Tahoma Eye Clinic Blog

What REALLY Causes Heartburn?

Posted on September 30, 2016March 27, 2023 by admin

Every day on television and other media we are barraged with ads about heartburn and acid reflux, which seem to tell us that stomach acid is the culprit causing our pain. If we take the patent medicine recommended in the commercial, our stomach problems will disappear. And how do those medicines propose to “fix” the problem? They lower the level of stomach acidity by either neutralizing stomach acid (these are antacids) or by shutting down the stomach’s ability to produce acid (proton pump inhibitors, or PPIs).

But it’s not really the level of acid in the stomach that causes the discomfort we call heartburn. Heartburn is caused when acid that is supposed to be in the stomach aiding digestion backs up into the esophagus, whose lining is not capable of withstanding the acidity and is chemically burned by it. If we take the advertised patent medicine, it will reduce the level of acid in the stomach, and so if comes up into the esophagus, its acidity will be less there as well, reducing or eliminating the burning sensation. But is this really a heartburn cure, or just temporary symptom relief? And do people really have too much acid in their stomach? Most importantly, is it healthy to reduce stomach acid?

Are Antacids and PPIs Really a Heartburn Cure?

Antacids and PPIs do reduce stomach acid, so when acid comes back into the throat, it does not burn as much. But antacids do not stop acid from going where it doesn’t belong in the first place. Why does acid come up into the throat? There is a valve at the bottom of the esophagus, just before the stomach, called the lower esophageal sphincter (LES). It allows food to pass into the stomach, but is supposed to prohibit stomach contents from going in the other direction. When there is food present in the stomach, that valve is supposed to be shut tight, but sometimes it relaxes when it should not. In some cases, the LES malfunctions because of food allergies and sensitivities, caffeine, alcohol, or nicotine. But it also happens when none of these is present. Doctors are not sure why, but some theorize that more acid, not less, is needed to keep the valve firmly shut, and that the valve relaxes in the presence of low stomach acid. If that is so, taking antacids could actually make the problem worse, not better.

Do People Often Have Too Much Stomach Acid?

Many studies have revealed that the production of stomach acid often decreases as we age, so that older people have much lower acidity level than younger ones. Yet often people develop heartburn in later years, just as acid production is declining. So it does not seem likely that heartburn is related to too much stomach acid at all. Yet when one goes to a doctor for a heartburn cure, antacids and PPIs are often prescribed without any testing on stomach acid levels. Ironically, when that test is done, it often reveals a lack of stomach acid rather than too much! This fact supports the theory that more acid keeps the LES more tightly closed.

Is It Healthy to Reduce Stomach Acid?

Stomach acid is needed in digestion and absorption of protein, vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients. Older people in particular, who have lower levels of stomach acid, have difficulty absorbing sufficient nutrition. Moreover, stomach acid is a barrier that can prevent bacteria and other unwanted microorganisms from getting further into our digestive tract. Low stomach acid is linked to a variety of medical conditions including osteoporosis, pneumonia, and macular degeneration. Given that antacids only provide temporary relief from heartburn symptoms, and can lead to serious diseases or infections, they are not the best answer to the issue of heartburn.

What are better alternatives in curing heartburn?

Because many people suffering from heartburn have low stomach acid, some doctors have found that acid supplements often cure the problem. The supplements also help restore the digestive system, which enables better absorption of nutrients. Of course, no one should take acid except with the advice and under the care of a licensed doctor. If acid is normal in a person suffering from heartburn, his or her physician will often recommend testing for food allergies that could be causing the LES to malfunction. In addition, other natural supplements have been proven to help strengthen LES function, in particular melatonin. So if you are suffering from heartburn, especially with any frequency, look for an integrative doctor (one who combines the use of supplements and natural remedies with more conventional approaches as needed) who is familiar with stomach acid level testing, and can get to the real cause of your heartburn.

Beeswax Benefits – Beat Nagging Allergies and Sinus Problems

Posted on April 30, 2016March 28, 2023 by admin

It’s not everyday you see nuns in full religious garb anymore, so when two walked into the Tahoma Clinic recently, they attracted a bit of attention from both the staff and patients. But that wasn’t what I remember most about their visit. Before they left the Clinic that day, the nuns taught me an approach to respiratory health I’d never even heard of before.

Like many monastic orders, these nuns support themselves and their convent by making and selling products. Their specialty is 100 percent beeswax candles, which, Mother Thecla told me, actually clean the air, helping to reduce the pollutant and allergen load.

Technology actually made candles worse for your health

She went on to explain that hundreds of years ago, most candles were made of beeswax. But over the centuries, beeswax candles were gradually replaced by tallow (animal fat) candles, and then in the last century by paraffin candles, which are probably the kind you have in your home right now. It sounds innocent enough, but paraffin is made from the sludge at the bottom of barrels of crude oil, which is then treated and bleached with benzene and other chemical solvents to “clean it up” for use in candles. Paraffin candles put out soot and smoke when you burn them (I thought all candles did that) along with toxins and carcinogens. Since burning petrochemical paraffin smells bad, synthetic fragrance oils are added, many of which are irritating and even toxic themselves when they’re burned. Breathing what paraffin candles give off has been compared to breathing diesel fumes.

And, to make matters worse, the soot, smoke, and chemical residue from “regular” candles can stick to walls, ceilings, and ventilation ducts and gets re-circulated whenever the heating/cooling system is in action, exposing you to these pollutants even when the paraffin candles aren’t burning.

Allergy, sinus, and asthma relief just from lighting a candle

But beeswax candles don’t cause any of those problems. In fact, Mother Thecla told me people with allergies, sinus problems, and asthma have reported significant improvement in their symptoms, breathing better and sleeping better after burning the 100 percent beeswax candles in their bedrooms for three to four hours before bedtime. One person who burned a beeswax candle all day when she was home reported that her asthma gradually went away completely.

After the nuns left, I did a bit of my own research to see if I could turn up any scientific evidence on bees-wax’s effects. Although scientists still don’t know all the intricacies of the complex molecules in beeswax, there’s at least a partial explanation for the healthful action of burning beeswax candles. According to entomologist Bill Reno, burning beeswax produces negative ions.1 Negative ions are nature’s air purifiers, cleaning the air of dust, mold, bacteria, viruses, and other pollutants.

Make sure you’re getting the real deal

Here’s the catch: to get any of these benefits, the candle has to be 100 percent beeswax. And, unfortunately, a candle only needs to contain 51 percent beeswax to be labeled as a beeswax candle. The rest can be paraffin (or anything else burnable), so it may not be as easy as picking one up the next time you’re at the mall.

One way to find out is to ask the store clerk to light the candle: 100 percent beeswax candles have a uniquely fresh smell–which is distinctly different from paraffin. (The nuns even showed us the difference, so I can vouch for the fact that it’s a noticeable one.)

If you can’t find 100 percent beeswax candles near you, the nuns have made theirs available through the Tahoma Clinic Dispensary, with which I’m of course affiliated.

Beeswax candles can be on the expensive side–at least in comparison to “regular” paraffin candles. But beeswax actually burns slower, so you’ll get more for your money than if you opted for the cheaper versions. Plus, the potential for better respiratory health is well worth the few extra cents.

There’s not much hard evidence on beeswax’s health benefits, but if it’s possible that something as simple as burning a candle might be able to help your respiratory problems, it’s at least worth a try.

More to read: Multiple Sclerosis: A Revival of Hope

Degenerative Arthritis (Osteoarthritis)

Posted on April 23, 2016March 27, 2023 by admin

Degenerative arthritis is also called osteoarthritis or “wear and tear” arthritis. If you’ve been told you have one of these types of arthritis, there’s a good chance you can substantially reduce or even eliminate your symptoms, while tapering down or even eliminating drugs you may be taking. Diet changes, vitamins, minerals, natural metabolites, and herbals can all be significantly helpful.

“Mainstream” medical treatment for degenerative arthritis includes aspirin, other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, synthetic forms of cortisone both swallowed and injected, and surgery. Although all of these drugs relieve symptoms, there’s increasing evidence that they accelerate the deterioration of cartilage and actually make the underlying condition worse.

Sensitivity to certain alkaloids naturally present in “nightshade” vegetables causes pain and swelling in a significant minority of individuals with degenerative arthritis. Nightshade sensitivity is not the same as allergy, and is not detectable by any laboratory tests in current use. The only way to figure out whether nightshade vegetables bother you is to totally eliminate tomatoes, potatoes, peppers, and eggplant from your diet, along with tobacco exposure in any form. Even if you’re nightshade sensitive and totally eliminate all of these, it can still take three to four months for symptoms to recede. For a complete guide to a nightshade free program, check your natural food store for books by Professor Norman Childers.

Food allergies cause symptoms in another small minority of individuals with degenerative arthritis. If you’ve had allergies in the past, have them now, or if a member of your family has allergies, this is a definite possibility. Also, if a five-day “juice fast” using a vegetable juice or juices you rarely drink is associated with symptom relief, it’s very likely you have significant food allergies. For a referral to a doctor near you skilled and knowledgeable in food allergy testing, contact the American Academy of Environmental Medicine at 913-642-6062, or the International Federation of Electrodermal Screeners at 800-258-2172.

Researchers have found so many supplemental items useful in improving degenerative arthritis that I haven’t found it necessary to suggest them all.
What you’ll read next are the items I usually recommend that are almost always sufficient to do the job. At the end, I’ll make sure to list all the others in case you want to research them further.

Niacinamide, one of two forms of vitamin B3, is almost always a major help in relieving the pain and swelling of degenerative arthritis. Depending on the size of the person I’m working with, I’ll recommend 500 to 1000 milligrams of niacinamide, not niacin, three times daily, along with an equivalent quantity of vitamin C. Usually there’s no improvement until the third or fourth week. By twelve to sixteen weeks, many people find that nearly all the pain and swelling are under control. With prolonged use, the flexibility of joints is frequently improved.

There’s a small possibility that large quantities of niacinamide can cause unwanted effects. The first sign of this possibility is nausea or queasiness. Should this happen, stop niacinamide right away. Because of this small possibility, it’s advisable to use niacinamide while working with a health care professional skilled and knowledgeable in nutritional and natural therapies.

Glucosamine sulfate is a basic building block of cartilage. I usually recommend 500 milligrams of glucosamine sulfate three times daily, right along with the niacinamide and vitamin C. On its own, glucosamine works as well as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to relieve pain and swelling, and can help to rebuild instead of destroying joints.

I also recommend 800 units of vitamin E and 250 micrograms of selenium daily. Selenium and vitamin E work together in relieving swelling and pain in degenerative arthritis.

Whenever I recommend individual nutritional supplements, I also recommend a general multiple vitamin-mineral supplement as “back-up”.

Niacinamide, vitamin C, glucosamine, vitamin E, and selenium, along with the diet changes you’ve read in this brief are almost enough to control degenerative arthritis. In the rare individuals who need further help, there’s a long list of other items I recommend. This list includes boron, 3 milligrams twice daily, shark cartilage 3 grams twice daily, “sea cucumber” 2 tablets twice daily, New Zealand green lipped mussel 1000 milligrams daily, cod liver oil 2 tablespoons daily, and yucca capsules, 3 times daily.

Because of differences in age, sex, metabolism, or potential allergy, these diet and supplement therapies may not be suitable for you. Consult a health care professional skilled in nutritional and natural therapies.

More to read: RDW: Another Marker for Gluten Sensitivity? with Cristina Persa, MD(RO), MS, ND

HCG: Spinal Cord and Neuronal Regeneration

Posted on January 21, 2016March 27, 2023 by admin

In a 2007 report written by National Institutes of Health researchers, published in the journal Endocrinology, two revealing footnotes appeared. The footnotes referred to previous research articles which had demonstrated that a safe, entirely natural substance actually helped repair and restore some lost function in experimental animals whose spinal cords had been completely severed!

Even more surprisingly, the two prior research articles mentioned in these footnotes were reported in 1983 and 1990, and (as there were no other footnotes on this or related topics listed in the 2007 report) it’s very likely that no similar research on this topic has been published since.

Think about that for a moment. A safe natural substance that can help restore even partial function after a spinal cord has been completely severed should be very big news. You’d expect that the revelation that paralyzed and stuck in a wheelchair after a devastating spinal cord injury is NOT a life sentence should have been on the front page of every newspaper across the world. Yet, you’ve likely never even heard about this breakthrough. And neither had I.

Bladder function restored in two weeks!

In the 1983 research , twenty-two rats (eleven male, eleven female) had their spinal cords completely transected (formal technical talk for “cut all the way through”). Twelve (Group 1) were injected with the safe natural substance every day for the first week, then every other day for three more weeks. Ten rats—the control group or Group 2—were not given this injection.

Criteria used to judge improvement of the totally cut-across spine were bladder function, and ability to climb up an inclined plane (“ramp” in English). Both of these abilities were totally lost after the spinal cord was cut completely cut across.

The researchers wrote: “Regaining of bladder function, as demonstrated by spontaneous emptying of the bladder with no residual urine was observed in all the animals in Group 1, within the first two weeks… In group 2 animals, no recovery of bladder function was noted even after six weeks.”
At six weeks all were walking again!

Ability to climb the ramp was not as completely recovered, but there was significant improvement. Four of the twelve treated animals had complete recovery of this ability—back to normal, pre-spinal transection function—while the remaining eight in the treated group could walk, but not 100% normally. In Group 2, the untreated group of rats, all were still paralyzed six weeks after spinal cord transection.

The researchers also wrote: “Histological evidence of bridging of the gap between the ends of the spinal cord by nerve fibres containing tissue was noted in the… treated rats only.” Histological evidence refers to evidence gathered from direct observation using a microscope; it’s very hard to argue with that. Under the microscope, nerve fibers were seen to be “bridging the gap” between the cut-apart pieces of the spinal cord, and they “contained tissue”.

As there was 100% improvement in bladder function in all the treated rats, as well as variable recovery in ability to climb a ramp in the treated rats, and none whatsoever in the untreated rats, that “contained tissue” must have been newly formed functional nerve tissue!

Nerve function recovered in mere weeks

These improvements were stimulated by a safe natural substance. I’ll identify that spinal-cord-restoring miracle substance in just a moment, but first let’s take a look at a 1990 report , which had one of the same authors as the 1983 report. In this research, twenty-one rats had complete transection of their spinal cords. Eleven were given the safe natural substance for six weeks. The other ten—again, the control group—were not.

After six weeks, there was a significantly greater electronic measurement of “motor action potential” (for the technically inclined, p<.02) in the treated rats. An action potential is the electrical signal traveling down a neuron—in this case a motor neuron—which travels from the central nervous system to muscles. If this signal is significantly greater in the treated group than in the control group, it signifies a significant—even if not complete—recovery in that nerve function.
So what was this entirely safe, natural, and effective substance which helped these paralyzed rats to recover function? Why haven’t we heard about it before? Actually, we have heard about it a lot, especially lately. The substance is….

Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin (“HCG”)

Yes, the same HCG that’s helped so many to lose weight (see Nutrition & Healing March 2008 for details about that aspect) and that has been the subject of intense criticism from “authorities”. If you recall, HCG is secreted in large quantities in the first trimester of pregnancy, and we all were literally infused with small quantities of it for approximately the first nine months of our physical existence. If HCG were actually dangerous, chances are you and I wouldn’t even be here on planet Earth!

But how does a “pregnancy hormone” help a completely severed spinal cord form new nerve tissue in experimental animals? How do injections of this natural substance lead to complete recovery of bladder function, and partial to complete recovery of walking capability? The simplest answer is that hormones—and many other natural components of human and animal bodies—typically have more than one function in our bodies. In fact, they often have many functions. Researchers have found this to true of HCG, also. HCG is much more than just a “pregnancy hormone”.

Two totally paraplegic humans walking with crutches after HCG treatment

But the 1983 research report was not entirely confined to results achieved in experimental animals. In the very last two paragraphs of the nine page report, the researchers wrote: “We have started a clinical trial on patients with total paraplegia using 20,000 units of HCG intramuscularly on the first day, followed by 10,000 units every day for the first week, and then 10,000 units every alternate day for five weeks. Whenever there was evidence of blockage, spinal canal decompression was carried out. The first patient with a lesion at T11- T12 spinal segment, now after three months is able to stand with a walker and move his lower extremities with voluntary movement in all muscle groups. The second patient, now after five weeks with a lesion at T1 spinal segment has almost complete sensory recovery, including bladder sensation, and has voluntary muscle contraction in both proximal [near] and distal [far] groups of muscles in his lower extremities.”

In an undated addendum by the same authors (printed with the original research report) state: “Both patients mentioned in the paper are now able to walk with the help of crutches.” That’s right, two paraplegic men who weren’t able to walk were able to walk with crutches after HCG treatment! And yes, the quantities used were massive, but there was (as might be predicted) no mention of adverse events. And also yes, massive doses of HCG are expensive—although not as costly as the average hospital bill—but for the chance to walk once again, what would you do for yourself, a family member, a close friend?

Criticism by the “Chairman of the Editorial Board”

The actual research report was followed by a statement of disbelief from the Chairman of the Editorial Board of the journal, who wrote: “….no real proof has been given that a functional regeneration within the sectioned [cut across] did occur at all and that human chorionic gonadotrophin positively influenced the functional recovery.”

The researchers replied in true academic language: “… we do not claim that this experiment proves human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) causes regeneration of the spinal cord. We simply state that “the presence of nerve fibres in the bridging tissue certainly suggests that HCG might be useful in regeneration of nerve fibers of the spinal cord.”

They also pointed out that the “control group” of rats not given HCG had no recovery at all, and that “the significant recovery we see in the HCG-treated rats….certainly suggests a strong possibility that HCG did in fact, have some role in the functional recovery of spinal cord sectioned rats”. In this reply to the Chairman of the Editorial Board, no mention was made at all about the two total paraplegic humans who experienced partial functional recovery in six weeks with rather heroic—but safe—quantities of HCG. No mention at all was made that these two men were up and walking with crutches at an unspecified later date.

When one of the authors of this 1983 research paper was contacted inquiring whether had been any further follow-up in those or other human cases, he wrote back that he had left the University of North Dakota School of Medicine for another academic post, so these two patients were “lost to follow-up.” Although there’s no way to prove it, it would be no surprise at all to learn that this “heretical” research report—HCG enabling neuronal regeneration and recovery from a transected spinal cord (animals) and “up and walking with crutches” after paraplegia (humans)—had something to do with that particular academic career move.

Male infertility reversed with HCG

Let’s look at another recently discovered therapeutic application of HCG, an application that will lead us to understand how HCG may work to help stimulate healing in spinal cord and other nervous system injuries.

In 2004 and again in 2009 , Belgian and Swiss researchers published the case of a thirty year old man whose wife was unable to conceive a child. He had underdeveloped testicles (for the technically inclined, the researchers reported a volume of eight milliliters). He agreed to a testicle biopsy. Observed under a microscope, the cell structure of the testicles was found to be very immature. The sperm count was very low and those that were present were very immature also.

His testosterone level was very low (0.3 nanograms/milliliter, normal range 2.5-10.0 nanograms per milliliter). The immediate cause of his low testosterone was his undetectable luteinizing hormone (LH). LH is a pituitary hormone which stimulates the “LH receptor” which in turn stimulates the testicules to produce testosterone.

By contrast, his estradiol was low normal (26 nanograms per liter, normal 10 to 70 nanograms per liter.) His follicle stimulating hormone (FSH)—the pituitary hormone that stimulates sperm formation and maturation in men and estrogen in women—was high (23 mIU per milliliter, normal range 1.0-8.0 mIU per milliliter.

In both genders, when there is little to no response to FSH, our pituitary glands make more—often much more—than usual to try to force a response. In this man’s case, his testicles were making very few sperm, and no mature ones, which would likely explain why his FSH level was high—in effect “screaming loudly”—to try to encourage more sperm production.

But the real cause of his problem was discovered to be a DNA mutation that rendered LH biologically and immunologically inactive. The effects of this mutation added up to undetectable LH, small testicles, very poor sperm numbers, no mature sperm, and no pregnancy for his wife.

After treatment with human chorionic gonadotrophin (“HCG”) 1500 IU three times a week for a month, then 5000 IU weekly for two years, his testicle volume had nearly doubled, from eight to fourteen milliliters. His testosterone had increased to a normal 7 micrograms per liter, and his FSH had decreased to normal at 2.3 mIU per milliliter.

Another testicle biopsy showed significantly increased sperm numbers with many completely matured. Using his sperm, physicians were able to help his wife conceive. She delivered a male infant, who fortunately did not inherit his father’s DNA problem and was found to have normal (for an infant) testosterone, FSH, and LH levels.

A man with no LH, and therefore almost no testosterone, and no mature sperm is treated with HCG and has his testosterone normalize and his testicles mature and begin to produce mature and functional sperm that help to conceive a previously inconceivable (pun intended) child. How could this happen?

HCG stimulates testosterone production

The researchers wrote: “Although rare, isolated LH deficiency due to inactivating mutations of the LH-subunit gene is a useful illustration of the precise role of LH in testicular maturation and function in humans. Furthermore, it also provides a good example of the clinical efficacy of LH receptor stimulation using hCG.” Put more briefly, both LH and HCG stimulate the LH receptor, which in turn results in increased testosterone.

As men age their LH and testosterone levels start to naturally decline. Research shows that HCG can help stimulate testosterone production in men as they get older.

Forty men ages 65 to 80 years old participated in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial using HCG, 5000 IU twice weekly (or a placebo injection) for three months. The group using HCG had a stable increase of 150% in total and free testosterone. Their lean body mass increased an average two kilograms (4.8 pounds), fat mass decreased by an average one kilogram (2.4 pounds), for a net loss of one kilogram (2.4 pounds).

However, the HCG using group also had an increase in total estradiol by 150%. This increase might explain why the researchers found no increase in muscle strength or sexual activity in the HCG group. Although the researchers noted the possibility that hyperaromatization (excess transformation of testosterone to estrogen) might be the cause of the equal increase in total testosterone and total estrogen which might explain the lack of increase in muscle strength, they didn’t check this possibility.

If you’re a man interested in trying to raise your own testosterone level without using testosterone itself, make sure to work with your doctor to monitor your testosterone and your estrogen levels. If your estrogen level goes too high, then perhaps you should be tested for insulin resistance, the major cause of hyperaromatization. (For more details about hyperaromatization of testosterone, see Nutrition & Healing for August 2013.)

The same researchers also investigated the effect of the twice-weekly HCG injections on sensitivity to insulin and related lipid measurements in these same men. Those receiving the HCG had no significant improvement in insulin sensitivity or HDL cholesterol, but there was a significant reduction in total and LDL (“bad”) cholesterol, as well as triglycerides.

HCG boosts libido & erectile function

Have you ever read that HCG has been reported to increase erectile function and sexual desire for some men? No, it wasn’t 100% effective, but you’d think that research finding would have been all over the news, especially since the article was published in a major medical journal, Urology. Since the research was published all the way back 1987, the word should have gotten around by now. But since HCG isn’t patentable it, of course, will never get the attention that conventional drugs do—but I digress.

Researchers actually reported two randomized studies in the one journal. In the first study, termed preliminary, twenty-nine men with ED (in pre-Viagra 1987, it was called impotence) took either HCG injections (5000 IU twice weekly), or injections of testosterone propionate (which is still in widespread use in 2013), 50 milligrams twice weekly. The HCG outperformed the testosterone, with 49% responding versus 28% in the testosterone group.

The second study involved forty-five men, again randomized, this time HCG versus placebo. Both took twice-weekly injections, placebo or 5000 IU HCG. HCG administration was associated with significant improvement in ED in ten of twenty-one men (47%). The placebo was successful in only three of twenty-four men (12.5%).

The researchers also noted a significant increase in testosterone levels in all twenty-one men who took the HCG injections, but no increases in the men who took the placebo injections. (There was no measurement reported of estrogen in either group.) Since the entire HCG group had a significant increase in testosterone, but only 47% had a significant improvement in ED, it’s reasonable to assume that HCG improves ED in some men in a non-testosterone-related way.

HCG works for women too!

For women, progesterone is secreted when the LH receptor is stimulated. Progesterone supplementation using rub-in creams or capsules can be very helpful for a wide variety of symptoms that occur when a woman’s progesterone level starts to decline. Since HCG stimulates the LH receptor, it can relieve the symptoms caused by a progesterone shortage in the same way.

Although there is no controlled research on this yet, it definitely works in clinical practice. For younger women suffering PMS symptoms or women suffering with menopausal symptoms and who want to lose weight, an HCG diet (strict or modified) with its accompanying HCG injections could be a “two-fer”, increasing progesterone, reducing PMS and some menopause symptoms, as well as promoting weight loss.

There’s also no controlled research about another effect of HCG injections which I’ve observed many times: significant increases in human growth hormone (measured in consecutive urine specimens collected for 24 hours) in both men and women during the use of HCG injections. Of course when HCG was stopped, HGH levels decreased to pre-HCG levels.

HCG’s role in nervous system growth

Obviously HCG is much more than just a pregnancy hormone. As Nature and creation are very conservative, it shouldn’t be a big surprise that the research on HCG stimulating LH takes us right back to where this started, the regeneration and healing of nerve cells and the brain.

In the 2007 report mentioned above1, the researchers observed that HCG has an effect on neurons and glial cells, the cells which—among other things—support neurons and their functions. They wrote: “….HCG promoted nerve regeneration in vivo and neurite outgrowth and survival of primary neurons in vitro.” In plain English, nerves and nerve projections (neurites) were regrown in live animals and survived better in cell cultures.

In the 1983 research about animals recovering from spinal cord injury, the researchers wrote: “HCG in pregnancy is highest during the first trimester when major developmental changes in the nervous system take place, suggesting the possibility that HCG may have some role in the growth of the nervous system.”

With the advantage of more than two additional decades of HCG research, the authors of the 2007 report echoed this prediction when they wrote: “…These findings imply a potential role for HCG…..in the development, maintenance, and regeneration of the mammalian nervous system.” Ongoing HCG research confirms that the potential role that was hinted at in 1983 is likely to be true.

How can HCG help to grow, maintain, and even regenerate the nervous system? Or as scientists would ask, “What is the mechanism?” A major part of this mechanism is now established. Remember in the research about recovery of testicular function with HCG noted above we learned that that the receptor for HCG is the same as the receptor for LH. In fact, it’s even been formally renamed the “LH/CG-R” (luteinizing hormone/chorionic gonadotrophin—receptor).

Researchers have confirmed that LH/CG-R receptors are also located on the surfaces of cells all over the brain and other neural structures, including the hypothalamus, cerebral cortex, hippocampus, brainstem, pituitary gland, cerebellum, retina, the spinal cord, and ependymal regions. (The ependymal regions are the fluid-filled regions of the brain and the spinal cord. They’re lined with ependymal cells, a type of glial cell which—among other things—secrete, circulate, and absorb cerebrospinal fluid.)

It would be entirely illogical—even irrational—to think that these receptors are located on all of these cells and areas of the nervous system and yet have no function. Obviously some of those functions are the development, maintenance, and regeneration of the human brain and nervous system. These functions are stimulated every day of our lives by fluctuating quantities of LH, and can be further stimulated by the deliberate administration of the much-maligned “weight loss” hormone, HCG.

HCG holds hope for neurodegenerative disease

It appears that, with the aid of HCG, repairs of even serious brain injuries or neurologic disease may also be within our reach. (Remember those LH/HCG receptors are everywhere in the brain!) If HCG can stimulate even completely transected (cut totally across) spinal cords to repair, then it may also be able to help neurons affected by neurodegenerative diseases to repair themselves, or at least slow the progress of the disease.

Of course there’s no way to know for sure; no research about HCG and neurodegenerative disease has been reported, and there are only the 1983 and 1990 reports about spinal cord injury, none about brain injury. Even if this research were to start today, so-called authorities would tell us—as they always do—that “results won’t be known for years”.

But if you or a loved one have a had brain or spinal cord injury that’s not yet recovered (especially a recent one), or have an ongoing neurodegenerative disease, why not take this article to a physician skilled and knowledgeable in natural medicine, and discuss giving regular HCG injections a try? It’s safe; after all, we all had exposure to it for approximately nine months when we were very, vulnerable fetuses, during which time it did us no harm at all.

Of course it may not help, either. But the research we do have—especially those experimental animals walking again, and the two paraplegic men “now able to walk with the help of crutches” after HCG treatment—gives us real reason to hope. And since little else is being done to repair neurologic injury and neurodegenerative disease that’s actually helping, and side effect free, it’s certainly worth a try.

More to read: The Digestive Theory Of Aging Part 1

Harnessing the healing power of light Part 1: What you need to know about UV rays—beyond sunburn

Posted on January 16, 2016March 28, 2023 by admin

Despite what the sunscreen industry would like us to believe, the drastic increase in use of these lotions and potions over the past several decades hasn’t made a big impact in skin cancer rates. But what it has done is made people afraid of ultraviolet (UV) light. While it’s true too much radiation from the sun can result in skin damage (not to mention a painful sunburn), those harmful effects are hardly the extent of what UV radiation is capable of—and its potential benefits far outweigh the risks.

As you’ve read in these pages numerous times, UV rays from the sun are the best source of the vitamin D your body needs to ward off cancer and dozens of other health problems. But that’s just the beginning of what ultraviolet light can do. Not only is it an extremely effective disinfectant with the ability to kill bacteria, viruses, and fungi in the air and on surfaces, but UV light also has the potential to prevent—and even cure—infections and diseases that other treatments are powerless against.

A strong history leads to an even more promising future

Using ultraviolet light as a medical treatment may sound like a new technology, but the medical use of ultraviolet light for the prevention and treatment of disease is not at all a new area of research. This form of therapy has been studied since the late 19th century, when researchers first experimented with UV light in patients with lupus and sepsis. In fact, back in 1903, a Danish physician named Niels Ryberg Finsen won a Nobel prize for his work with UV light and the treatment of disease.

There are even a few forms of ultraviolet light therapy that “mainstream” medicine uses. Ultraviolet radiation can eliminate or reduce pathogens floating in the air. This process is called air ultraviolet germicidal irradiation, or UVGI. UVGI is an important technology in many hospitals, research centers, and laboratories where contamination with bacteria and fungal spores poses a serious health risk. One recent study evaluated the infection rate in an operating room in which total joint replacements had been performed over a 19-year period. Infection rates were three times higher when only regular (laminar) airflow was used as compared to an ultraviolet light plus laminar airflow system. The UV lowered the number of bacteria in the entire environment, thereby reducing the infection rate, rather than just reducing the number of infectious organisms present at the surgical site. The researchers concluded that UV light is a very effective means of lowering the rate of infection during total joint replacement therapy.

The most common form of UV light therapy used by the mainstream for treatment purposes is probably for psoriasis. UV radiation works well for this condition because it penetrates the skin and slows the abnormal rate of skin cell growth. It’s also commonly used to treat acute tissue rejection in patients who have had heart transplants. And in 1988, the FDA even “approved” UV light therapy for the treatment of form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma called cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

But despite these mainstream uses, UV light therapy is still considered “experimental” and “investigational” (or even “quackery”) for many of the healthcare problems affecting people all over the globe. The application that seems to be the most controversial is ultraviolet blood irradiation.

Blood irradiation was developed in the 1920s, when a piece of equipment called the “ultraviolet blood irradiation (UVBI) device” was created to irradiate blood “extracorporeally” or outside of the body. UVBI was developed for medical use by an engineer, Emmet K. Knott and Virgil Hancock, M.D., and was used early in the 20th century to treat many types of diseases, including a wide variety of infections, many of them otherwise fatal. When antibiotics and vaccines were developed in the late 1940s and early 1950s, UVBI was almost completely set aside, even though a number of diseases, including hepatitis, streptococcal toxemia, and viral pneumonia, actually responded better to UVBI therapy than to antibiotics and vaccines, and even though UVBI was repeatedly described as quite safe in multiple publications.

With the rise in antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria and the growing interest in therapies that are less toxic, there is a reviving interest in UVBI as a therapy against infection. Even though it’s vastly underutilized, UVBI is still available here in these United States, and has remained a very important treatment modality in Russia and other countries, where many “modern” studies of its effectiveness have been conducted. So this month, we’ll cover the “modern” research, almost all reported since 1990, demonstrating that UV is “still” effective treatment for many problems.

Help your body create its own, internal vaccine

UVBI also goes by the terms light therapy, phototherapy, photophoresis, and photoluminescence. It uses UV light of varying wavelengths to destroy blood-borne pathogens, as well as to treat diseases not clearly linked to specific pathogens, and to improve general health. During a session, a small amount of blood, ranging from 60-250 cc, is withdrawn from a patient and sent through a chamber where it is irradiated with specific frequencies of UV light (since certain frequencies have different effects), and is then reintroduced into the body. This creates a kind of self-generated vaccine that can have many beneficial effects.

UVBI treatments sometimes include the addition of other compounds, either before or after irradiation. This combination therapy has been termed “photodynamic antimicrobial chemotherapy, or PACT. PACT is used along with UV light to inhibit pathogens in blood products.¹¹ Conventional medicine has even embraced one form of PACT that involves exposing blood withdrawn from a patient’s body to UV radiation and a substance called 8-methoxypsoralen (8-MOP). This is the form of UV therapy used to treat cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, as well as systemic sclerosis and several other inflammatory conditions.^{12, 13}

But “alternative” physicians, especially those who’ve read the older research, often accompany or follow UVBI therapy with hydrogen peroxide, which acts as a “synergist” to increase the effectiveness of UVBI.

While not all the “mechanisms of action” of UVBI are understood (some aren’t even guessed at yet), research has found that it increases the oxygenation of the blood,¹⁴ increases important “blood markers” that indicate healing, and inactivates viral, and fungal, and bacterial toxins, including botulism and diphtheria toxins. It also improves chemical balances and cell permeability. And what makes UVBI even more impressive is that it not only begins working after just one treatment, but the effects are cumulative and persist for some time after each treatment session.

Several animal studies have demonstrated these quick, long-lasting effects. For example, when a group of horses that had been exposed to the anthrax virus had their blood treated, investigators noted increased hemoglobin content as well as red and white blood cell counts. An important measurement of inflammation, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), increased after the first hour and remained elevated until the fourth day, and returned to normal after six days—but none of the horses “came down” with anthrax. The UVBI apparently stimulated the destruction of the infectious organisms.¹⁵

Light as air: UVBI offers major benefits for chronic lung disorders

One of the most important uses for UVBI in humans is in the treatment of lung diseases, including asthma, COPD, and bronchitis. In one study of chronic bronchitis, patients who were given UVBI treatments every two to three days experienced significantly more improvement than the control group that received only conventional therapy.¹⁶

UV blood irradiation even has positive effects in patients with chronic forms of tuberculosis, which is notoriously difficult to treat.¹⁷ But following UVBI therapy, patients experienced reductions in their clinical symptoms, and increases in one of the standard measurements of breathing capacity called forced expiratory volume (“FEV”). They also had decreased levels of the bacterial pathogen, Mycobacteria tuberculosis, and improved markers of overall blood health (hematological indices).¹⁸

Studies have also shown that UVBI helps alleviate the inflammation of the trachea and bronchial tubes (“tracheobronchitis”) that often occurs after tracheostomy surgery (the creation of a new opening for air entry into the trachea at the base of the neck).¹⁹

Breathe easier without the blood

If you have asthma or other breathing difficulties but the thought of blood irradiation leaves you a bit squeamish, less-invasive forms of UV light therapy may still help. One animal study evaluated the ability of UV-B rays to induce airway immunity. A group of mice were exposed to enough of a dose of UV-B radiation to cause skin redness. Several days later, the researchers induce airway allergies in the mice. The results of the study demonstrated that UV-B radiation effectively reduced airway hyper-responsiveness and response to allergens, suggesting it as a possible therapy for asthma and other inflammatory diseases of the respiratory system.²⁰

Another recent study involving a small group of mold-sensitized asthmatic children looked at the effectiveness of UV irradiation units installed in their homes’ central heating and cooling systems. The UV irradiation of home air was found to be effective in reducing airway hyper-responsiveness and other clinical symptoms, and is a promising therapy for the treatment of allergic asthma.²¹

No job too big

High blood pressure is still one many people’s primary concerns.. You may be surprised to learn that UVBI can help bring blood pressure levels back to normal ranges. In one study, arterial blood pressure in hypertensive patients who underwent five to seven sessions of UVBI dropped an average of 24 percent from initial levels. The general health of patients also improved and the clinical effect persisted for four to eight months, on average. Blood pressure isn’t the only aspect of cardiovascular health to be of which to be aware, and UVBI certainly isn’t the only natural treatment that can help alleviate hypertension, but researchers suggest that it may be a beneficial addition to other therapeutic measures for the treatment of cardiovascular disease.²²

While UVBI is a good addition to the other effective natural treatments for hypertension, there are very few treatments—natural or otherwise—that are effective for terminal kidney (renal) failure. But in one study in which patients with chronic renal failure were treated with UVBI, immune function was stimulated, a low white blood cell count was corrected, and patients demonstrated overall improvement.23

Making cancer treatments safer

As I mentioned earlier, UV light therapy has been used successfully as a treatment for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, a type of cancer that is generally very resistant to chemotherapy and radiation. But this isn’t the only cancer application for UVBI. It also helps combat some of the negative effects of traditional chemotherapy and some of the hazards associated with cancer surgery.

In one study, patients undergoing chemotherapy which had caused a significant drop in their red blood cell counts had 200 ml of blood removed, then irradiated, and immediately returned to them. The red blood cell counts returned to normal.

During surgery, patients of course lose blood, and surgeons try to recover some of it to give back before the surgery is over. This process is called “intra-operative blood salvage.” But during cancer surgery, the lost blood could be contaminated by cancer cells, so surgeons are hesitant to salvage it. In one study (done “in vitro,” not on a living patient) using a number of cancer cell lines and tumor preparations, researchers irradiated salvaged blood to see if the process could eliminate the potential for cancer cells to spread. Following irradiation of tumor-cell-contaminated blood, even though cancer cells were still present, there were no signs of them spreading. The authors of this study concluded that there was a clinical basis for using UVBI during surgery as a means of salvaging useable blood. A later study using intra-operative blood salvaged by using UVBI confirmed these results and concluded that UVBI is an important way to save blood resources while avoiding cancer cell spread and the necessity for transfusion, which carries its own set of risks.

And speaking of risks associated with blood transfusions, results of a recent study showed that YV light combined with amotosalen (a synthetic but relatively safe version of naturally occurring plant compounds called “psoralens” found in figs, celery, parsley, and other plants) could inactivate parvovirus B19, a virus that may be transmitted through blood transfusions but, until now, evaded attempts to disable it.

Germ-killing with UV

In addition to all the benefits we’ve gone over so far, ultraviolet light is also particularly effective in killing antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria, which are a serious and increasing problem in many hospitals and other healthcare facilities these days.^{28, 29} And like the asthma treatments mentioned in the sidebar on page X, UV light therapy for these forms of potentially deadly bactera are done without withdrawing blood from patients. In one study patients with chronic body-surface ulcers were treated using a lamp that emitted ultraviolet C (UV-C) light, held about an inch away from the wound site. After just one 180-second treatment, there were significant reductions in all types of bacteria, most notably Pseudomonas aeruginosa, as well as methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), which has been making headlines worldwide recently A second study of the effects of UV light treatment on antibiotic-resistant strains of S. aureus and Enterococcus faecalis showed similar results with exposures as little as 5 seconds.³⁰ These results confirm other studies showing that UV-C can kill many types of bacteria present in superficial, chronic wounds.

When UV light is applied at the site of an infection it inactivates pathogens by creating something I’m normally warning you to avoid: free radicals. But, in this case, free radicals are a good thing, since they’re causing oxidative damage to the invading organisms, not to your internal organs.

As you’ve seen, all of this modern research has shown UV light and UVBI to be a safe and effective (not to mention inexpensive) treatment with rapid clinical response for a wide variety of acute and chronic conditions. But conventional medicine still hasn’t gotten around to employing it as often as it should, as was done with great success (and reported in many, many peer-reviewed professional journals) in the 1920s through the 1950s. In 2008, UVBI therapy is done almost entirely by physicians—including Tahoma Clinic physicians—skilled in natural and nutritional medicine, as well as intravenous (IV) therapies (see “Resources”, page 8.) But with the ever-increasing spread of antibiotic-resistant micro-organisms, it’s well past time “conventional” medicine to goes “back to the future” and starts using this long-ago-proven therapy. The UV-treated conditions we covered in this article—all but one reported in the past two decades, and the majority since the year 2000–are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to UVBI’s healing potential.

Next month, I’ll tell you about those research reports published right here in these United States from the 1920s through the 1950s documenting the use and effectiveness of UV light and UVBI to safely and effectively treat tens of thousands of humans with infections, including viral pneumonia, staphylococcal septicemia (serious, often fatal systemic “staph infection”), poliomyelitis (“polio”), erysipelas (streptococcal skin infection), puerperal sepsis (an often fatal infection also termed “childbirth fever”), staphylococcal skin infection (furunculosis), and paralytic ileus (paralysis of the bowel after surgery, and thrombophlebitis (vein inflammation followed by blood clot). You’ll also read about UV light’s benefits for more common conditions like rheumatoid arthritis, herpes, psoriasis, and diabetes.

Thanks to Lauren Russel N.D. for her organization and summary of the data collected for this article.

More to read: Macular Degeneration Testimonials

Bioidentical Testosterone: The best male anti-aging tool the experts don’t want you to have

Posted on May 24, 2015March 27, 2023 by admin

That basically sums up what’s been going on in the world of HRT since the summer of 2002, when news of the canceled Women’s Health Initiative study broke. Main-stream doctors and researchers have been scrambling to clean up the mess they made after years of prescribing dangerous synthetic hormones and horse hormones to thousands of women. I’ve been doing my own version of damage control, too-explaining to my patients and to you the difference between real, bio-identical estrogens and the synthetic versions that caused so many problems. But now that things have quieted down somewhat on the estrogen front, it looks as if there’s controversy brewing about testosterone-again.

An exact parallel to the Women’s Health Initiative debacle occurred in the 1940s and 1950s, when patent medicine companies sold hundreds of thousands of men a patented, so-called “hormone” called methyltestosterone, pawning it off as the real thing. After a few years of taking this stuff, which had never been found in human or animal bodies before, many of the men developed liver cancers and heart disease. The experts of the day proclaimed that “testosterone therapy” was dangerous, so testosterone research went into a steep decline and didn’t recover until the late 1980s and 1990s.

Last November, a new group of “experts,” convened by the Institute of Medicine, picked up where the old ones had left off, declaring that men shouldn’t consider testosterone as preventive medicine against age-related symptoms. The committee concluded that “existing scientific evidence does not justify claims that testosterone treatments can relieve or prevent certain age-related problems in men.”

I could hardly disagree more. A normal level of testosterone, sustained for a lifetime, is one of the most important anti-aging and staying-healthy tools a man can have. It just depends on what type of testosterone. And, again, synthetic–and patentable– just doesn’t cut it.

For over 30 years, I’ve worked with men ages 45 and up whose symptoms and tests indicated a need for bio-identical testosterone. The results have been gratifying for everyone involved. Most notably, bio-identical testosterone therapy helps improve mood, attitude, cognitive ability, and general outlook on life. Many wives and families have observed that “Grandpa is a lot less grumpy,” remembers things better, and laughs and smiles a lot more often.

Safety first

Let’s address testosterone safety first. Remember, when I refer to testosterone, I mean bio-identical testosteronethe same molecules present in human bodies forevernot some patentable pseudo-testosterone.

As might be expected, the Institute of Medicine committee played on the fear of prostate cancer to discourage testosterone therapy. “There is still much we don’t know about whether testosterone therapy might increase the risk of prostate cancer,” said committee chair Dan Blazer, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. According to their report: “The committee found no compelling evidence of major adverse side effects resulting from testosterone therapy, but the evidence is inadequate to document safety.” The evidence is only inadequate if you refuse to acknowledge it, like all of these so-called experts. There are actually dozens of studies showing just how safe testosterone therapy really is.

For example, in 2002 the International Journal of Andrology published a study that examined 207 men, ages 40 to 83, who had all been found to have low or low-normal testosterone levels.1 The researchers looked at multiple parameters, including prostate volume; PSA; lower urinary tract symptoms, like frequency, urgency, “dribbling,” etc.; and measured levels of several other hormones, including di-hydrotestosterone, or DHT, estradiol, and LH, a marker hormone that has an inverse relationship with testosterone levels-the more LH, the less testosterone and vice versa.

Of the 207 men studied, 187 responded favorably to testosterone treatment. These 187 all showed declines in LH production, as well as improvement in every other parameter measured: Their prostate glands all decreased in size, their PSA numbers went lower, and frequency, urgency, dribbling, and getting up at night all improved.

This study indicates that, far from causing prostate trouble, testosterone is actually beneficial for the prostate gland in the vast majority of cases.

The more testosterone, the sharper your brain…

Researchers also continue to demonstrate that testosterone is beneficial for male mental function. Here are a few excerpts from some of the recent studies supporting this conclusion:

“short-term testosterone administration enhances cognitive function in healthy older men” (2)
“decreased serum testosterone levels….adversely affect verbal memory in normal young men. These results suggest that short-term changes in sex steroid levels have effects on cognitive function in healthy young men” (3)
“beneficial changes in cognition can occur in…men using testosterone replacement and di-hydrotestosterone [DHT] treatment…” (4)
“Positive associations between testosterone levels and cognition are consistent with an effect of androgen treatment…” (5)

That’s all I have space for in this issue, but there’s much more research showing that adequate bio-identical testosterone is import-ant for male cognitive function. Hopefully the “experts” will get around to reading it someday. But in the meantime, let’s move on and go over testosterone’s benefits for your heart.

70 years of heart-health benefits

Not one piece of research since the 1930s has shown bio-identical testosterone to worsen any para-meter of cardiovascular function -quite the opposite, actually.

All the way back in the 1940s, testosterone was found to be an effective treatment in 91 of 100 cases of angina. Then in the 1970s, research showed it to be effective in improving abnormal electrocardiograms. And in the 1990s, a Chinese study showed improvement in both angina and electrocardiograms in older men using testosterone. (6)

Research continues to confirm that testosterone is good for men’s hearts. Two examples taken from very recent studies:

“Men with proven coronary heart disease had significantly lower levels of total testosterone, free testosterone, free androgen index and estradiol…For the first time in clinical settings it has been demonstrated that low levels of free-testosterone was characteristic for patients with low ejection fraction.” (7)

Ejection fraction measures the amount of blood pumped from one of the heart’s chambers, so low testosterone is associated with less blood being pumped.

“Testosterone reduced QT dispersion in [men with] heart failure.” (8)
Higher QT dispersion, a measurement taken form an electrocardiogram, indicates higher risk of death from cardiac arrhythmia. That means in the above study, testosterone reduced the risk of death from cardiac arrhythmia.

A bone-building boost when you need it most

By the time most men hit 70, they “catch up” with women and have just as much osteoporosis and as many bone fractures as women do. This and many other topics are discussed in detail in the book about testosterone I co-authored with Lane Lenard, Ph.D., Maximize Your Vitality and Potency for Men Over 40. So I’ll just quote one bit of more recent research here: “After controlling for age and body mass index, bone mineral density correlated positively with estradiol and testosterone.” (9)

Once again, no one has ever reported that normal levels of bio-identical testosterone are in any way bad for men’s bones.

Don’t wait for the “experts”

If you wait for the usual suspects -I mean experts-to decide whether testosterone is good for you, it will likely be too late. If you want to protect your brain, heart, blood vessels, bones, and muscles-not to mention maintain normal libido-have your levels of testosterone and free testosterone checked routinely. Please make sure to consult a physician skilled and knowledgeable in bio-identical hormone replacement therapy, and follow the precautions in the boxes on pages 2 and 3. To find such a physician, consult the Resources section on page (8).

Keeping testosterone supplementation safe

If your testosterone levels are low and you decide to take testosterone-real, bio-identical testosterone, not a patentable version-make sure to have your PSA level checked before you start, and then check it again in two to three months. If it rises more than a little in that time, you may have uncovered pre-existing prostate cancer. Check with your doctor or a urologist right away, and stop using testosterone until you’ve fully investigated the situation.

Testosterone doesn’t cause prostate cancer all by itself. If it did, there would be an epidemic of prostate cancer in young men. But it does significantly increase the growth rate of a pre-existing cancer that may not have been detected yet.

Keeping all your hormone levels “just right”

Some of your testosterone actually gets converted into estrogen. This small amount of estrogen has important functions for men, just as small quantities of testosterone have important functions for women. In younger men, only a small quantity of testosterone is converted. But in some older men, testosterone-to-estrogen conversion is dramatically accelerated, resulting in levels of estrogens much higher than usual for men.

If you decide to use supplemental testosterone, be sure to check regularly to make sure this isn’t happening to you. At present, blood testing isn’t sufficient, because very few laboratories check estrone, estradiol, and estriol in men’s blood. I prefer 24-hour urine testing for sex steroids, which includes testosterone, estrone, estradiol, estriol, progesterone, DHEA, androsterone, and etiocholanolone. Besides, this type of testing is much less expensive than blood testing.

More to read: Degenerative Arthritis (Osteoarthritis)

Strontium – Fight-even prevent-osteoporosis with the hidden secrets of this bone-building miracle mineral

Posted on August 9, 2013March 28, 2023 by admin

Entirely natural compounds of strontium (including strontium lactate, strontium gluconate, and strontium carbonate) as well as the semi-synthetic compound strontium ranelate have all been used to good effect by various researchers. But this does not necessarily mean that these studies are generalizable to one another.

As to natural strontium: Mayo Clinic researchers noted clinical and x-ray improvement in severe osteoporosis with strontium lactate (footnote 4 to the Article below); Dr. Marie reported significant microscopic improvement in bone with the use of strontium carbonate (footnote 6 to the Article below); Dr. Jonathan Wright has observed significant improvement in bone-density with the use of strontium citrate. These observations about natural strontium, however, are not precisely the same as those made about the semi-synthetic compound, strontium ranelate, which has been the subject of placebo-controlled, double-blind studies differing from the studies of others. Each piece of research should be judged on its own merits. Despite distinctions among these studies, Dr. Wright’s conclusion about strontium compounds remains the same: strontium compounds are highly efficacious in preventing and combating osteoporosis.

Below is a letter from a lawyer representing financial interests behind a patented semi-synthetic compound of strontium. You may read this letter or jump straight to Dr. Wright’s article.

We are writing on behalf of Les Laboratoires (“Sevier”). Over the past several years, Servier has conducted several clinical studies of a new patented molecule called strontium ranelate (the “Servier Studies”).

It has recently come to our attention that you are citing the Servier Studies in literature posted on your Web site in connection with the promotion of stontium mineral supplements manufactured by Advanced Orthomolecular Research (“AOR”). The article on your Web site that makes these claims is entitled “Fight, even prevent, osteoporosis with the hidden secrets of this bone-building micacle mineral” and is by Jonathan V. Wright (the “Content”).

The Content refers to the Servier Studies as support for its erroneous claims about strontium. In fact, the Servier Studies were conducted only with strontium ranelate, not strontium. Moreover, strontium ranelate is not currently approved for sale in the United States for the treatment of osteoporosis. The Content states:

In a three-year, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study using 680 milligrams of strontium daily, women suffering from osteoporosis experienced a 41 percent reduction in risk of a vertebral fracture, compared with placebo. And, overall vertebrae density in the strontium group increased by 11.4 percent but there was a 1.3 percent decrease in the placebo group.

However, this study, Servier’s Phase III “SOTI” Study, was conducted only with strontium ranelate, not strontium alone, and does not support any claims about strontium standing alone.

In a second study published last year, 353 women who had suffered at least one vertebral fracture due to osteoporosis took varying levels of strontium ranelate or a placebo. The women who took 680 milligrams of strontium daily had an increase in lumbar bone mineral density of approximately 3 percent per year, significantly greater than placebo. By the second year of the study, there was a significant decrease in additional fractures in the strontium group as compared with the placebo group.

This paragraph refers to Servier’s Phase II “STRATOS” Study, which was also conducted using strontium ranelate. This paragraph initially refers to strontium ranelate, but continues to refer only to “strontium” and does not explain what strontium ranelate is. The clear message of this paragraph is that the results apply to strontium. They do not. Even in the unlikely event a few readers will appreciate that the study relates to strontium ranelate and not strontium, the Content creates the impression that the AOR mineral supplements were the subject of the Servier Study.

Finally, the Content states:

A final 2002 publication examined the effects of strontium on early postmenopausal bone loss. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 160 women whose menopause had occurred naturally six months to five years previously and who did not have osteoporosis were asked to take placebo or varying amounts of strontium daily. Compared to the placebo group, women who took 340 milligrams strontium a day had a significant increase in bone mineral density in two years’ time. All groups also took 500 milligrams of calcium daily, but no hormones or vitamin D.

This paragraph refers to Sevier’s Phase II “PREVOS” Study, which, again, was conducted with strontium ranelate, not strontium.

In short, the Content relies on tests conducted only on strontium ranelate to support claims about the effectiveness of strontium. Strontium was not the subject of these clinical trials and has notbeen demonstrated to have the effects reported in the Content. Furthermore, even strontium ranelate is not currently approved for sale in the United States as a treatment for osteoporosis. While the Servier Studies are lawful, scholarly articles published in peer-reviewed professional literature, the Content is part of an unlawful marketing effort directed to the general public to promote an unapproved drug.

The obvious result is to mislead readers of the Content into believing that purchasing and taking one of the strontium products that you sell will permit them to experience that same salutary results as was achieved by the subjects described in the Servier Studies. Indeed, this seems to be the very purpose of the Content, as it states: “Since this new combination [strontium ranelate] has a good deal of profit potential and other all natural forms of strontium don’t, I’d be willing to bet that before too long we’ll start hearing that this new combination is the only form of strontium ‘approved’ to help rebuild bone.”

Additionally, the Content acknowledges that “the most recent strontium-osteoporosis research used a patentable combination…” but goes on to state “but remember, it’s the strontium doing the work!” The Content offers no support for this statement, and indeed there is none.

As a result, the false and misleading statements in connection with the sale of strontium are likely to lead consumers to the false conclusion that strontium has the same effectiveness as strontium ranelate or that the AOR mineral supplements were used in the Servier Studies. As such, your actions constitute, inter alia, false description and false advertising in violation of both state and federal law including the federal Trademark Act 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), and the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 331 (prohibited acts).

In addition, the Content erroneously states that “so far, [strontium ranelate has] been available only in Europe under the trademark Protos…” This statement is incorrect – the name of the product is PROTELOS, and it is not yet available.

Our client considers this a very serious matter and has authorized us to take all necessary and appropriate action to prevent any continued wrongdoing. To that end, unless you provide us with your prompt written assurances, to be received no later than July 21, 2004, that you have immediately ceased and desisted from posting, publishing, distributing, or using the Content (or any other material) in any way to suggest that the Servier Studies relate to strontium or that AOR’s mineral supplements were part of the Servier Studies, we will take the necessary steps to immediately stop your wrongful activities, including filing a formal complaint with the appropriate federal agencies.

Fight-even prevent-osteoporosis with the hidden secrets of this bone-building miracle mineral

If you haven’t heard of Forteo® yet, get ready. It’s the latest “miracle” on the patent medicine scene, so I have no doubt the media frenzy is on its way. Especially since the mainstream just hasn’t found many options for osteoporosis, the condition for which Forteo supposedly works wonders.

In November 2002, news of Forteo’s approval hit and it was immediately touted as the first patented formulation designed to “stimulate the growth of new bone.” Well, part of that is true: It is the first patented substance designed for that purpose. But what about calcium, other vitamins and minerals, and identical-to-natural hormones? These items obviously stimulate bone growth. After all, they’re the materials our bodies use to grow from infant to adult size. And I’ve seen women and even a few men increase their bone density by very significant margins when they supplement with these natural items. But somehow, they’re not considered “scientifically proven.”

And, truth be told, none of the presently sold patent medicines for osteoporosis actually stimulate new bone growth. They all “work” by slowing the destruction of bone, technically called “inhibiting bone resorption.”

At any rate, there are some distinct and serious risks involved with Forteo. After singing its praises, the media also reported that “FDA officials said the drug, given by injection daily, will carry a special warning because in laboratory tests it caused cancerous bone tumors in rats.” Of course, the “consolation” is that the cancerous tumors hadn’t yet been seen in the 2,000 people injected with the drug in clinical trials.

So much for drug safety!

Fortunately, there’s a much, much safer natural mineral alternative that stimulates the growth of new bone. It’s been around for millions of years. And one of the first favorable clinical trials on this mineral and osteoporosis was reported from the Mayo Clinic way back in 1959. Strontium is in the same mineral family as calcium and magnesium, and it’s been shown to promote bone growth in both animals and people.

Before you get nervous, let me clarify something: I’m not referring to radioactive “strontium 90″ that many of us were forced to hide from under our schoolroom desks in the 1950s during “A-bomb drills.” This kind is all-natural and very, very safe.

A bone-building timeline

The first studies on strontium in relation to bone density were done in the early 20th century. In 1910, one German researcher reported that strontium appeared to be uniquely effective in stimulating rapid formation of bone.1 Ten years later, another German researcher concluded that strontium and calcium were superior to calcium alone in mineralizing bone.2 Following these publications, there were conflicting reports about the effects of strontium until a 1952 report from Cornell University concluded the same thing as the second German study: that calcium and strontium work better together than calcium alone for rebuilding bone.

Now on to that clinical trial I mentioned earlier. In 1959, Mayo Clinic physicians reported they had asked 22 individuals with severe, painful osteoporosis to take 1,700 milligrams of strontium daily. Another 10 people took the same amount of strontium along with estrogen and testosterone. In the hormones plus strontium group, nine of 10 experienced marked improvement of their symptoms, and the other one had moderate improvement. In the strontium-only group, 18 of 22 had marked improvement and the other four had moderate improvement. That means that every single person had some improvement using strontium.

Unfortunately, after that, things died down in the strontium/osteoporosis world. Why, you might wonder? Well, my guess would be that the patent medicine industry tried its best to come up with a synthetic version of strontium that they could trademark and make a profit from. But when they couldn’t find one, they gave up. Unpatentable substances just aren’t researched by patent medication companies, which pretend to be interested in your health but really are only interested in you if they can sell you a patent medication. So research on strontium (as well as any other natural substance) has been woefully neglected.

Twenty-two years elapsed between the Mayo Clinic report and the next bit of published strontium research in humans. In this study, patients with cancer metastatic to bone achieved improved bone density and a lessening of pain in cancer-affected areas.

Then, in 1985, researchers reported results of strontium supplementation on bone formation in six humans. Bone biopsies were done before and after six months of strontium supplementation. The researchers wrote: “Following strontium therapy, all [measurements] of bone formation increased, while bone resorption remained unchanged.”6 Sixteen years later, a research group led by the same individual wrote a review of strontium activity. They stated: “In addition to its anti-resorptive activity, strontium was found to have anabolic (tissue-building) activity in bone.”

The principal author of these research papers had his volunteers take strontium carbonate. His predecessors used strontium lactate and strontium gluconate. It’s important to note that all these forms of strontium had a favorable effect, which means that the strontium itself-not the combination-is doing the work. It may not sound like much, but knowing this little tidbit could end up saving you a lot of money. You see, the most recent strontium-osteoporosis research used a patentable strontium combination. Strontium itself isn’t patentable, but it was combined with a patented, synthetic substance called ranelic acid, which makes the combination patentable. So far, it’s been available only in Europe under the trademark Protos,® but remember, it’s the strontium doing the work! The patent medicine companies and the media aren’t going to tell you that, though. Since this new combination has a good deal of profit potential and other allnatural forms of strontium don’t, I’d be willing to bet that before too long we’ll start hearing that this new combination is the only form of strontium “approved” to help rebuild bone. Just keep in mind that all “approval” means is that forms have been filled out and money has changed hands. It doesn’t mean a substance is safe, or that it’s the only form of treatment.

One natural cure finally gets the attention it deserves

But all of the attention focused on patenting strontium has done one good thing-it’s sparked interest and funding for more strontium/osteoporosis research. True, most of the current studies have been done on the patentable combination. But as noted above, it’s the strontium itself that’s doing the work, not the substance with which it’s combined. So these results are still good news.

In a three-year, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study using 680 milligrams of strontium daily, women suffering from osteoporosis experienced a 41 percent reduction in risk of a vertebral fracture, compared with placebo. And, overall vertebrae density in the strontium group increased by 11.4 percent but there was a 1.3 percent decrease in the placebo group.

In a second study published last year, 353 women who had suffered at least one vertebral fracture due to osteoporosis took varying levels of strontium ranelate or a placebo. The women who took 680 milligrams of strontium daily had an increase in lumbar bone mineral density of approximately 3 percent per year, significantly greater than placebo. By the second year of the study, there was a significant decrease in additional fractures in the strontium group as compared with the placebo group.

A final 2002 publication examined the effects of strontium on early postmenopausal bone loss. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 160 women whose menopause had occurred naturally six months to five years previously and who did not have osteoporosis were asked to take placebo or varying amounts of strontium daily. Compared to the placebo group, women who took 340 milligrams strontium a day had a significant increase in bone mineral density in two years’ time. All groups also took 500 milligrams of calcium daily, but no hormones or vitamin D.

Let me re-state that: Post-menopausal women without osteoporosis who took no replacement hormones (or vitamin D) but only calcium still had an increase in bone density with the use of strontium! So not only can strontium repair existing damage, it can actually help prevent you from suffering with osteoporosis in the first place. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s strontium ranelate, strontium gluconate, strontium lactate, or strontium carbonate. As long as it’s strontium, it’s good for you!

Stontium is even safer than placebo

Of course, I’m sure you’ve heard the warning: “Just because it’s natural doesn’t mean it’s safe.” The medical mainstream loves to toss this one around. While that’s true, it’s also true that the odds are in favor of nature: If you placed bets on the safety of natural substances vs. patent medications, you’d win money nearly every time. But even so, it’s still important to examine the evidence.

I’ll start with the new patentable strontium combination, strontium ranelate. In the two-year study with recently postmenopausal women using 340 milligrams of strontium, the researchers reported more “adverse events” in the placebo group than in the strontium group. The most common complaints in both groups were diarrhea, nausea, gastritis, and indigestion.

In the two-year study of women who previously had one vertebral fracture (obviously in worse health than the early postmenopausal group), there was no significant difference in side effects in either the strontium group or the placebo group, with the sole exception of an elevation of the muscle enzyme creatinine phosphokinase (CPK), which the researchers termed mild, transient, and of “no clinical significance.” But since strontium ranelate is the semi-synthetic, patentable form, I’m not sure I trust the synthetic part of the combination. So, if you decide to take this formulation, be sure to have your CPK levels checked regularly.

In the human studies reported prior to 2002, quantities of up to 1,700 milligrams of strontium per day were taken with no reports of significant side effects.

However, there is a caution from animal studies. Animals deliberately given a low calcium diet and then supplemented with relatively high doses of strontium developed bone deformities. From a purely scientific standpoint, this is a predictable result: Bones contain much more calcium than strontium or any other mineral, so depriving them of what they need, then trying to “make up” for it with only one part of the equation is bound to present problems. Fortunately, there’s much more calcium than strontium in any human diet–so I doubt it would ever happen. But to absolutely safe, follow this simple rule: Always take more calcium than strontium.

Strontium sources you can trust – without resorting to Forteo

Now for a bit of bad news: There’s not enough strontium in our food to have a significant effect if you have osteoporosis already, so if you’re suffering from this condition, you should take strontium in supplement form. But if you don’t have osteoporosis, it’s a good idea to eat foods that contain more strontium to prevent it from occurring. The largest amounts of strontium are found in spices, seafood, whole grains, root and leafy vegetables, and legumes.

Until recently, the only source of supplemental strontium was Osteoprime, the osteoporosis formula put together by Alan Gaby, M.D., and me. But now there are more sources for you to choose from. One of these is called Strontium Support and is made by the company Advanced Orthomolecular Research (AOR) of Calgary. Each capsule of Strontium Support contains 227 milligrams strontium. Check your local natural food or vitamin store to see if they carry this supplement. They can contact AOR at www.AOR.ca. (I have no connection, financial or otherwise, with AOR.)

A final note: Please don’t take injections of Forteo. You really don’t want to be the first non-rat to develop a cancerous bone tumor from taking it. Instead, take the (much safer) road less traveled and add strontium to your supplement program. Take one 227-milligram capsule three times a day. For those without osteoporosis but higher risk (family history, immobility, etc.) one capsule daily is probably adequate for preventive purposes. And make sure you’re taking even more calcium- 1,200-1,500 milligrams a day is a good general range-along with magnesium and other “backup” minerals and other nutrients.

Can I die from sleep apnea?

Is Sleep Apnea Dangerous?

What Are the Risks of Untreated Sleep Apnea?

Can Sleep Apnea Cause Death Suddenly During Sleep?

Signs of Sleep Apnea

When to See a Doctor

What Should be the Motivating Factors to Getting LASIK Surgery?

What is Eye Surgery LASIK?

When LASIK is Performed, How Does it Work?

Is LASIK a Good Idea for You?

Need to Achieve Complete Visual Independence in One Day

Have negative experiences with contacts or glasses

Health Related Problems

Booster of Confidence

Athletics

Work Responsibility

Constant Movement

Contact Personal Eyes Today to Schedule Your FREE LASIK Consultation

Considering Eye Surgery? LASIK May Be the Right Option for You

What Is Lasik Eye Surgery?

What Is Lasik Eye Surgery For?

Myopia

Hyperopia

Astigmatism

What to Expect When Getting Lasik Surgery

Before Surgery

During the Procedure

After the Procedure

Conclusion: Is LASIK Laser Eye Surgery Ideal for You?

Eye Surgery LASIK – Is This the Right Treatment for You?

What Is LASIK Laser Eye Surgery?

Laser Eye Surgery, LASIK, and SMILE – What’s the Difference?

Types of Laser Eye Surgery

LASIK

SMILE

ICL

When to Get Laser Eye Surgery

If You Have Myopia

If You Have Hyperopia

If You Have Astigmatism

Who Can Get LASIK Laser Eye Surgery?

Conclusion: Is Eye Surgery, LASIK, Suitable for You?