Answering the question “how big is the bang from osteoporosis drugs?” can be quite challenging.
One reason is that the statistical calculations are complex and highly manipulated making them difficult to understand. Another is that the subjects included in the drug studies are generally highly-selected and may not represent “real-world” populations.
Recently scientists took an important step to help us separate hype from reality in regard to the benefits of bone drugs.
Researchers asked if “real-world” patients taking bone drugs received the same fracture-reduction benefits seen in the clinical trials. After analysis of hundreds of studies, they found that highly compliant, “real world” patients on osteoporosis drugs experienced a 21% reduction in all clinical fractures. This compares to the 24% overall clinical fracture reduction experienced by subjects in osteoporosis drug clinical trials.
What a different messages than we often hear — such as how bone drugs reduce your chance of fracture by 50%! Or have you ever been told that the fracture reduction on bone drugs is really more like 21-24%? That is — if you use the drug faithfully.
Now compare this 21-24% fracture-reduction benefit from bone drugs to the studies documenting that those taking vitamin D in any dose (much less a therapeutic dose) experience a 23-26% reduction in fractures. It seems to me that the bang from osteoporosis drugs isn’t quite as big as we’ve been led to believe.
As your bone health advocate, I congratulate these researchers on the enormous effort to analyze and synthesize data from hundreds of studies. I also congratulate the drug company which funded this study for clarifying the real fracture/reduction benefit of today’s bone drugs.
References:
Wilkes, et al. 2010. “Bisphosphonates and osteoporotic fractures: a cross-design synthesis of results among compliant/persistent postmenopausal women in clinical practice versus randomized controlled trials.” Osteoporosis International 21:679-688
Bischoff-Ferrari, HA et al. 2005. Fracture prevention with vitamin D supplementation: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA, 293(18): 2257-2264
Hormone Disruption: Fluoride and Your Wireless Device
RE - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009912011027330
It shows that long term exposure (six years) to both cellphones and their base stations can alter human hormone profiles.
The most significant (which the authors describe as highly significant in the text) are their effects on the thyroid hormones, which show a marked reduction over this period. Although the authors do not say it (I suspect that they dare not if they want to get their work published) this would result in hypothyroidism, the most important symptoms of which are fatigue and obesity.
It shows that long term exposure (six years) to both cellphones and their base stations can alter human hormone profiles.
The most significant (which the authors describe as highly significant in the text) are their effects on the thyroid hormones, which show a marked reduction over this period. Although the authors do not say it (I suspect that they dare not if they want to get their work published) this would result in hypothyroidism, the most important symptoms of which are fatigue and obesity.
Contents of Hydroflurosilicic acid
WEEP reader comments:
If cellphone exposure is combined with a fluoridated water supply, the low thyroid outcome is even more likely.
See this history of the fluorine/iodine antagonism connection, and the use of fluorine-based drugs to treat overactive thyroid.
http://poisonfluoride.com/pfpc/html/thyroid_history.html
Please join the spreading campaign to remove fluoride (from toxic-waste source) out of drinking water.
http://cof-cof.ca/hydrofluorosilicic-acid-origins/
'This water-based “wet scrubber” hydrofluorosilicic acid, containing the contaminants, is then taken out of the chimneys and stored in open-air cooling lakes, further exposed to airborne contaminants. Industry produces millions of gallons of this liquid hazardous waste. It costs thousands of dollars per ton to properly neutralize and dispose of hydrofluorosilicic acid, therefore, industry would rather just sell it to you as “product”.'
http://cof-cof.ca/top-ten-arguments-against-fluoridation/
And then if you are exposed to mercury too... and then the EMF shuts down detox, well we have got to do something about the use of these toxic substances. Martin Weatherall, WEEP.

