Strontium: An Alternative Treatment For Osteoporosis

[Guest guest]

Thanks Sharoon; though I am not sure if I should take any credit here. I was

confused after reading that article. And I had noticed over the last few years

that the media will publish info and studies about various vitamins etc and say

that the vitamins etc are harmful.But when reads the studies, it is plain that

synthetic vitamins etc were used 9 [as in the case of vitamin E, for example].

This is purposely trying to mislead the public in my opinion and with Codex on

the horizon and the FDA as well as Health Canada wanting to stop people from

using alternative health treatments and cures, it is not that surprising

actually. I suppose, but it is hard sometimes to remember that when one has been

raised to trust the governents, and allopathic medicine. I should know better, I

have been misdiagnosed often enough and so have many others that I know.. and

then there is all the harm that drugs do everyone....... And as far as I know,

in spite of all the efforts of the drug companies as well as the FDA, Health

Canada etc - never has anybody been able to prove that natural vitamins etc have

ever harmed anybody regardless the dosage...

 

23 YEARS OF DOCUMENTED VITAMIN SAFETY

References:

1. Annual Reports of the American Association of Poison Control Centers'

National Poisoning and Exposure Database (formerly known as the Toxic Exposure

Surveillance System). AAPCC, 3201 New Mexico Avenue, Ste. 330, Washington, DC

20016. Download any report from1983-2005 at http://www.aapcc.org/annual.htm free

of charge. The " Vitamin " category is usually near the end of the report.

For 2005 http://www.aapcc.org/Annual%20Reports/05report/2005%20Publsihed.pdf

For 2004

http://www.aapcc.org/Annual%20Reports/04report/AJEM%20-%20AAPCC%20Annual%20Repor\

t%202004.pdf

For 2003

http://www.aapcc.org/Annual%20Reports/03report/Annual%20Report%202003.pdf

For any other year: http://www.aapcc.org/annual.htm

http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v03n04.shtml

 

NO DEATHS FROM VITAMINS: Poison Control Statistics Prove Supplements' Safety

References:

1. Lai MW, Klein-Schwartz W, Rodgers GC et al. 2005 Annual Report of the

American Association of Poison Control Centers' national poisoning and exposure

database. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2006; 44(6-7): 803-932. Free download from

http://www.aapcc.org/Annual%20Reports/05report/2005%20Publsihed.pdf . Vitamins

statistics are found in Table 22, towards the end of the report.

For further reading:

Download any Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers

from 1983-2005 free of charge at: http://www.aapcc.org/annual.htm The " Vitamin "

category is usually at the very end of the report.

http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v03n03.shtml

 

Vitamin E Prevents Lung Cancer

News Media Virtually Silent on Positive Vitamin Research

http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v04n18.shtml

 

DOCTORS SAY VITAMINS ARE SAFE

Follow-Up Report by the Independent Vitamin Safety Review Panel

(OMNS July 11, 2006) More and more practicing physicians are coming forward in

support of vitamins. Drawing on decades of actual experience with many thousands

of patients, family doctors and specialists assert that vitamin supplements are

safe and effective even in high doses.

http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v02n07.shtml

 

And there are many more at

http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml

Had enough of vitamin-bashing newspaper, magazine and TV reports? Then you might

want to sign up for the ORTHOMOLECULAR MEDICINE NEWS SERVICE (OMNS). Like the

Associated Press or Reuters, OMNS is a wire-service style news feed directed to

members of the press, radio and TV news media. The difference is that OMNS tells

it like it really is: vitamin therapy saves lives.

 

Anyways I am glad that is cleared up - I was very confused. I know people whom

have used strontium and got very good results, plus think a lot of DR Jonathon

Wright and he advocates it, as well as a very good website which is entirely

focused only on cures and effective treatments, the Arthritic Fund of America.

We tell folks how to get well from so-called incurable auto-immune or collagen

tissue diseases such as Rheumatoid Arthritis and related diseases. Here you will

find publications and physician referrals. When money is available, we fund

alternative, complementary, holistic medical research.

http://www.sci-fiction.com/WhatWeStandFor.htm

 

My Environmental doctor uses it now too and wheras nobody is infallible, she

is a very very good doctor whom truely does care about healing and her patients.

 

blessings

Shan

 

 

, " Starshar " <starshar

wrote:

>

> Shan,

> Good for you in paying close attention to the strontium information. The fact

that they are calling it Strontium 'Ranelate', and also mention " new drug "

should've raised my red flags.

> It sure doesn't sound like the natural mineral.

> Also, someone had mentioned the dangers of " strontium 90 " . There was a big

scare about this, maybe 15 yrs ago, and my memory of what I read at the time is

now hazy. My recall is that the strontium 90 is a radioactive factor that had

been found in milk, and probably other substances. (this needs updated

research!)

>

> But that is still not the same as the natural mineral, strontium.

>

> Thanks, Shan!

>

> Sharon

>

> > In reading this I keep getting the impression that they are basing their

opinions on a drug ,not the natural mineral. And I know that regardless hwo much

the drug companies try to tell us differently, that drugs which are supposedly

knock offs of natural substances - aspirin for one - are not the same at all as

if easily seen in the side effects of the drugs which the natural products do

not have. So I have become suspicious of studies that seem to say that natural

nutrients have damageing efffects,

> >

> > It is just me or do you also get the impression that they are considering a

knock-off drugs substitute for the minerals strontium?? I know that the articles

I posted before as well as my doctor's experiance, - they ALL used the natural

mineral of strontium.

> >

> > blessings

> > Shan

> >

> > , " Starshar " <starshar@>

wrote:

> >>

> >> Do you have any idea where you could have read about these negative side

effects for strontium? I would very much appreciate it as I haven't found any.

And my doctor is using strontium with some of her patients and so is a good

friend of mine. blessings Shan

> >>

> >> I have the following saved to a file. I hope it's alright to reproduce this

here, because I do not have the original posters name saved. Sharon

> >> ****

> >>

> >> The promotion of essential micronutrients like sex hormones, vitamins and

minerals for multisystem health including bones is vital.

> >>

> >> But what evidence for longterm cost:benefit is there for strontium

supplement for anything let alone bones?

> >>

> >> A warning was published in 2005 (Prescrire Int. 2005;14:207-11.) Strontium:

new drug. Postmenopausal osteoporosis: too many unknowns. [No authors listed]).

http://www.level1diet.com/759319_id. No new strontium trials have appeared

since. And all the big strontium trials have been done by one group, funded by

the manufacturer.

> >>

> >> There is in fact only one solitary major trial published of sodium

ranelate in osteoporosis, the SOTI-TROPOS trial by Reginster, Meneur ea for the

strontium ranelate SrR manufacturers (Servier) at 72 centers in 11 European

countries and Australia, in some 5000 postmenopausal women recruited from 1996

through 1998 ie till about 2003, with either previous postmenopausal fracture

or frank osteoporosis: All on 1 to 1.5gm calcium and vitamin D 400-800iu/day,

they were randomized to placebo or SrR 2gm/day. After a mean of 3 years,

compared to placebo, vertebral fractures in 1442 women at a mean of 69yrs were

reduced by 49% from baseline , but in the entire cohort nonvertebral fractures

were reduced by only 16% from baseline at mean age of 77yrs.. All fractures

were reduced from 12.9% to 11.2% ie 4.3%pa to 3.7%pa; hip fractures from 3.4%

to 2.9%, vertebral fractures from 14% to 7.7%.

> >>

> >> Are these differences significant for patient care, when the longterm

effects of strontium therapy are unknown, and the longterm adverse effects of

biphosphonates are becoming horrifically clear?

> >>

> >> But these trials of SrR used only weak baseline prevention of lowdose

calcium and vitamin D . Magnesium, estrogen. vigorous-dose vitamin D eg

2000iu/d, vitamin K, androgen, boron, zinc, and the numerous other preventative

bone-and muscle-strengthening supplements were apparently specifically excluded

or omitted.

> >>

> >> And like the concurrent Womens' Health Initiative, the SOTI-TROPOS trial

was stopped woefully too soon instead of letting it run for at least 10 years to

see the longterm benefit (if any). Worst of all, it did not test whether SrR

adds any benefit on a sensible baseline of all the proven supplements that we

have used for decades.

> >>

> >> As Winzenberg ea ask in a recent 2007 Australian review, Strontium

ranelate Does it affect the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis?

http://www.racgp.org.au/Content/NavigationMenu/Publications/AustralianFamilyPhys\

/2007issues/afp2007august/200708wizenberg.pdf

> >> " Strontium ranelate did not cause gastritis, back pain or death, but more

or less doubled numerous adverse effects :

> >> *50% more (ie six out of 100 women taking strontium ranelate) experienced

diarrhoea compared to four out of 100 taking placebo,

> >> . The risk of vascular system disorders including venous thromboembolism

(two trials, n=6669, 2.2 vs. 1.5%, OR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.1-2.1) , pulmonary

embolism (two trials, n=6669, 0.8 vs. 0.4%, OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.0-3.1) as well as

nervous system disorders such as headache (3.9 vs. 2.9%), seizures (0.3 vs.

0.1%), memory loss (2.4 vs. 1.9%) and disturbance in consciousness (2.5 vs.

2.0%) is slightly increased with taking 2 g of SrR daily over 3-4 years

> >> . There were no RCTs identified which compared SrR to other treatments of

postmenopausal osteoporosis. "

> >>

> >> It is common cause that the chief risk factor for fracture is not bone

density but frailty, falls; and that the only microsupplements that strengthen

muscle are apparently androgen, zinc, calcium and magnesium and the vitamins D

and B6, 9 and 12. There is no absolute contraindication to appropriate long

term human androgen plus estrogen replacement .

> >>

> >> Now Fuchs ea show that " Strontium ranelate does not stimulate bone

formation in ovariectomized rats " ..

http://www.galenicom.com/pt/medline/article/18385919/Strontium+ranelate+does+not\

+stimulate+bone+formation+in+ovariectomized+rats./ - sex hormones are necessary

for strontium to benefit bones.

> >>

> >> With the old fashioned calmag, zinc, boron, fluoride vitamins A-E, and

parenteral androgen plus estrogen, we have seen bone density rise by 1%pa and

hip density by 1/2% pa over 15years from age 52 in a frail woman with severe

rheumatoid arthritis, despite management with corticosteroid and other remittive

drugs, and repeated surgeries to replace destroyed joints. She has never

sustained an osteoporotic fracture.

> >>

> >> So what is the indication to add the long-term (ie >10year) unproven

strontium to proven effective supplements?

> >>

> >> Strontium ranelate may work in the medium term (3 to 5 years) but there is

still apparently no more justification for using strontium routinely for

preventing/ treating ageing osteoporosis than there is for biphosphonates or

calcitonin. Considering it's cost including risks, it may be asked if it is

ethical to recommed strontium at more than trace levels?

> >> Refs at http://healthspanlife.wordpress.com/

>