22nd September 2003
Here's the longer response I promised...turned out I wasn't technically correct on some points, but that's OK...I don't have to be perfect all the time. Just as long as I try [img]http://www.healthboards.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]
Hope this helps somebody:
Understanding Osteoporosis and Bisphosphonates
Of course, I’m writing this as a response to this thread as it has gone. I feel it has grown to warrant a decent amount of research, and this will be performed and described.
Appropriate to an initial discussion about Fosamax, or any drug targeted towards osteoporosis is an initial description of osteoporosis and how bones and calcium work. It’s common knowledge that calcium is an important factor in bone health. Beyond that, not much is known by the common person, beyond the standard things you see all the time. So I’ll attempt to bring the discussion beyond that in this section.
Bones are essentially the calcium storage facility of the body, along with the stability factor that allows us to stand up and walk and do the things we do. They are composed of calcium, phosphorous, magnesium, and other things. The catch is the bone breaks down with time, so calcium and these other things must be cycled through the body. This is handy for the body, since calcium is needed for many functions of the body. (1) So here comes an obvious cause for osteoporosis, the person is not getting enough calcium and other nutrients in their diet.
The cycling of the calcium is accomplished through two types of cells within the bones, osteoclasts and osteoblasts. The osteoclasts are involved in the breakdown of the bones to get the calcium, while the osteoblasts are involved in the building of the bones. (2) To make this process happen, calcitonin and parathyroid hormone (PTH) are secreted to regulate this process. PTH is secreted when an increased need for calcium in the body is determined. Calcitonin is secreted to decrease the amount of bone breakdown, decrease the amount of calcium and phosphorous in the blood, and a factor along with Vitamin D in the ability to metabolize calcium. (3,4)
Herein we find the first two limiting factors beyond diet that should be looked at when it comes to osteoporosis and bone density loss. PTH functions as more of a limiting factor, although calcitonin is useful here as well. (5) Of course, linking this to thyroid hormones, I keep mentioning that Armour has been proven to increase bone density in DEXA scans at useful dosages. Part of this is that the thyroid hormones are being supplemented, which helps provide the energy for the processes described. Of course, the other part is calcitonin, but the doctors think that’s a useless impurity, but who are they to judge that?
The question becomes now, what does Fosamax and drugs like it do to this process in the name of osteoporosis? We need to start looking at definitions here. The difference between osteoporosis and the condition Fosamax and its cousins brings about is described brilliantly by “peregrine”: “I believe Osteoporosis equates to the development of spongy, porous and fragile bones, not brittle ones. Thus, the bones have a tendency to break because they are weakened rather that they are brittle. Of course, brittle bones will have more tendency to break as well, but I am just trying to speak to the difference.” (6)
So the question of a definition of osteoporosis. The Fosamax site defines it as: “Osteoporosis is a disease that causes bones to become more porous, gradually making them weaker and more brittle.” (7) Dictionary.com defines it as: “A disease in which the bones become extremely porous, are subject to fracture, and heal slowly, occurring especially in women following menopause and often leading to curvature of the spine from vertebral collapse.”
We have to continue with these definitions. Dictionary.com defines “porous” as “Full of or having pores; admitting the passage of gas or liquid through pores or interstices; Easily crossed or penetrated. Dictionary.com defines brittle as “Likely to break, snap, or crack, as when subjected to pressure”. I think the usage of these words is confusing us here. I don’t think brittle is necessary the proper word to describe the bone itself, but the condition of the bone. As we find out later in this discussion, the proper words to describe the difference is that osteoporosis makes your bones too porous and brittle, and drugs like Fosamax makes your bones too soft and brittle. We solve the word game thusly.
To directly address the Fosamax, it is a bisphosphonate. The different bisphosphonate drugs are Actonel (risedronate), Didronel (etidronate) , Fosamax (alendronate), and Skelid (tiludronate). (2) To illustrate the problem we run into with the medical establishment information, as I have illustrated numerous times in other writings with the “T4 is all you ever need” crowd, we run into it here as well. The medical establishment controls the information so it can satisfy its greed by allowing the promotion of poisons they call “beneficial drugs”.
On one site, it is described like this (2):
[quote]
“Bisphosphonates contain compounds that inhibit the function of the osteoclasts, sending a chemical message to the osteoclasts that instructs them to slow down on bone destruction. At the same time, bisphosphonates stimulate osteoblasts to secrete chemicals that discourage the formation of more osteoclasts. By inhibiting the osteoclasts and stimulating the osteoblasts, bisphosphonates help keep bones intact.”
We look at another site, though, and we find a description like this (8):
[quote]
“Fosamax is in the same chemical class (phosphonate) that is used in the cleaners used to remove soap scum from your bath tub. This is a metabolic poison that actually kills the osteoclasts. These are the cells that remove your bone so your osteoblasts can actually rebuild your bone.
It is quite clear that if you kill these cells your bone will get denser. What these studies do not show is that four years later the bone actually becomes weaker even though it is more dense.
This is because bone is a dynamic structure and requires the removal and REPLACEMENT of new bone to stay strong. Fosamax does NOT build ANY new bone. ”
Dr. Mercola presents a quite scary and different description than the general consumption medical site, doesn’t he? And if you do take Fosamax, doesn’t it make you go have second thoughts about taking a chemical similar to the soap scum remover you likely clean your bathroom with?
To continue on, another example of rewriting history to fit the powerful exists on this page as well, in the name of a couple of studies on Fosamax BOUGHT AND PAID FOR by the manufacturer of this drug. (8) This is a very common practice in big pharma and this is the third time I’ve noted it in my studies on different conditions that have concerned me (The maker of Synthroid and the maker of Zocor as the other two examples). Just because it is a common practice doesn’t mean that buying and paying for favorable scientific studies on your product is right, moral, or just. All it does is make patients that take these poisons suffer with the consequences of the forced ignorance of the drug makers. All for greed, all for profit – information that this stuff like this is dangerous to us is withheld…. and we get sick for big pharma’s profit margin. And of course, the medical industry is more than happy to conspire, because cleaning up after this mess will fatten their pockets.
From searching and reading sites, the condition Dr. Mercola describes is likely osteomalacia, which is defined by Dictionary.com as “A disease occurring mostly in adult women that results from a deficiency in vitamin D or calcium and is characterized by a softening of the bones with accompanying pain and weakness.” This is confirmed by looking at sites and finding the following (9): “Theoretically, osteomalacia would become worse with bisphosphonates, but this has been documented only with etidronate, which has an independent adverse effect on mineralization.”
OK, one bisphosphonate is not safe, but the other derivatives are safe? I liken this to cholesterol drugs and Baycol. If you remember, Baycol was recalled in the face of some deaths that occurred and numerous lawsuits are going on against it. Of course, there are more statins like Baycol out there with the same side effects and problems. The maker of another statin called Lipitor is now starting to see lawsuits (10):
[quote]
The Kahn Gauthier Law Group is investigating possible legal actions against Pfizer Inc., the manufacturer of the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor (atorvastatin), to recover for liver or kidney damage suffered by patients prescribed Lipitor.
More is written on osteomalacia in a PubMed reference entitled “Bisphosphonates in prostate carcinoma.“ (11): “In some patients with prostate carcinoma and a diffuse metastatic invasion of the skeleton, there is indirect biochemical and histologic evidence of osteomalacia.“ More yet on drug-induced osteomalacia (12): “The drugs most frequently associated with osteomalacia are: … bisphosphonates. … “ Even more (13): “Those patients with possible malabsorption of vitamin D may actually have osteomalacia and should have this deficiency corrected before being given bisphosphonates.” (meaning bisphosphonates contribute to osteomalacia, why consider this otherwise?)
I ask again, if one bisphosphonate drug is not safe and causes osteomalacia, how is it that derivatives of that drug that work the same way and have a similar chemical structure are completely safe? Any other conclusion than that the whole class of drugs has this problem is illogical here. And of course, I found numerous sites that stated that “the ultimate long term effects of bisphosphonates are unknown” (too new! or they have something they don’t want to openly admit).
Again we have the situation as described with statins – he with the power writes the history – and as the case with history goes, the ones with the money are writing the medical textbooks and studies to befit their greedy unscrupulous intentions. And he with the money is using the government too to rein in the natural supplement industry as being unsafe. There is an average of 200 deaths per year with supplements, while there are 100’s of thousands with the FDA approved prescribed drugs. The money is definitely protecting its interest – where is the interest against big pharma, the BIGGER PROBLEM?
Of course, as stated well in several places (including above in this document), the answers are all simpler than taking a drug that kills off your osteoclasts. Of course, the answers all are on the market and natural so they can not be patented and no one in big pharma can make obscene profits off of it. And herein lies the issue of why big pharma would put out such a poison and the medical industry would accept it in lieu of using much more effective treatments. You can bet as well that big pharma will struggle to its last dollar to suppress any information that proves any of its drugs are harmful.
Their profits over your health. It’s a theme that occurs again and again.
(1) [url="http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/bone_health/202.html"]http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/bone_health/202.html[/url]
(2) [url="http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/bone_health/806.html"]http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/bone_health/806.html[/url]
(3) [url="http://www.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/vitamins.html#dclinical"]http://www.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/vitamins.html#dclinical[/url]
(4) [url="http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/thyroid/calcitonin.html"]http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/thyroid/calcitonin.html[/url]
(5) [url="http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/thyroid/pth.html"]http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/thyroid/pth.html[/url]
(6) [url="http://www.healthboards.com/ubb/Forum118/HTML/004219.html"]http://www.healthboards.com/ubb/Forum118/HTML/004219.html[/url]
(7) [url="http://www.fosamax.com/fosamax/cns/osteo/osteo.html"]http://www.fosamax.com/fosamax/cns/osteo/osteo.html[/url]
(8) [url="http://www.mercola.com/1998/archive/fosamax.htm"]http://www.mercola.com/1998/archive/fosamax.htm[/url]
(9) [url="http://uwcme.org/courses/bonephys/transplant.html"]http://uwcme.org/courses/bonephys/transplant.html[/url]
(10)
[url="https://www.classactionamerica.com/cases/case.asp?cid=1048"]https://www.classactionamerica.com/cases/case.asp?cid=1048[/url]
(11) [url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=98026758"]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt =Abstract&list_uids=98026758[/url]
(12) [url="http://www.sodbrennen-welt.de/science/1998/1998_9842257.htm"]http://www.sodbrennen-welt.de/science/1998/1998_9842257.htm[/url]
(13) [url="http://www.gastro.on.ca/news/Osteoporosis.html"]http://www.gastro.on.ca/news/Osteoporosis.html[/url]
[This message has been edited by Sky_Eagle1 (edited 09-22-2003).]
[This message has been edited by Sky_Eagle1 (edited 09-22-2003).]
Hope this helps somebody:
Understanding Osteoporosis and Bisphosphonates
Of course, I’m writing this as a response to this thread as it has gone. I feel it has grown to warrant a decent amount of research, and this will be performed and described.
Appropriate to an initial discussion about Fosamax, or any drug targeted towards osteoporosis is an initial description of osteoporosis and how bones and calcium work. It’s common knowledge that calcium is an important factor in bone health. Beyond that, not much is known by the common person, beyond the standard things you see all the time. So I’ll attempt to bring the discussion beyond that in this section.
Bones are essentially the calcium storage facility of the body, along with the stability factor that allows us to stand up and walk and do the things we do. They are composed of calcium, phosphorous, magnesium, and other things. The catch is the bone breaks down with time, so calcium and these other things must be cycled through the body. This is handy for the body, since calcium is needed for many functions of the body. (1) So here comes an obvious cause for osteoporosis, the person is not getting enough calcium and other nutrients in their diet.
The cycling of the calcium is accomplished through two types of cells within the bones, osteoclasts and osteoblasts. The osteoclasts are involved in the breakdown of the bones to get the calcium, while the osteoblasts are involved in the building of the bones. (2) To make this process happen, calcitonin and parathyroid hormone (PTH) are secreted to regulate this process. PTH is secreted when an increased need for calcium in the body is determined. Calcitonin is secreted to decrease the amount of bone breakdown, decrease the amount of calcium and phosphorous in the blood, and a factor along with Vitamin D in the ability to metabolize calcium. (3,4)
Herein we find the first two limiting factors beyond diet that should be looked at when it comes to osteoporosis and bone density loss. PTH functions as more of a limiting factor, although calcitonin is useful here as well. (5) Of course, linking this to thyroid hormones, I keep mentioning that Armour has been proven to increase bone density in DEXA scans at useful dosages. Part of this is that the thyroid hormones are being supplemented, which helps provide the energy for the processes described. Of course, the other part is calcitonin, but the doctors think that’s a useless impurity, but who are they to judge that?
The question becomes now, what does Fosamax and drugs like it do to this process in the name of osteoporosis? We need to start looking at definitions here. The difference between osteoporosis and the condition Fosamax and its cousins brings about is described brilliantly by “peregrine”: “I believe Osteoporosis equates to the development of spongy, porous and fragile bones, not brittle ones. Thus, the bones have a tendency to break because they are weakened rather that they are brittle. Of course, brittle bones will have more tendency to break as well, but I am just trying to speak to the difference.” (6)
So the question of a definition of osteoporosis. The Fosamax site defines it as: “Osteoporosis is a disease that causes bones to become more porous, gradually making them weaker and more brittle.” (7) Dictionary.com defines it as: “A disease in which the bones become extremely porous, are subject to fracture, and heal slowly, occurring especially in women following menopause and often leading to curvature of the spine from vertebral collapse.”
We have to continue with these definitions. Dictionary.com defines “porous” as “Full of or having pores; admitting the passage of gas or liquid through pores or interstices; Easily crossed or penetrated. Dictionary.com defines brittle as “Likely to break, snap, or crack, as when subjected to pressure”. I think the usage of these words is confusing us here. I don’t think brittle is necessary the proper word to describe the bone itself, but the condition of the bone. As we find out later in this discussion, the proper words to describe the difference is that osteoporosis makes your bones too porous and brittle, and drugs like Fosamax makes your bones too soft and brittle. We solve the word game thusly.
To directly address the Fosamax, it is a bisphosphonate. The different bisphosphonate drugs are Actonel (risedronate), Didronel (etidronate) , Fosamax (alendronate), and Skelid (tiludronate). (2) To illustrate the problem we run into with the medical establishment information, as I have illustrated numerous times in other writings with the “T4 is all you ever need” crowd, we run into it here as well. The medical establishment controls the information so it can satisfy its greed by allowing the promotion of poisons they call “beneficial drugs”.
On one site, it is described like this (2):
[quote]
“Bisphosphonates contain compounds that inhibit the function of the osteoclasts, sending a chemical message to the osteoclasts that instructs them to slow down on bone destruction. At the same time, bisphosphonates stimulate osteoblasts to secrete chemicals that discourage the formation of more osteoclasts. By inhibiting the osteoclasts and stimulating the osteoblasts, bisphosphonates help keep bones intact.”
We look at another site, though, and we find a description like this (8):
[quote]
“Fosamax is in the same chemical class (phosphonate) that is used in the cleaners used to remove soap scum from your bath tub. This is a metabolic poison that actually kills the osteoclasts. These are the cells that remove your bone so your osteoblasts can actually rebuild your bone.
It is quite clear that if you kill these cells your bone will get denser. What these studies do not show is that four years later the bone actually becomes weaker even though it is more dense.
This is because bone is a dynamic structure and requires the removal and REPLACEMENT of new bone to stay strong. Fosamax does NOT build ANY new bone. ”
Dr. Mercola presents a quite scary and different description than the general consumption medical site, doesn’t he? And if you do take Fosamax, doesn’t it make you go have second thoughts about taking a chemical similar to the soap scum remover you likely clean your bathroom with?
To continue on, another example of rewriting history to fit the powerful exists on this page as well, in the name of a couple of studies on Fosamax BOUGHT AND PAID FOR by the manufacturer of this drug. (8) This is a very common practice in big pharma and this is the third time I’ve noted it in my studies on different conditions that have concerned me (The maker of Synthroid and the maker of Zocor as the other two examples). Just because it is a common practice doesn’t mean that buying and paying for favorable scientific studies on your product is right, moral, or just. All it does is make patients that take these poisons suffer with the consequences of the forced ignorance of the drug makers. All for greed, all for profit – information that this stuff like this is dangerous to us is withheld…. and we get sick for big pharma’s profit margin. And of course, the medical industry is more than happy to conspire, because cleaning up after this mess will fatten their pockets.
From searching and reading sites, the condition Dr. Mercola describes is likely osteomalacia, which is defined by Dictionary.com as “A disease occurring mostly in adult women that results from a deficiency in vitamin D or calcium and is characterized by a softening of the bones with accompanying pain and weakness.” This is confirmed by looking at sites and finding the following (9): “Theoretically, osteomalacia would become worse with bisphosphonates, but this has been documented only with etidronate, which has an independent adverse effect on mineralization.”
OK, one bisphosphonate is not safe, but the other derivatives are safe? I liken this to cholesterol drugs and Baycol. If you remember, Baycol was recalled in the face of some deaths that occurred and numerous lawsuits are going on against it. Of course, there are more statins like Baycol out there with the same side effects and problems. The maker of another statin called Lipitor is now starting to see lawsuits (10):
[quote]
The Kahn Gauthier Law Group is investigating possible legal actions against Pfizer Inc., the manufacturer of the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor (atorvastatin), to recover for liver or kidney damage suffered by patients prescribed Lipitor.
More is written on osteomalacia in a PubMed reference entitled “Bisphosphonates in prostate carcinoma.“ (11): “In some patients with prostate carcinoma and a diffuse metastatic invasion of the skeleton, there is indirect biochemical and histologic evidence of osteomalacia.“ More yet on drug-induced osteomalacia (12): “The drugs most frequently associated with osteomalacia are: … bisphosphonates. … “ Even more (13): “Those patients with possible malabsorption of vitamin D may actually have osteomalacia and should have this deficiency corrected before being given bisphosphonates.” (meaning bisphosphonates contribute to osteomalacia, why consider this otherwise?)
I ask again, if one bisphosphonate drug is not safe and causes osteomalacia, how is it that derivatives of that drug that work the same way and have a similar chemical structure are completely safe? Any other conclusion than that the whole class of drugs has this problem is illogical here. And of course, I found numerous sites that stated that “the ultimate long term effects of bisphosphonates are unknown” (too new! or they have something they don’t want to openly admit).
Again we have the situation as described with statins – he with the power writes the history – and as the case with history goes, the ones with the money are writing the medical textbooks and studies to befit their greedy unscrupulous intentions. And he with the money is using the government too to rein in the natural supplement industry as being unsafe. There is an average of 200 deaths per year with supplements, while there are 100’s of thousands with the FDA approved prescribed drugs. The money is definitely protecting its interest – where is the interest against big pharma, the BIGGER PROBLEM?
Of course, as stated well in several places (including above in this document), the answers are all simpler than taking a drug that kills off your osteoclasts. Of course, the answers all are on the market and natural so they can not be patented and no one in big pharma can make obscene profits off of it. And herein lies the issue of why big pharma would put out such a poison and the medical industry would accept it in lieu of using much more effective treatments. You can bet as well that big pharma will struggle to its last dollar to suppress any information that proves any of its drugs are harmful.
Their profits over your health. It’s a theme that occurs again and again.
(1) [url="http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/bone_health/202.html"]http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/bone_health/202.html[/url]
(2) [url="http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/bone_health/806.html"]http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/bone_health/806.html[/url]
(3) [url="http://www.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/vitamins.html#dclinical"]http://www.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/vitamins.html#dclinical[/url]
(4) [url="http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/thyroid/calcitonin.html"]http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/thyroid/calcitonin.html[/url]
(5) [url="http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/thyroid/pth.html"]http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/thyroid/pth.html[/url]
(6) [url="http://www.healthboards.com/ubb/Forum118/HTML/004219.html"]http://www.healthboards.com/ubb/Forum118/HTML/004219.html[/url]
(7) [url="http://www.fosamax.com/fosamax/cns/osteo/osteo.html"]http://www.fosamax.com/fosamax/cns/osteo/osteo.html[/url]
(8) [url="http://www.mercola.com/1998/archive/fosamax.htm"]http://www.mercola.com/1998/archive/fosamax.htm[/url]
(9) [url="http://uwcme.org/courses/bonephys/transplant.html"]http://uwcme.org/courses/bonephys/transplant.html[/url]
(10)
[url="https://www.classactionamerica.com/cases/case.asp?cid=1048"]https://www.classactionamerica.com/cases/case.asp?cid=1048[/url]
(11) [url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=98026758"]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt =Abstract&list_uids=98026758[/url]
(12) [url="http://www.sodbrennen-welt.de/science/1998/1998_9842257.htm"]http://www.sodbrennen-welt.de/science/1998/1998_9842257.htm[/url]
(13) [url="http://www.gastro.on.ca/news/Osteoporosis.html"]http://www.gastro.on.ca/news/Osteoporosis.html[/url]
[This message has been edited by Sky_Eagle1 (edited 09-22-2003).]
[This message has been edited by Sky_Eagle1 (edited 09-22-2003).]