Osteoporosis Myth to Create Disease to Sell Pharmaceutical Drugs

kind2creatures

...elusive dreamer
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Location
USA
I agreed, by a doctors urging years ago, to undergo a bone scan for Osteoporosis. They told me that I had pre-Osteoporosis or Osteopenia, and insisted that I start taking high dose calcium supplements and return for another scan a few years later.

Well, I never went back for another scan, or increased my calcium supplementation. Instead I stopped supplementing with calcium, because I learned of calcium deposits in the arteries which led to stroke. My father in law had a major stroke and his main artery was 99% blocked with calcification.

I started taking vitamin D3 and Magnesium Citrate daily. Several days a week I started taking vitamin k2. Although I'm older, I'd rather have a broken bone than a major stroke. Also, I have no interest in taking the pharmaceutical prescription drugs that they are pushing on us, the ones with side effects worse than the disease itself.

Full article here: http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/arbitrary-definition-of-osteoporosis-aging-transformed-into-a-disease/


Osteoporosis Myth: The Dangers of High Bone Mineral Density

By Sayer Ji
GreenMedInfo.com

The present-day definitions of Osteopenia and Osteoporosis were arbitrarily conceived by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the early 90′s and then projected upon millions of women’s bodies seemingly in order to convince them they had a drug-treatable, though symptomless, disease.

Osteopenia (1992) and Osteoporosis (1994) were formally identified as skeletal diseases by the WHO as bone mineral densities (BMD) 1 and 2.5 standard deviations, respectively, below the peak bone mass of an average young adult Caucasian female, as measured by an x-ray device known as Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry.

This technical definition, now used widely around the world as the gold standard, is disturbingly inept, and as we shall see, likely conceals an agenda that has nothing to do with the promotion of health.

Deviant Standards: Aging Transformed Into a Disease

A ‘standard deviation’ is simply a quantity calculated to indicate the extent of deviation for a group as a whole, i.e. within any natural population there will be folks with higher and lower biological values, e.g. height, weight, bone mineral density, cholesterol levels.

The choice of an average young adult female (approximately 30-year old) at peak bone mass in the human lifecycle as the new standard of normality for all women 30 or older, was, of course, not only completely arbitrary but also highly illogical. After all, why should a 80-year old’s bones be defined as “abnormal” if they are less dense than a 30-year old’s?

Within the WHO’s new BMD definitions the aging process is redefined as a disease, and these definitions targeted women, much in the same way that menopause was once redefined as a “disease” that needed to be treated with synthetic hormone replacement (HRT) therapies; that is, before the whole house of cards collapsed with the realization that by “treating” menopause as a disease the medical establishment was causing far more harm than good, e.g. heart disease, stroke and cancer.

As if to fill the void left by the HRT debacle and the disillusionment of millions of women, the WHO’s new definitions resulted in the diagnosis, and subsequent labeling, of millions of healthy middle-aged and older women with what they were now being made to believe was another “health condition,” serious enough to justify the use of expensive and extremely dangerous bone drugs (and equally dangerous mega-doses of elemental calcium) in the pursuit of increasing bone density by any means necessary.

One thing that cannot be debated, as it is now a matter of history, is that this sudden transformation of healthy women, who suffered no symptoms of “low bone mineral density,” into an at-risk, treatment-appropriate group, served to generate billions of dollars of revenue for DXA device manufacturers, doctor visits, and drug prescriptions around the world.
 

davids111

New member
Joined
Sep 10, 2013
Location
Portland, OR
K2C,

I just wanted to thank you for the informative post. I intend to pass it onto my much-better-half.

Best regards,

David
 

kind2creatures

...elusive dreamer
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Location
USA
Original Poster
I'm still taking the Vitamin K2, 120mcg daily, Nature's Plus Source of Life brand. Also have increase my vitamin D3 to 5,000IUs daily, Country Life brand, since I understand it's beneficial for avoiding Macular Degeneration also.

As I always say, if you want to start taking any supplements, research side effects and drug interactions, especially if you're on prescription drugs for a health condition. Full article and videos here. http://healthimpactnews.com/2017/are-you-familiar-with-the-health-benefits-of-vitamin-k/

There are many who take in too much calcium supplementation. A small percentage of calcium is involved with other biochemical functions, but the bulk of it goes into bone matter if that calcium has helpers.

If not, where does it go? It remains in the blood, creating strong chances for arterial calcification and calcium deposits in heart valves.

From a paper that examines different aspects of arterial calcification, “Vascular Calcification: Pathobiology of a Multifaceted Disease,” published June 2, 2008 in the journal Circulation, we have this excerpt from that paper’s concluding summary that spells out the peril of too much calcium that’s not absorbed into bone matter: (Source)
Clinically, vascular calcification is now accepted as a valuable predictor of coronary heart disease. (…) Thus, treatments for osteoporosis such as calcitriol, estradiol, bisphosphonates, calcium supplements, and intermittent PTH are likely to affect vascular calcification (…) As we develop and use treatments for cardiovascular and skeletal diseases, we must give serious consideration to the implications for the organ at the other end of the bone-vascular axis. (Emphasis added)
Many outside the USDA box of nutritional “advice” recommend more supplementation with magnesium over calcium. Magnesium plays a large part of bone structuring, along with silica and vitamin D3.

The mineral calcium is but one aspect of bone building, and vitamin K is a part of metabolizing calcium and ensuring it goes where it should go, mostly in bone matter and not roaming about our vascular tubing where it can cause vascular damage or into the heart where it can calcify and clog heart valves.
 

jfh

perpetual student
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Location
Texas, USA
I'm still taking the Vitamin K2, 120mcg daily, Nature's Plus Source of Life brand. Also have increase my vitamin D3 to 5,000IUs daily, Country Life brand, since I understand it's beneficial for avoiding Macular Degeneration also.
For Macular Degeneration, please consider astaxanthin. This supplement will do wonders for your skin too. Protecting you from harmful UV radiation.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/11/23/astaxanthin-the-eye-antioxidant-550-times-more-powerful-than-vitamin-e.aspx

I get mine from http://www.iherb.com/pr/nutrex-hawaii-bioastin-hawaiian-astaxanthin-12-mg-50-gel-caps/41205
 

kind2creatures

...elusive dreamer
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Location
USA
Original Poster
I was hoping the Zeaxanthin in my Lutein softgels daily was good enough, what do you think?

I'm taking 40mg of Lutein, 7mg Zeaxanthin daily.
 

jfh

perpetual student
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Location
Texas, USA
I was hoping the Zeaxanthin in my Lutein softgels daily was good enough, what do you think?

I'm taking 40mg of Lutein, 7mg Zeaxanthin daily.
Well, thanks for that. I had not considered zeaxanthin. I'm taking astaxanthin for its other benefits such as natural sunscreen, blood pressure, eye health, etc. It appears zeaxanthin is better for the eye health, because it specifically supports and accumulates in the eye. Perhaps I will use both. Being 68, I need to be more careful with my eyesight. By the way, some reports indicate that only 2mg per day of zeaxanthin is needed. Diet can provide it, but supplementation will help to be more consistent.

The Mercola article indicated that astaxanthin is more powerful for the eyes. But I think I will experiment with both.

This article speaks to the difference between astaxanthin and zeaxanthin http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/difference-between-zeaxanthin-astaxanthin-12004.html

This article speaks to the difference between astaxanthin and lutein http://www.livestrong.com/article/416813-lutein-vs-astaxanthin/
 

kind2creatures

...elusive dreamer
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Location
USA
Original Poster
I was only taking one softgel of that supplement until recently, just 4 years behind you in age and my eyesight is going downhill pretty fast. I've increased my Lutein and D3 in hopes of preventing macular degeneration. Also considering buying a pair of Blueblocker sunglasses for computer use, seems that really strains my eyes these days.
 

jfh

perpetual student
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Location
Texas, USA
What's the cheapest supplement for eyes for people who can't afford lutein?
Foods considered good sources of lutein and zeaxanthin include:
  • Eggs.
  • Leafy greens like spinach, kale, turnip greens, collard greens, and romaine lettuce.
  • Broccoli.
  • Zucchini.
  • Garden peas and Brussels sprouts.
 

hopeful

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Location
United States
Thank you I don't know if I can eat enough of those foods to make a difference, but I'll try and eat more of them.
 


Top