Osteoporosis - The Bones of Contention

[Guest guest]

- Osteoporosis -

The Bones of Contention

 

Contrary to the medical marketing hype, synthetic hormonal drugs,

dairy products and most calcium supplements actually weaken the bones

and have other harmful effects on health.

 

 

--

 

Extracted 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 & endash;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 & endash;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.

 

 

=====

NO HOMEM E NO ANIMAL O SOFRIMENTO É IGUAL!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

" Animals in labs: Unseen they suffer, unheard they cry, in agony they linger, in

loneliness they die. "

 

 

 

Listen to your Mail messages from any phone.

http://phone.