care costs. Yet that doesn't seem to extend to one area where he made explicit 2024 campaign promises: in vitro fertilization. Just this weekend, Trump claimed he had lowered prescription drug costs as much as 1,500%. 'I don't mean 50%,' Trump clarified. 'I mean 14, 1,500%.' This is obviously false and innumerate. You can't cut something more than 100%. It would mean drug companies were not only giving their drugs away for free, but actually paying people exorbitant sums to take them. But the self-proclaimed 'father of IVF' appears to be an absentee dad. His past vows to make the expensive and arduous IVF process 'free,' or at least require insurers to cover it, would fall under that seemingly magical umbrella as well, of course. But contrasting with his repeated pressure on drugmakers to lower costs — regardless of whether it's in his power to do so — Trump and his administration haven't done much of anything to make his IVF promises a reality. And it sounds like they've given up trying, to the extent they meant to pursue this policy in the first place. Indeed, this looked a whole lot like a cynical pander during the 2024 campaign. And the administration's actions since then only seem to confirm it. The Washington Post reported this weekend that the Trump administration has no actual plan to get insurers to cover IVF, more than six months into the new administration. The only concrete action Trump has taken on this front was back in February, when Trump instructed his domestic policy council to submit 'recommendations' on 'aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment.' He gave it 90 days. Those recommendations were due in mid-May. But there is still no word on what, if any, recommendations were produced, and the administration last week reportedly declined to comment on the situation. Fast forward to today, and the White House is apparently waving the white flag on Trump's biggest IVF promise. White House officials reportedly blamed inaction on the fact that Trump can't legally do this on his own and would need Congress to pass a law. But that's not exactly the kind of impediment that Trump usually respects. His first six-plus months back in the presidency are rife with attempts to take bold and legally dubious executive actions that challenge the courts to stop him and companies to defy him. That's even applied to health care specifically. Just last week, Trump sent letters to 17 major pharmaceutical company CEOs giving them 60 days to comply with an executive order that sought to lower prescription drug prices — even as experts say he has no such authority. Trump has also sought to squeeze drugmakers in other ways, including threatening tariffs on pharmaceutical imports. But the White House hasn't engaged in those hardball tactics to make insurers cover IVF. Administration officials aren't putting any public pressure on Congress to pass the law it says it needs, either, and they don't even seem to want to talk about the situation. And if that's the new reality, it was entirely predictable — and predicted. It was almost exactly a year ago when Trump debuted this promise. 'The government is going to pay for [IVF], or we're going to get — we'll mandate your insurance company to pay for it, which is going to be great. We're going to do that,' Trump said in August 2024. 'We want to produce babies in this country, right?' That's not a 'we'll try to make this happen' promise. That's a 'we're going to make this happen' promise. By October, Trump had declared himself the 'father of IVF' (something his campaign later labeled a joke). And Vice President JD Vance at his 2024 debate declared that making IVF more 'accessible' was core to the GOP's health agenda. Even at the time, though, many dismissed the promises as hot air. Trump and his campaign were dealing with political fallout from strict red-state abortion bans, some of which had imperiled IVF access and coverage. Rhetorically bear-hugging IVF, a practice that's widely popular with voters, made sense. But free IVF or ubiquitous insurance coverage never seemed an especially serious idea. Not only are IVF costs very expensive, stretching into tens of thousands of dollars per treatment, but many anti-abortion conservatives are starkly opposed to it. The process involves producing embryos that are never used and are often destroyed, creating a moral quandary for anti-abortion blocs that believe life begins at conception. The idea that a Republican administration would spearhead making that cheaper — or even making the government pay for the creation of later-discarded embryos — was always far-fetched. Because of all of this, many Republican lawmakers strongly rejected Trump's proposal when he debuted it. Some even acknowledged that it appeared to be a rather transparent bit of pandering that was not to be taken seriously. 'People get emotional about an issue, so they decide to completely pander and go way over a position they never really supported because they're afraid people accuse them,' Conservative Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said at the time. It appears that's precisely what happened here. That's bad news for anybody who might have been counting on this proposal. These issues, after all, deal with one of the most heart-wrenching circumstances that many families will ever confront: problems conceiving children. The cost is prohibitive for many people. An October Ipsos poll also showed many Americans supported the idea. They said by a 55-26% margin that Congress should pass a law requiring insurers to cover IVF. The Washington Post back in February profiled a young woman who had heard Trump deliver the promise and reluctantly voted for him. When the White House in February announced its limited IVF recommendations, saying it was delivering on Trump's promises, she called it 'bullsh*t.' It's getting more and more difficult to quibble with that summary.


CNN
32 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump's cynical bait-and-switch on IVF
To hear President Donald Trump tell it, he wields an almost magical ability to lower Americans' health care costs. Yet that doesn't seem to extend to one area where he made explicit 2024 campaign promises: in vitro fertilization. Just this weekend, Trump claimed he had lowered prescription drug costs as much as 1,500%. 'I don't mean 50%,' Trump clarified. 'I mean 14, 1,500%.' This is obviously false and innumerate. You can't cut something more than 100%. It would mean drug companies were not only giving their drugs away for free, but actually paying people exorbitant sums to take them. But the self-proclaimed 'father of IVF' appears to be an absentee dad. His past vows to make the expensive and arduous IVF process 'free,' or at least require insurers to cover it, would fall under that seemingly magical umbrella as well, of course. But contrasting with his repeated pressure on drugmakers to lower costs — regardless of whether it's in his power to do so — Trump and his administration haven't done much of anything to make his IVF promises a reality. And it sounds like they've given up trying, to the extent they meant to pursue this policy in the first place. Indeed, this looked a whole lot like a cynical pander during the 2024 campaign. And the administration's actions since then only seem to confirm it. The Washington Post reported this weekend that the Trump administration has no actual plan to get insurers to cover IVF, more than six months into the new administration. The only concrete action Trump has taken on this front was back in February, when Trump instructed his domestic policy council to submit 'recommendations' on 'aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment.' He gave it 90 days. Those recommendations were due in mid-May. But there is still no word on what, if any, recommendations were produced, and the administration last week reportedly declined to comment on the situation. Fast forward to today, and the White House is apparently waving the white flag on Trump's biggest IVF promise. White House officials reportedly blamed inaction on the fact that Trump can't legally do this on his own and would need Congress to pass a law. But that's not exactly the kind of impediment that Trump usually respects. His first six-plus months back in the presidency are rife with attempts to take bold and legally dubious executive actions that challenge the courts to stop him and companies to defy him. That's even applied to health care specifically. Just last week, Trump sent letters to 17 major pharmaceutical company CEOs giving them 60 days to comply with an executive order that sought to lower prescription drug prices — even as experts say he has no such authority. Trump has also sought to squeeze drugmakers in other ways, including threatening tariffs on pharmaceutical imports. But the White House hasn't engaged in those hardball tactics to make insurers cover IVF. Administration officials aren't putting any public pressure on Congress to pass the law it says it needs, either, and they don't even seem to want to talk about the situation. And if that's the new reality, it was entirely predictable — and predicted. It was almost exactly a year ago when Trump debuted this promise. 'The government is going to pay for [IVF], or we're going to get — we'll mandate your insurance company to pay for it, which is going to be great. We're going to do that,' Trump said in August 2024. 'We want to produce babies in this country, right?' That's not a 'we'll try to make this happen' promise. That's a 'we're going to make this happen' promise. By October, Trump had declared himself the 'father of IVF' (something his campaign later labeled a joke). And Vice President JD Vance at his 2024 debate declared that making IVF more 'accessible' was core to the GOP's health agenda. Even at the time, though, many dismissed the promises as hot air. Trump and his campaign were dealing with political fallout from strict red-state abortion bans, some of which had imperiled IVF access and coverage. Rhetorically bear-hugging IVF, a practice that's widely popular with voters, made sense. But free IVF or ubiquitous insurance coverage never seemed an especially serious idea. Not only are IVF costs very expensive, stretching into tens of thousands of dollars per treatment, but many anti-abortion conservatives are starkly opposed to it. The process involves producing embryos that are never used and are often destroyed, creating a moral quandary for anti-abortion blocs that believe life begins at conception. The idea that a Republican administration would spearhead making that cheaper — or even making the government pay for the creation of later-discarded embryos — was always far-fetched. Because of all of this, many Republican lawmakers strongly rejected Trump's proposal when he debuted it. Some even acknowledged that it appeared to be a rather transparent bit of pandering that was not to be taken seriously. 'People get emotional about an issue, so they decide to completely pander and go way over a position they never really supported because they're afraid people accuse them,' Conservative Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said at the time. It appears that's precisely what happened here. That's bad news for anybody who might have been counting on this proposal. These issues, after all, deal with one of the most heart-wrenching circumstances that many families will ever confront: problems conceiving children. The cost is prohibitive for many people. An October Ipsos poll also showed many Americans supported the idea. They said by a 55-26% margin that Congress should pass a law requiring insurers to cover IVF. The Washington Post back in February profiled a young woman who had heard Trump deliver the promise and reluctantly voted for him. When the White House in February announced its limited IVF recommendations, saying it was delivering on Trump's promises, she called it 'bullsh*t.' It's getting more and more difficult to quibble with that summary.


Fox News
32 minutes ago
- Fox News
Highly contagious disease surges in some US states amid report of possible fatal case
Hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) is on the rise in some parts of the U.S., public health departments have reported. The highly contagious viral illness is most prevalent among children under 5, but people of all ages can become infected, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In Virginia, the Fairfax County Health District has published an alert of six HFMD outbreaks earlier this year, mainly affecting children 4 and younger. The U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Health has confirmed 189 cases of the disease in St. Thomas, including a possible fatal case involving a toddler. In March, the Pan American Health Organization issued an alert urging member states to "strengthen the prevention and control of hand, foot and mouth disease, especially in children, due to their high vulnerability and the risk of serious complications in the central nervous system." Tina Q. Tan, M.D., an attending physician at the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago and president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said that HFMD most commonly occurs during the summer and early fall when the weather is warmer. "We are seeing more cases at this time," she told Fox News Digital. "It is a very common infection that is usually mild." The viruses that most commonly cause the illness are the Coxsackie and Enteroviruses, the doctor said. HFMD can be transmitted through viral particles while sneezing, coughing or talking, the CDC says. People can also spread the virus after touching contaminated objects and surfaces. In the case of blistering rashes, the fluid from the blisters can also spread the virus. "The illness is very contagious, so it can spread quickly in daycare and school settings," Tan said. "Persons are most contagious during the first few days of the illness, but it can also be spread through stool for several weeks." "We are seeing more cases at this time. It is a very common infection that is usually mild." Infants and children can continue to go to daycare and school as long as they have no fever, are feeling well enough to drink and participate in activities, and have no open lesions or copious drooling when they have the mouth sores, according to Tan. The primary symptoms of HFMD include fever, skin rash and painful, blistering mouth sores, per the CDC. "The rash is most commonly found on hands and feet, appearing as raised or flat red spots that can turn into blisters," Tan told Fox News Digital. "The painful mouth sores, blisters or ulcers can occur on the tongue, gums and mucous membranes," she added. Most people only experience mild illness and get better without treatment within seven to 10 days. People can manage pain and fever with over-the-counter medications. They should also drink plenty of fluids to prevent dehydration, the CDC recommends. While complications are rare, the CDC advises that pregnant women see a doctor if they contract HFMD. "Patients or parents should seek medical care if they feel they are uncomfortable with the symptoms that they or their child are having and the symptoms are worsening; if they are unable to take adequate fluid and there is a decrease in urine output; or anytime they feel that there is a change in mental status," Tan said. The most common complication of HFMD is dehydration due to painful mouth lesions that prevent adequate fluid intake, according to the doctor. "It can also cause nail loss in those individuals who had involvement of fingers," she said. "Very rarely, it can cause serious complications like viral meningitis, encephalitis and paralysis." To prevent the highly contagious virus, the CDC recommends washing hands frequently with soap and water. For more Health articles, visit People should also clean and disinfect common surfaces and shared items, such as doorknobs and toys, Tan advised. There is not currently a vaccine for HFMD in the U.S.