UV rays—beyond sunburn

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

Posted on 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.

See also: cataracts surgery

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.

UV rays—beyond sunburn

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.

UV rays—beyond sunburn

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

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

Posted on 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.

See Also: laser eye surgery Sydney

Bioidentical Testosterone

Plus, bio-identical testosterone improves muscle mass and strength, rebuilds bone, strengthens the heart and blood vessels, lowers total cholesterol and blood sugar, raises HDL (“good”) cholesterol, lowers blood pressure, lessens the chances of blood clots, improves tissue oxygenation, improves the health of a non-cancerous prostate gland-and that’s all before we get to testosterone’s positive effects on libido and your sex life.

So what’s all the fuss about? The chairman of the panel said in part: “Recent experience with the Women’s Health Initiative-which studied hormone therapy in postmenopausal women for many years-underscores the importance of approaching future studies of testosterone therapy thoughtfully and carefully.”

The Institute of Medicine committee is apparently more than a little confused, pointing to bad results from a horse hormone and synthetic, patentable “progestin,” and using those results to brand real hormones-even natural, bio-identical ones-as potentially dangerous. And they’re also ignoring results of research using bio-identical testosterone stretching back to 1935. But then, I’ve come to expect this from medical “experts.”

So instead of relying on the half-truths the “experts” continue to pass off as absolute fact, let’s take a look at some of the studies published over the last five years, which continue to show that bio-identical testosterone is good for men who need it.

Safety first

Let’s address testosterone safety first. Remember, when I refer to testosterone, I mean bio-identical testosterone—the same molecules present in human bodies forever—not 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.

Bioidentical Testosterone

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

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

Posted on 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”).

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

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!

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

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.