Distorting the facts, by manipulating the statistics - Osteoporosis -The Bones of Contention

[Guest guest]

>Extra cted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 5, #6

(October-November 1998).

>PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. editor

>Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381

>From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com

>

>© 1998 by Sherrill Sellman

>Light Unlimited

>Locked Bag 8000 - MDC

>Kew, Victoria 3101, Australia

>Telephone +61 (0)3 9810 9591

>Fax: +61 (0)3 9855 9991

>E-mail: golight

>

>

>-\

-

>

>A NEW DISEASE, A NEW MARKETING OPPORTUNITY

>Osteoporosis is big news-and big business-these days. As a disease, it emerged

out of obscurity only two decades ago to become a concern for women throughout

the industrialised world. Advertising campaigns in the media and fact sheets in

doctors' waiting rooms and pharmacies continually warn women of the dangers of

disappearing bone mass.

>

>The marketing hype announces that one woman in two over the age of 60 is likely

to crumble from an osteoporotic fracture (yet one man in three will also get

osteoporosis); that the incidence of hip fracture exceeds that of cancer of the

breast, cervix and uterus combined; and that 16 per cent of patients suffering

hip fractures will die within six months while 50 per cent will require

long-term nursing care.1

>

>The statistics also say that in the United States over 20 million people have

osteoporosis and approximately 1.3 million people each year will suffer a bone

fracture as a result of osteoporosis. In 1993, the US incurred an estimated loss

of US$10 billion due to lost productivity and health care costs related to

osteoporosis.2 However, it's important to put these statistics into perspective.

While it is true that death occurs in men and women who have hip fractures,

these people are usually very elderly and frail. People who die from hip

fractures are not only the most frail but are also ailing from other causes.

>

>Women are constantly bombarded with the message that the war on bone loss must

include calcium supplements and a daily consumption of calcium-rich foods,

primarily dairy products. Doctors strongly recommend long-term use of

(synthetic) oestrogen to the postmenopausal woman, and, if additional help is

required, suggest the use of bone-building drugs like Fosamax. So, armed with

this powerful arsenal, a woman is assured that she will walk tall and

fracture-free through the latter part of her life. Unfortunately, this is far

from the truth.

>

>The most popular treatments for osteoporosis are in fact dangerous to women's

health. Synthetic oestrogen is a known carcinogenic drug. Most calcium

supplements are not only ineffectual in rebuilding bone, but they can actually

lead to mineral deficiencies, calcification and kidney stones. And contrary to

popular belief, dairy products have been proven to be a leading cause of bone

loss.

>

>THE OSTEOPOROSIS INDUSTRY: AN UNHOLY ALLIANCE

>Osteoporosis has spawned a phenomenal growth industry. The sale of just one

oestrogen drug, Premarin, grossed US$940 million worldwide in 1996.3 The US

dairy industry is thriving with its annual US$20 billion of revenue.4 And sale

of calcium supplements has spiralled upwards into the hundreds of millions of

dollars.

>

>The osteoporosis industry has not only created a huge market for its wares; it

has also been specifically designed to target women. Obviously, the

fear-mongering advertising campaign about osteoporosis as a 'silent thief',

stalking women's bones, has paid off. Unfortunately, unsuspecting women are

unaware they are really being stalked by an unholy alliance of the

pharmaceutical companies, the medical profession and dairy industry who have

orchestrated one of the most successful and well-planned marketing manoeuvres in

history.

>

>By distorting the facts, by manipulating the statistics and by withholding

scientific research in the pursuit of profits, this powerful alliance has once

again jeopardised lives by exposing women to an increased incidence of such

illnesses as breast and ovarian cancer, strokes, liver and gall bladder disease,

diabetes, heart disease, allergies, kidney stones and arthritis.

>

>THE ROOTS OF DECEPTION

>The Second World War heralded a major turning point in medicine. In the pre-war

period, drug companies were mostly small businesses primarily concerned with

making herbal formulas. The emergence of a more sophisticated science after the

war would change the face of medicine forever.

>

>According to Sandra Coney, author of The Menopause Industry: " By harnessing the

power and prestige of science, medicine moved into a new 'modern' era, rendering

the 'healing hands' approach obsolete. Medicine could develop a technocracy in

which the experts were armed with chemistry and machinery. " 5

>

>The development of synthetic hormones parallels the growth of the drug

companies. The creation of the first synthetic oestrogen, diethylstilboestrol

(better known as DES), shortly followed by the discovery of a process which

synthesised steroid hormones from the urine of pregnant mares (the drug is known

as Premarin), finally brought a cheap source of oestrogen onto the market.

>

>The introduction of oral contraceptives in 1960 initiated the first widespread

use of these drugs by women. A few years later, in 1966, the menopausal woman

became the focus of the ever-expanding industry.

>

>The unfortunate myth that all menopausal women would suffer total rack and ruin

of their bodies and minds without supplementation of oestrogen spread like

wildfire through the industrialised countries. It was a bonanza for the drug

companies, as women flocked to partake of this supposed 'fountain of youth'

pill.

>

>Although warnings about oestrogen had been made sporadically for nearly 30

years, the rush for profits virtually ignored them. In particular, it was known

that oestrone, the form of oestrogen in Premarin, could be associated with the

development of endometrial cancer.

>

>Sandra Coney writes: " As early as 1947, it was reported by a young researcher

at Columbia University, Dr Saul Gusberg, that there was a steady stream of

oestrogen users requiring diagnostic curettage for abnormal bleeding. The

pathology reports from the curettes showed overstimulation of the endometrium. " 6

>

>The bubble burst in 1975 with the publication of a major study in the

prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, which showed that the risk of

endometrial cancer increased 7.6 times in women using oestrogen. Longer-term

users were at even greater risk. Women who used oestrogen for seven of more

years were 14 times more likely than non-users to develop endometrial cancer.7

>

>In that same month, figures from the California Cancer Registry confirmed the

findings. Among white women 50 years of age or over, there had been more than an

80 per cent increase in endometrial cancer between 1969 and 1974.8

>

>Evidence of oestrogen's dangers was mounting. Besides endometrial cancer,

oestrogen was also linked to breast cancer, ovarian cancer, gall bladder and

liver disease, and diabetes. More questions were raised about other possible

side-effects.

>

>The drug company Ayerst's rising star, Premarin, started to take a serious

nosedive, and so did the company's profits. There was a dramatic fall in hormone

prescriptions around the world. Oestrogen use declined by 18 per cent from 1975

to 1976 and by another 10 per cent from 1976 to 1977.9

>

>THE ART OF MANIPULATING PERCEPTIONS

>Something had to be done to salvage such a lucrative market. Since unopposed

oestrogen was deemed as the cause of endometrial cancer, the drug companies,

acknowledging their misjudgement on prescribing unopposed oestrogen to women

with intact uteri, attempted to rectify their fiasco by adding a synthetic

progesterone, progestin. It was argued that progestin would protect the uterus

from oestrogen's proliferative effects (as is done in nature), although no

long-term studies were conducted to prove the safety of combining progestin and

oestrogen. Thus, hormone replacement therapy (HRT)-oestrogen therapy

repackaged-made its debut.

>

>However, women were seriously starting to question the use of synthetic

hormones, so the drug companies had to find a compelling reason to lure them

back on to hormones. Osteoporosis, a disease that 77 per cent of women at that

time had never even heard of, was waiting in the wings. As Sandra Coney points

out: " In the interests of rehabilitating HRT, women have been subjected to 'a

carefully orchestrated campaign' to advocate oestrogen as a prevention for

osteoporosis. " 10

>

>To transform the public perception of hormones and exonerate their

life-threatening effects, certain pre-conditions had to be created: the gravity

of osteoporosis had to be impressed on them; women needed to understand that it

was 'their' disease; menopause had to be defined as the primary cause; and women

had to perceive the cancer risk as trivial when measured against the benefit.

>

>In the medical literature, osteoporosis was originally seen as problem of

bones, not women. When looking at hip fracture in terms of effect on the

individual and cost to country, men have half as many fractures as women and

they are more likely to die as a result of fractures than are women. Yet little

is said about men and osteoporosis. The 'male factor' was intentionally played

down because it didn't fit with the redefinition of the condition as a woman's

disease caused by lack of oestrogen. This strategy was necessary to promote HRT.

>

>To accomplish this, Ayerst hired a top public relations firm to market

osteoporosis. They had a big job to do. A major promotional campaign was

launched, targeting women's magazines. Medical experts were marched out to

preach the HRT/osteoporosis gospel on radio and TV talk shows. Health workers

were enlisted to mediate the message to consumers and doctors. A disfigured old

woman, bent over with 'dowager hump', was the shock-tactic symbol of the

campaign and effectively struck fear into the hearts of women. Comments such as

" The invalidation which can occur with osteoporosis is far more grave than the

putative risk of endometrial cancer " 11 and " Even if you took oestrogen without

progesterone, you are 15 times more likely to die from hip fracture than of

endometrial cancer " 12 were used to seduce women back to hormones.

>

>The drug company-inspired campaign to re-market oestrogen with a clean image

was stunningly successful. Sandra Coney notes: " In the 1990s, the reorientation

of osteoporosis as a woman's disease is complete. It is now mandatory to include

osteoporosis as a major 'symptom' in any discussion of the menopause. By

convincing the public and the medical profession that osteoporosis is a

crippling and 'killing' disorder and oestrogen the only cure, HRT has been

imbued with a kind of saintliness. HRT offers salvation where otherwise there

would be none, rescuing women from an unthinkable fate as deformed old crones.

In face of this, how could anyone be so ungrateful as to raise the question of

risk? " 13

>

>Common sense was thrown out the window when it came to hormone therapy. There

was no discussion of the wisdom or ethics of medicating huge numbers of

asymptomatic healthy women with oestrogen drugs which are acknowledged as among

the " most potent drugs in the pharmacopoeia " .14 The fact that this approach has

never been recommended for any other drug or for the prevention of any other

condition was immaterial. The switch from HRT as a treatment to HRT as a

long-term preventive therapy occurred without debate or justification.

>

>Osteoporosis became a high-profile issue because it sells things. Besides

resurrecting HRT and securing its front-line position in the treatment protocol,

the dairy industry and the pharmaceutical companies that make calcium

supplements hitched a ride on the osteoporosis bandwagon. Osteoporosis suited a

number of vested interests. It came to the rescue of the dairy food industry at

a time when sales were plummeting because of people's anxieties about eating

foods containing saturated fats. Calcium was added to skim milk, thus

transforming milk into a product that could be marketed as healthy-a prevention

against osteoporosis. Women were warned that their bones would become brittle if

they didn't take extra calcium by way of the new calcium-fortified dairy

products.15

>

>The makers of calcium supplements also claimed that their products could

prevent bone loss, despite the fact that there is no absolute evidence that this

is true. By 1986 American consumers were spending US$166 million on calcium

supplements. Prior to the calcium craze, and contributing to it, the US National

Institutes of Health (NIH) had recommended in 1985 that women should increase

their daily calcium allowance. By 1989 the NIH was warning that the promoters of

calcium " promise more than calcium is going to deliver " .16

>

>THE BARE BONES ABOUT BONES

>To understand the many myths about osteoporosis and its prescribed treatments,

it is vital to understand the nature of bones. Bone is living tissue which

undergoes constant transformation. Bone might appear to be static, but its basic

components are continually renewed. At any given moment in each of us, there are

from 1 to 10 million sites where small segments of old bone are being dissolved

and new bone is being laid down to replace it. Bone tissue is nourished and

detoxified by blood vessels in constant exchange with the whole body.17 A

healthy body will ensure healthy bones.

>

>Bone-forming cells are of two different kinds: osteoclasts and osteoblasts. The

job of osteoclasts is to travel through the bone in search of old bone that is

in need of renewal. Osteoclasts dissolve bone and leave behind tiny unfilled

spaces. Osteoblast cells then move into these spaces in order to build new bone.

In this way, bone heals and renews itself in a process called " remodelling " .

This self-repair capability is extremely important. Imbalances in

bone-remodelling contribute to osteoporosis. When more old bone is eaten up than

new bone is laid down, bone loss occurs.

>

>Bone turnover never stops completely. In fact, after about the age of 50 the

rate increases, though it's not quite co-ordinated. The bone-building cells, the

osteoblasts, become less and less capable of completely refilling the spaces

made by the osteoclasts.18 The peak amount of bone you started with and the rate

of this loss determines the density of your bones. Density varies greatly in

different individuals, cultures, races and sexes.

>

>As Dr Susan Love, author of Dr Susan Love's Hormone Book, explains: " ...the

correct term for low bone density is 'osteopenia'. It is only one factor in

osteoporosis and the fractures that result from it. Another factor is the

micro-architecture of the bone. As osteoclasts absorb more bone than is rebuilt,

the micro-architecture becomes fragile. As it weakens, the wrist and hip become

more vulnerable to fracture. Your vertebra doesn't really fracture or crack but

collapses on itself, causing loss of height, and if enough vertebra are crushed,

a dowager hump is created. " 19

>

>How real is this " dowager hump " syndrome? According to Dr Bruce Ettinger,

Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of California and an

endocrinologist: " ...women shouldn't worry about osteoporosis. The osteoporosis

that causes pain and disability is a very rare disease. Only 5% to 7% of 70-

year-olds will show vertebral collapse; only half of these will have two

involved vertebrae; and perhaps one-fifth or one-sixth will have symptoms. I

have a very big referral practice and I have very few bent-over patients.

There's been a tremendous hullabaloo lately, and there are a lot of worried

women-and excessive testing and administration of medications. " 20

>

>The medical definition of osteoporosis used to be " fractures caused by thin

bones " . It has since been redefined to " a disease characterised by low bone mass

and micro-architectural deterioration of bone tissue which lead to increased

bone fragility and a consequent increase in fracture risk " .21 However, there is

a problem with defining osteoporosis as a disease, not a fracture. Low bone mass

is only one risk-factor for osteoporosis, not osteoporosis itself. It's a

warning sign that might be useful, so you can begin to consider ways to keep the

disease itself from occurring. Dr Love offers a striking analogy: " This is like

defining heart disease as having high cholesterol rather than having a heart

attack. Needless to say, this new definition has increased the number of women

and men who have osteoporosis. " 22

>

>Although this new disease has two components-bone mass and

micro-architecture-micro-architecture is virtually ignored. The problem is that,

presently, only bone density can be measured. Also, not everyone with low bone

density will get fractures. For instance, Asian women have low bone density yet

have very low rates of bone fractures.

>

>The general assumption has been that once bone reaches a certain level of

thinness, it becomes subject to fractures more easily. Now that more is known

about bone physiology, it is clear that this is not the full story. Bone does

not fracture due to thinness alone. Leading bone expert, and author of Better

Bones, Better Body, Susan E. Brown, PhD, states: " Osteoporosis by itself does

not cause bone fractures. This is documented simply by the fact that half of the

population with thin osteoporotic bones in fact never fracture. " 23

>

>Lawrence Melton of the Mayo Clinic noted as early as 1988: " Osteoporosis alone

may not be sufficient to produce such osteoporotic fracture, since many

individuals remain fracture-free even within the sub-groups of lowest bone

density. Most women aged 65 and over and men 75 and over have lost enough bone

to place them at significant risk of osteoporosis, yet many never fracture any

bones at all. By age 80, virtually all women in the United States are

osteoporotic with regard to their hip bone density, yet only a small percentage

of them suffer hip fractures each year. " 24

>

>Why does there seem to be many more women now with osteoporosis than in the

past? As Dr Love explains: " ...part of that increase is nothing but a change in

definition... Needless to say, the broader the criteria used to define

osteoporosis, the more women will fall into that category. The level of bone

density that defines osteoporosis has been set rather high, with the result that

most older women will fall into the 'disease' category-which is very nice for

the people in the business of treating disease. " 25

>

>THE MYTHICAL CAUSES OF OSTEOPOROSIS

>There are many cultures in the world where the postmenopausal woman is fit,

active and healthy until the end of her life. It is equally true that the women

in these cultures do not suffer from osteoporosis. If menopause itself were

indeed one of the causes of osteoporosis, all women throughout the world would

be handicapped with fractures. This is clearly not the case.

>

>The Maya women live for 30 years after menopause but they don't get

osteoporosis, they don't lose height, they don't develop dowager hump and they

don't get fractures. A research team analysed their hormone levels and bone

density and found that their oestrogen levels were no higher than those of white

American women-in some cases they were even lower. Bone density tests showed

that bone loss occurred in these women at the same rate as their US

counterparts.26

>

>It used to be thought that all women have a considerable decrease in bone from

lower oestrogen levels at menopause, thus oestrogen deficiency was said to be

the cause of osteoporosis. Continuing research has disproved this idea. Studies

following individual women's bone density over time have shown that although

some women lose a lot of bone with menopause, others lose comparatively little;

also, that some loss starts earlier.27 One study using urine tests to measure

calcium loss found that some women are 'fast losers' and others are naturally

'normal losers'.

>

>If osteoporosis is due to oestrogen deficiency, we would expect to find lower

oestrogen levels in women with osteoporosis than in women without the disorder.

However, studies have shown that sex hormone levels were found to be similar in

postmenopausal women both with and without osteoporosis.28

>

>Dr Susan Brown comments: " Even in the United States, where osteoporosis is

common, many older women remain free from the disorder. In addition, the higher

male and lower female osteoporosis rates found in some cultures do not support

the notion that excessive bone loss is due to declining ovarian oestrogen

production. Adding another dimension, we find that vegetarian women have lower

oestrogen serum levels yet higher bone density than their meat-eating peers. " 29

>

>Obviously it is a gross oversimplification to say that osteoporosis is a

single, inevitable disease which occurs in all women at menopause. A woman who

has her ovaries surgically removed has double the loss of bone compared to a

woman going through a natural menopause. Since the ovaries continue to produce

hormones in addition to oestrogen after menopause, it is obvious that oestrogen

is only one factor connected to bone loss.

>

>Dr Jerilynn Prior, Professor of Endocrinology at the University of British

Columbia, has conducted research that seriously challenges oestrogen's key role

in preventing bone loss. Her research confirms that oestrogen's role in

combating osteoporosis is only a minor one. In her study of female athletes she

found that osteoporosis occurred to the degree that the athletes became

progesterone-deficient, even though their oestrogen levels remained normal. Dr

Prior continued her research with non-athletic women, and they showed the same

results. While both these groups of women were menstruating they had anovulatory

(not ovulating) cycles and were thus deficient in progesterone. As a result of

her extensive research, she confirmed that it is not oestrogen but progesterone

which is the key bone-building hormone. Such studies seriously challenge the

oestrogen deficiency-osteoporosis link.30

>

>Dr John Lee-doctor, researcher and a leading authority on natural hormone

treatments-conducted a three-year study treating 63 postmenopausal women with

natural progesterone. The women showed a 7 to 8 per cent increase in bone

density in the first year; a 4 to 5 per cent increase in the second year; and a

3 to 4 per cent increase in the third year. This finding has been reinforced by

Dr William Regelson, another expert on hormones: " Given the fact that 25 per

cent of all women are at risk of developing osteoporosis, I think it is

unconscionable that progesterone's role in this disease has been neglected. " 31

>

>While oestrogen plays an important and complex role in bone health maintenance,

osteoporosis cannot simply be attributed to lower oestrogen levels occurring at

menopause. Numerous dietary, lifestyle and endocrine factors contribute to the

development of excessive bone loss. Osteoporosis is not simply produced by the

lack of one single hormone.

>

>The intention to make menopause and oestrogen deficiency the major causes of

osteoporosis gave HRT new legitimacy as a long-term preventive treatment for

osteoporosis. Even though oestrogen has been shown to have some effectiveness in

slowing down the rate of bone loss because it slows the rate at which bone cells

are resorbed, it cannot rebuild bone. Unfortunately, this benefit is not

experienced by all women. To have any effectiveness for the postmenopausal women

most at risk-those 70 years of age or older-women must stay on oestrogen

continuously for decades.

>

>This, then, becomes quite a serious dilemma for women. It is now known that HRT

increases the incidence of breast cancer by 10 per cent a year for each year of

use. Ten years of taking HRT increases the risk to 100 per cent.32 It is obvious

that the many risks of HRT far outweigh the rather limited beneficial effects on

bone, especially when there are many other safe and effective alternatives. Is

the increased risk of a life-threatening disease really worth it?

>

>THE CALCIUM DEFICIENCY MYTH

>When asked about the causes of osteoporosis, most people will chime in with

" Lack of calcium " . This idea is reinforced on a daily basis as women are

reminded to drink their three glasses of milk a day and take their calcium

supplements. Even young, healthy, non-osteoporotic women are paranoid about

potential bone loss and take measures to shore up their bone strength with

plenty of calcium. Fear of insufficient calcium has become a national obsession.

Is there really a national calcium deficit?

>

>Since bone is largely composed of calcium, it might appear logical to link

calcium intake with bone health. Western women are now encouraged to consume at

least 1,000 to 1,500 mg of calcium daily. It is curious, however, when

cross-cultural data clearly shows that in less-developed countries-where people

consume little or no dairy products and ingest less total calcium-there are much

lower rates of osteoporosis.33

>

>The Bantu of Africa have the lowest rates of osteoporosis of any culture, yet

they consume from 175 to 476 mg of calcium daily. The Japanese average about 540

mg daily, but the early postmenopausal spinal fractures so common in the West

are almost unheard of in Japan. Overall, their spinal fracture rate is one-half

that of the US. All this is true, even though the Japanese have one of the

longest life spans of any population. Studies of populations in China, Gambia,

Ceylon, Surinam, Peru and other cultures all report similar findings of low

calcium intake and low osteoporosis rates.34 Anthropologist Stanley Garn, who

studied bone loss over a 50-year period in people in North and Central America,

failed to find a link between calcium intake and bone loss.35

>

>While it is agreed upon that adequate calcium is absolutely necessary for

development and maintenance of healthy bones, there is no one standard ideal

calcium intake. It is also obvious from these studies that high calcium intake

is not necessary for healthy bones.

>

>There is certainly a problem with bone health in Western cultures. However,

other vital factors that determine the complex process of healthy bones must be

understood. Bones are affected by: the intake of other bone-building nutrients;

consumption of potentially bone-damaging substances like excess protein, salt,

saturated fat and sugar; the use of some drugs, alcohol, caffeine and tobacco;

the level of physical exercise; exposure to sunlight and environmental toxins;

the impact of stress; the removal of the ovaries and uterus; and many factors

that limit endocrine gland functioning.

>

>There are at least 18 key bone-building nutrients essential for optimum bone

health. If one's diet is low in any of these nutrients, the bones will suffer.

They include phosphorus, magnesium, manganese, zinc, copper, boron, silica,

fluorine, vitamins A, C, D, B6, B12, K, folic acid, essential fatty acids and

protein.

>

>The body uses minerals only when they are in proper balance. For example, girls

who consume diets high in meat, soft drinks and processed foods which have high

levels of phosphorus have been found to have an alarming loss of bone mass.36

Too high a ratio of phosphorus in relationship to calcium will cause calcium to

be pulled out of the bones in an attempt to compensate.

>

>Scientific evidence shows unequivocally that, by themselves, calcium

supplements just don't work.37 And contrary to popular thought, calcium

supplementation does not reduce the risk of fracture. There is now evidence that

a high calcium supplement level is actually associated with a 50 per cent

increase in the risk of fracture.38 However, as yet, there remains no proof that

increasing the calcium intake with supplements or diet after menopause prevents

fractures. In fact, several studies indicate that it doesn't really appear to

lower the incidence of fractures at all. In Science (August 1978) it was stated

the " link between calcium and osteoporosis was made on insufficient grounds " and

that the advertisers were way out ahead of the scientific evidence. But a diet

rich in calcium in early childhood and pre-menopausal years does build stronger

bones, reducing risk of thin bones after menopause.

>

>The worst calcium supplements are bone meal, oyster shell and dolomite because

they cannot be efficiently absorbed and may contain lead. Excessive calcium

intake also leads to constipation and, more worrisome, kidney stones and

calcification of the joints. The most effective form of supplementation is

hydroxyapatite (especially if it is formulated with boron). This is the most

natural of all calcium supplements and a complete bone food.39

>

>And what about dairy foods for bones? Dr Michael Colgan, a well-known

researcher in nutrition, an author and the founder of the Colgan Institute in

the US, has said: " The medical advice to drink milk to prevent osteoporosis is

self-serving poppycock. " After all we've been indoctrinated with, it's a

shocking revelation to discover that dairy products contribute to bone loss. The

countries that consume the highest amounts of dairy products also have the

highest rates of osteoporosis; the non-dairy-consuming countries have the lowest

osteoporosis rates.

>

>In the body's wisdom, the highest priority is to maintain the proper

acid/alkali balance in the blood. A high protein diet of meat and dairy products

poses a great osteoporosis risk because it makes the blood highly acidic.

Calcium must then be extracted from the bones in order to restore proper

balance. Since calcium in the blood is used by every cell in the body to

maintain its integrity, the body will sacrifice calcium in the bone to maintain

homeostasis in the blood.

>

>In a year-long study of 22 postmenopausal women, there was no significant

improvement in calcium levels when their diets were supplemented daily with

three 300 mL glasses of skim milk (equivalent to 1,500 mg of calcium). The

authors stated this outcome was due to " the average 30% increase in protein

intake during milk supplementation " . Since skim milk contains almost double the

protein of whole milk, it promotes an even greater rate of calcium excretion.40

>

>In a recently published 12-year study of nearly 78,000 women it was concluded

that milk consumption does not protect against hip or forearm fracture. Female

milk-drinkers actually had a significantly increased risk of fracture, and

teenage milk-drinking was not protective against osteoporosis.41

>

>There are still other problems with dairy products. They contain antibiotics,

oestrogen hormones, pesticides and an enzyme that is a known factor in breast

cancer. In addition, another recent study revealed that lactose-intolerant women

who drank milk were at greater risk of ovarian cancer and infertility.42

>

>THE BONE-BUILDING DRUGS SCAM

>The drug companies boast one other weapon in their anti-osteoporosis arsenal:

medication that promises to halt bone loss. One of the drugs in favour is

Fosamax, the only non-hormonal drug approved by the US FDA to treat

osteoporosis. Studies of this drug were cleverly stopped after four to six

years. This is just the point at which the fracture rate for women taking

similar drugs began to rise. So, although Fosamax will superficially appear to

increase bone density, in reality it decreases bone strength. Fosamax is a

metabolic poison and will actually kill osteoclast cells which are required to

maintain dynamic bone equilibrium.43 In addition, Fosamax can cause severe and

permanent damage to the oesophagus and stomach. It is also hard on the kidneys

and can cause diarrhoea, flatulence, rashes, headaches and muscular pain. Rats

given high doses developed thyroid and adrenal tumours. Fosamax also causes

deficiencies of calcium, magnesium and vitamin D, all essential for the

> bone-building process.44

>

>BUILDING HEALTHY BONES

>It is clear that the osteoporosis treatments doctors most often recommend to

women-HRT, calcium supplements, dairy products and drugs-have certainly

benefited the medical establishment and drug companies most of all. The real

long-term benefit to women is minimal at best, and life-threatening at worst.

>

>Fortunately there are other options that not only can prevent further

deterioration of bone density and poor bone repair but can actually increase

bone mass in women of all ages. According to Dr Susan Brown, the six

intervention areas that form the strongest, surest program for building and

repairing bone include: maximising nutrient intake, building digestive strength,

minimising anti-nutritive intake, exercising (especially with weights),

developing an alkaline diet and promoting endocrine vitality. She believes that

" no matter where you are on the bone health continuum, no matter what your

lifestyle has been, it is never too late to begin rebuilding healthy bones " .45

>

>Some of the leading lights in safely preventing, halting and restoring bone

mass include supplementation with natural progesterone, hydroxyapaptite, calcium

citrate, or Chinese herbal formulas. When it comes to ensuring healthy bones,

it's important to remember it's not only about what one puts in the body but

also what one doesn't. (See box, The Real Bone Calcium Thieves.)

>

>More and more studies are validating the extremely beneficial effects of a

regular weight-bearing exercise program in increasing bone density in

postmenopausal women. A woman's lifelong tendency to diet has been an

unrecognised cause of bone loss. At least seven well-controlled studies have

shown that when a woman diets and loses weight, she also loses bone. A recent

study found that in less than 22 months, women who exercised three times a week

increased their bone density by 5.2 per cent, while sedentary women actually

lost 1.2 per cent.46 Effective strength-training includes such exercise as

walking uphill, bicycling in low gear, climbing steps and training with weights.

>

>Osteoporosis is not an ageing disease or an oestrogen or calcium deficiency but

a degenerative disease of Western culture. We have brought it upon ourselves

through poor dietary habits and lifestyle factors, and exposure to

pharmaceutical drugs. It is our ignorance that has made us vulnerable to the

vested interests that have intentionally distorted the facts and willingly

sacrificed the health of millions of women at the altar of profit and greed. It

is only by our willingness to take responsibility for our bodies and make the

commitment to return to a healthy, balanced way of life that we'll be able to

walk tall and strong for the rest of our lives.

>

>

>-\

-

>

>About the Author:

>Sherrill Sellman is the author of Hormone Heresy: What Women MUST Know About

Their Hormones. Due to the great demand from women around Australia for

counselling on hormone health and natural hormone alternatives, and for

referrals to sympathetic health practitioners, Sherrill has started the Natural

Hormone Health Counselling and Referral Service. It is available from NEXUS

Magazine in Australia, NZ and the UK/Europe.

>

>Endnotes:

>1. Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Working Party on Osteoporosis,

report, 1991.

>2. USA Health Facts, www.MedicineNet.com, p. 1.

>3. Reuters news release, 5 November 1996.

>4. Transcript of press conference interview with Robert Cohen, 10 June 1998,

website <www.notmilk.com>.

>5. Coney, Sandra, The Menopause Industry, Spinifex, Victoria, Australia, 1993,

p. 163.

>6. op. cit., p. 164.

>7. Ziel, H. and W. Finkle (1975), " Increased risk of endometrial carcinoma

among users of conjugated estrogen " , New England Journal of Medicine

293:1167-70.

>8. Coney, op. cit., p. 165.

>9. Donaldson, Angela, " Oestrogen: the menopause miracle " , Woman's Day, New

Zealand, 10 February 1991, pp. 28-29.

>10. Coney, op. cit., p. 169.

>11. Resnick, N. and S. Greenspan (1989), " Senile osteoporosis reconsidered " ,

JAMA 261(7):1025-29.

>12. Hutchinson, T., S. Polansky and A. Feinstein (1979), " Post-menopausal

estrogens protect against fractures of hip and distal radius: a case control

study " , Lancet 2:705-9.

>13. Coney, op. cit., p. 171.

>14. Salhanic, H. A. (1974), " Pros and cons of estrogen therapy for gynecologic

conditions " , in Controversy in Obstetrics and Gynecology (D. Reid and C. D.

Christian, eds.), Saunders, Philadelphia, pp. 801-08.

>15. Bonn D., " HRT and the Media " , paper given at Women's Health Concern

Conference, Cardiff, 31 May 1989.

>16. Stevenson, J., " Osteoporosis: the silent epidemic " , Update, 1 August 1986,

pp. 211-16.

>17. Frost, H. (1985), " The pathomechanics of osteoporosis " , Clin. Orthop.

200:198-225.

>18. Love, Susan, MD, Dr Susan Love's Hormone Book, Random House, New York,

1997, p. 77.

>19. ibid.

>20. Coney, op. cit., p. 107.

>21. Consensus Development Conference, " Prophylaxis and treatment of

osteoporosis " , Conference Report, Am. J. Med. 1991:107-110.

>22. Love, op. cit., p. 79.

>23. Brown, Susan, PhD, Better Bones, Better Body, Keats Publishing,

Connecticut, USA, 1996, p.38.

>24. ibid.

>25. Love, op. cit., p. 83.

>26. op. cit., p. 85.

>27. ibid.

>28. Riggs, B. and L. Melton, " Involutional Osteoporosis " (1986), New England

Journal of Medicine 26:1676-86.

>29. Brown, op. cit., p. 66.

>30. Sellman, Sherrill, Hormone Heresy: What Women MUST Know About Their

Hormones, GetWell International, Hawaii, 1998 (US ed.), p. 125.

>31. ibid.

>32. Colditz, G. A. (1998), " Relationships between estrogen levels, use of

hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer " , J. NCI 90(11):814-823.

>33. Melton, L. and B. Riggs, " Epidemiology of Age-related Fractures " , in The

Osteoporotic Syndrome: Detection, Prevention and Treatment (L. Avioli, ed.),

Grune & Stratton, New York, 1983, pp. 43-72.

>34. Brown, op. cit., pp. 62-63.

>35. Garn, S., " Nutrition and bone loss: introductory remarks " , Fed. Proc.,

Nov-Dec 1976, p. 1716.

>36. Brown, op. cit., p. 126.

>37. Colgan, M., Dr, The New Nutrition, Apple Publishing, Canada, 1995, p. 62.

>38. Robert Cohen's website, <www.notmilk.com>.

>39. Beckham, Nancy, Natural Therapies for Menopause and Osteoporosis, published

by Nancy Beckham, NSW, Australia, 1997, p. 56.

>40. Cottrell, M. and N. Mead, " Osteoporosis and the Calcium Craze " , Australian

Wellbeing, no. 57, 1994, pp. 70-75.

>41. Fesknanich, D., W. C. Willet, M. Stamfer and G. A. Colditz (1997), " Milk,

dietary calcium and bone fractures in women: a 12-year prospective study " , Am.

J. Public Health 87:992-997.

>42. Colgan, op. cit., p. 60.

>43. Health News You Can Use, newsletter, no. 60, 2 August 1998; website

<www.mercola.com>.

>44. The John R. Lee, MD, Medical Letter, July 1998.

>45. Brown, op. cit., p. 219.

>46. Nelson, M., PhD, Strong Women Stay Slim, Lothian, Melbourne, Australia,

1998, p. 10.