Monthly Archives: April 2008


BBC NEWS again reports that “osteoporosis drug risks heart”, because some recent studies -in NEJM and the Annals of Int Medicine – found up to doubling in the incidence of atrial fibrillation.

But the only people who need Fosamax and other bisphosphanates used for osteoporosis are those with vested interests in this lucrative designer industry, since most people will develop osteoporosis unless it is prevented.

Why use these potentially lethal drugs for osteoporosis when they are not clinically necessary? and when they do not reduce non-osteoporosis mortality, contribute nothing to prevention of all the other inevitable diseases of premature aging? (see the Bisphosphonate Deception below – 6 April , 19 March, 5 March – eg they may cause jaw necrosis, longbone fractures, toxoderma, oesophageal obstruction, diffuse pain.. ).

Osteoporosis is easily preventable and reversible – and all risks (fracture, vascular, cancer, infective, arthritic, depressive, dementing) minimized – by sensible lifestyle plus the simple early and permanent safe lowcost combination of natural proven appropriate preventatives – the vitamins B,C,D and K; and minerals calcium, magnesium, boron and zinc (as eg a powder For-BoneSpan Blend), and appropriate physiological millennia-old HRT (for men, testosterone ; for women- testosterone plus estradiol -whether as daily cream / patch, or fortnightly tiny subcutaneous self-injection, or 3-6 monthly subcutaneous implant ).

Most doctors fail (or choose) to understand that appropriate hormone replacement is a hundred-year old internal medicine – endocrine – speciality to protect all the body systems from lethal deficiencies, not a surgical decision “just” about gynaecological or sexual protection. They choose to ignore that while endocrine diseases are increasingly common – all needing appropriate hormone therapy eg diabetes types 1 (insulin), and 2 (metfomin), hypothyroidism (thyroid) , Addisons disease (cortisone) etc – the commonest endocrine deficiency is aging-related hypogonadism, which affects 100% of women and at least half of men if they live well past middle age.

Yet many people – and doctors- fall for the nonsensical marketing hype of the gigantic designer drug industry, that appropriate hormone replacement is dangerous and unnecessary, and that the commonest hormone deficiency of aging – hypogonadism- does not need permanent and natural hormone replacement, can be treated instead with xenotherapy – non-human – designer drugs like the statins, antidepressants, bisphosphonates, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories, progestins, SERMS, phytohormones.

They gloss over that these substitutes each have serious risks, and none of the global multisystem benefits of physiological balanced human sexhormones – eg prevention of hypertension, diabetes, atheroma, infection, depression, sarcopenia, premature death – that have been refined by a million years of evolution.

It is convenient for them to ignore that all other endocrine replacement is with physiological measurable human hormones- including testosterone for men- but for profit reasons for the past 50 years, half of aging humans – with the commonest endocrine deficiency, gonadopausal women – are fobbed off with inappropriate oral xenotherapy. Increasing numbers of women and and doctors are understandably rebelling against this fraudulent nonsense. But with clever journalists and researchers paid millions to churn out disinformation about old and proven therapy – including lobbyists in universities and professional bodies- in favour of patent drugs, it may be difficult to find healthcare providers willing to go against the Disease-Industry controlled mainstream, the obvious economic imperative that Prevention Does Not Pay, Only Disease Pays..



It’s tragicomedy that the BBC – the quintessential British spokespersona – laments NHS woes: * UK c.diff deaths ‘rising sharply’ * “The equivalent of one person an hour dies in hospital from clostridium difficile, figures suggest.”

And yet Authorities there and mostwhere are still in denial about enforcing simple safe low-cost multi-system prevention – in this instance to keep people out of bed and hospital, off antibiotics.
Authorities- regulators, politicians, the Tax Man – benefit as hugely from disease as do their fairy godmother the Disease Industry- the Drug conglomerates and their researchers and lobbyists, private hospitals, medical schemes – that pay them handsomely and creates myriad factories and jobs.

So because it is not profitable, Prevention Does Not Pay, no matter that it adds decades to health:

*There is no move to ban smoking, to make it (and sale, and allowance thereof) a criminal offence.

*No move to immediately jail drunken drivers for a long time, and on second offence permanently confiscate their driving licence and ban them permanently from current and future public office and public vehicle driving, be they judges or janitors, cabinet ministers or cabbies.

*The banning of deadly polluting coal-and oil-powered vehicles and major electricity sources has been blocked for decades by the endlessly greedy and ruthless oil-based industry magnates, despite the fact that these finite energy sources are desperately needed for other purposes. Now the world faces immediate famine because the oil-based transport-and energy behemoths (who have blocked investment in natural – solar – energy for decades) are paying bigger dollars for crop and marine resources as energy supplies than most consumers can afford to pay for these finite resources as food.

*No official move to acknowledge that the best drugs for both prevention and chronic treatment are the long-proven natural low-cost vigorous safe daily doses of a few score appropriate micronutrient supplements – vitamins (~15), minerals(~10) and biologicals (human and other species’) that are increasingly inadequate in the food chain in longer-lived increasingly overweight stressed humans facing worsening man-made epidemics and environmental disaster.

*No serious move yet by the US FDA- the chief protector of the new drugs industry of the west -English- Europe- Japan – (against the interests of consumers) to enforce integrity, insist that no chronic designer drugs for the chronic major common degenerative diseases be released for general use until they have been proven both at least as safe and effective as those already existing and effective, in major randomised controlled trials of a mean of at least 8years, head to head against both older designer drugs, and long-proven natural drugs, for similar purpose, in those diseases.

*The past decade alone has seen condemnation of myriad unproven unnecessary and risky released drugs –
on Wikipedia alone at least a dozen – eg Propulsid; cerivastatin; Vioxx; pemoline; benzbromarone; torcetrapib; and the discrediting of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as no better – and potentially more hazardous than- appropriate cortisone and micronutrient use, and
newer designer antidepressants and anticlotting agents as less safe and effective than appropriately used older ones;

*the unnecessary anti-osteoporosis bisphosphonates that are increasingly associated with the very long-bone fractures they are supposed to prevent;

*and most especially the wannabe oral anti-diabetic anti-atheroma and anti-obesity drugs – statins, rimonabant, glitazones, meglitanides and sulphonylureas – as inferior to and less safe than metformin, the 85year old plant extract which is the only designer drug ever proven as invaluable panacea in a 20year RCT, tested against sulphonylureas, but not against all other modern designer drugs which (as in more recent studies) have never been shown to meaningfully reduce all-cause morbidity and mortality as does metformin.

The until-recent FDA haste to licence new drugs after scanty trials was reminiscent of the criminal conspiracy between the FDA and industry that licenced the already contested diethylstilbestrol Chicago trial of 1950- and kept that drug on the market another 25years after it was discredited. And it was in stark contrast to the FDA (to protect USA drug companies) blocking drugs already in highly effective use elsewhere for decades, like lithium carbonate, metformin and betablockers.

Since no drug corporations promote the out-of-patent old and proven agents, authorities cannot afford to promote truth – that the only remedies for chronic prevention that lower all-cause disease and mortality by between a third and a half – overweight, obesity, diabetes, cancer, hypertension, arthritis, osteoporosis fractures, vascular disease, acute infections, depression, dementia – are:

-fish oil a few grams a day- which also drastically lowers behavioural and learning disorders;
-a lowcost simple blend of a few score other proven natural micronutrients – the fifteen vitamins, ten minerals and the human / other species’ biologicals including herbs;
-metformin titrated to tolerance about 2.5gms a day, for both prevention and treatment of overweight, diabetes type 2 and most major chronic degenerative diseases; &
-appropriate conservative balanced sex hormone replacement in most older men and women, as proven in the landmark Womens’ Health Initiative and Finnish Oulu randomised controlled trials, and numerous other studies in major centres in North America, UK, Europe, Australia and South Africa, since 1953.

It is a tenet of endocrinology for the past 60 years that all major hormone deficiencies should be replaced permanently and physiologically with the same human hormones, yet there are still those, even medical specialists, who would deny this to those most in need – from middle age onwards, especially women. At least some of these specialists have the honesty to disclose that they are well paid by drug compnies to be advocates and trialists for the wannabe designer drugs to supplant the old.

Recognition of appropriate measured low cost HRT and the other proven listed supplements for all aging people would of course rob the drug industry of perhaps 90% of it’s market for it’s wannabe designer substitutes that the FDA allows to be marketed prematurely until enough people die of their complications or shortcomings.

In fact, while no study shows that any modern drug for common chronic degenerative disease prevention does any overall – mutidisease- good, reduces all-cause mortality, those who promote and practice such published truth – that the old is better – are threatened with prosecution.


In the latest BBC-NHS lament, is it targets, or common sense that are being missed ? * NHS ‘falling behind’ on diabetes *(Targets for improving diabetes care may be missed as local health providers are failing to offer key services.)

It is common cause that, while the majority of earthlings are increasingly starving, the haves are in a pandemic of obesity; and that (alcoholism and smoking aside), overweight is the leading cause of the common major degenerative diseases.

It takes no Nobel prizework to see that increasing obesity begets lack of exercise and insulin resistance in a vicious spiral, and that the chief dietary risk factor for increasing obesity is especially the pernicious sugar we add daily, in fast foods, cooldrink, fruit juice etc; and cooked fats.

So all it takes is enforced public warning (on sold sugar, cooldrinks and fast food) that regular sugar and cooked/animal fats are dangerous -eat mainly fresh rainbow- coloured produce, and fat-free cooking;

and the early introduction of natural insulin sensitizer / appetite /weight regulating supplements as soon as increasing weight is apparent- natural sensitizers like fish oil 4gms a day, and a simple blend of vits A to E; magnesium, chromium, zinc, vanadium; cinnamon, garlic, fenugreek, tumeric, coleus, gymnema, galega; and crucial human biologicals that deplete like CoQ10, lipoic acid, arginine, ribose, carnitine. And in older ie hypogonadal people, appropriate physioogical (ie non-oral)HRT (testosterone, plus estradiol for women).

It has been clearly demonstrated in major published studies for years that the 85year old galega derivative metformin taken to tolerance ie built up gradually from about 125mg/day to a dose short of diarrhoea (often 2.5-3gm/day) – without any serious adverse events if adjusted for tolerance (nausea, bloating, diarrhoea) – safely-
1. as permanent prevention halves the incidence of new type 2 diabetes and reverses weigh gain by about 1/2kg a month; and
2. as treatment of type 2 diabetes, approximately halves all deaths and major chronic degenerative diseases. No other antidiabetic or anti-obesity prescription drugs achieve this, and therefore should not be prescribed.

But the natural supplements listed above do not need a prescription (for metformin) or a doctor;
they address far wider health issues (eg vascular, brain, cancer, immune, infectious) than even the unique panacea metformin does alone.
Supplements being taken should always be reported to any doctor consulted about serious illness (although the doctor may not be aware of their numerous benefits as the originl natural drugs which modern prescription drugs try vainly to mimic, and which the unmarketed supplements can mostly outdo).


A new Dutch paper at a current Breast cancer BRCA congress in Berlin is reported by the BBC as showing that by 2006, “deaths fell by 30% in those women who had screening mammography in their late seventies” ; And From New York, “Screening mammography in elderly patients beneficial” – but no actual benefits to the patients are disclosed, unless one considers surgery without symptoms or disease beneficial to the patient rather than the service provider.

Mammography is by definition diagnostic not screening if there is already a clinical reason for mammography ie a palpable lump worrying the patient or doctor. Screening, like surgery, is surely by definition justified only if it offers some material benefit to the patient?

But do these (reports published without results to see, in studies, not randomised controlled trials) justify doing screening mammography SMG on all postmenopausal women not at known risk ie who do not have/ have never had any risk factors including on regular manual palpation and family history?
What difference does it make if one simply waits till the elderly woman has a palpable ie still relatively small lump picked up (if ever) at (her) routine (monthly) (self)exam, and a simple non-disfiguring excision done?

It is common cause that all common cancer is less aggressive in the elderly and is rarely the cause of death or disability. ;

All Health Authorities advocate regular (~annual) SMG at least on women 50- 69years , with the upper limit being extended to 75years in some countries. Authorities & governments would – such screening means huge sales, jobs , taxes, profits, kudos.

Since BRCA is the commonest cancer in non-smoking better-off women,the pros and cons of presymptomatic diagnosis is an enormously emotive topic – quite apart from the toasted breast sandwich involved.

But the perennial question remains. Is fear, and the widespread availability of expensive high-tech screening, being used to promote the giant profitable screening industry – does high-tech detection of silent asymptomatic breast, colon or pelvic cancer actual give long-term benefit to patients ? when many such silent cancers are present at death without every having caused symptoms, impairment or disease.

The USA Government health authorities in 2007 show that despite policy promoting SMG, the rates of SMG have fallen in 2000 – 2005. Is this negligence, or common sense?

Automated high-tech screening mammography is passionately advocated by service providers, who favour all types of high-tech universal screening:

in the Swedish Two-County Trial of SMG, in “ 77 080 women randomised to an invitation to SMG and 55 985 to no invitation, . there was a significant 31% reduction in breast cancer mortality in the invited group . There was 12% non significant increase in deaths from other causes among breast cancer cases in the invited group (95% CI 0.96-1.31; p=0.14). A conservative estimation gave a significant 13% reduction (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78-0.97; p=0.01) reduction in deaths from all causes.
<a href=”http://”>


  • In the 14 year follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening in 54600 women, unadjusted results showed a difference of just 13% in breast-cancer mortality rates between the intervention and control groups (156 deaths [5.18 per 10,000] vs 167 [6.04 per 10,000]; rate ratio 0.87 [95% CI 0.70-1.06])..

    The 16-year mortality from breast cancer in the UK non-randomised study of Early Detection of Breast Cancer set up in 1979 in England and Scotland recruited women aged 45-64 years. Breast-cancer mortality was 27% lower in the two screening centres combined than in the comparison centres. No reduction in mortality in the two breast self-examination centres combined was seen The results support those from randomised trials in Edinburgh and elsewhere, and show that a reduction in breast-cancer mortality resulting from screening can be achieved in the UK. There was no evidence of less benefit in women aged 45-46 years at the start of screening; the effect of screening in this age-group begins to emerge after 3-4 years. . <a href=”http://”>

    THOSE AGAINST generally stay mum– it’s dangerous to go against populist opinion that is driven by major financial interests..
    But in 2006, Gøtzsche PC and Nielsen at the Nordic Centre analysed all randomised controlled trials, and controversially questioned “whether mammography screening does more good than harm. The two trials (Canadian) with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening (RR risk ratio 1.1) on cancer mortality, including breast cancer after 10 years, or on all-cause mortality, after 13 years. Breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. Numbers were significantly 30% larger in the screened groups. CONCLUSIONS: Screening likely reduces breast cancer mortality. But based on the risk level of women in these trials, the absolute risk reduction was 0.05%. Screening also leads to over-diagnosis and over-treatment, with an estimated 30% increase in eg lumpectomies, mastectomies and radiotherapy, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged but 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be diagnosed as breast cancer patients and will be treated unnecessarily. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm. Women invited to screening should be fully informed of both benefits and harms.”

    Comparing screening mammography alone versus manual examination (usual care) alone from 1980-85,
    Tony Miller et al in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study of women followed through for 13 years showed similar breast cancer death rates and similar survival rates whether by manual breast exam or SMG:
    In two groups each of 19700 aged 50-59years at outset, . The average lead time for the mammography plus physical examination group has been estimated to be 3.6 years (95% CI = 2.7–5.5) and that for the physical examination-only group was 1.5 years (95% CI = 1.0–3.3 years); therefore, the lead time gained by mammography was, on average, 2.1 years. All-cause Mortality was similar at 0.35%pa and breast cancer mortality 1/7th of that at 0.05%pa
    (c/f .01% in Finland , with no benefit from SMG – Antilla ea 2008, while invasive BRCA incidence was 0.23%pa ie the BRCA mortality rate from invasive breast cancer irelative to those who got invasive BRCA was about 22%pa. .
    In the two cohorts each of 25215 age 40-49yrs at outset
    , ,
    all-cause mortality was 0.1%pa and breast cancer mortality 1/3rd of that at 0.034%pa were almost identical comparing the two group while invasive BRCA incidence was 0.19%pa; ie the BRCA mortality rate from invasive breast cancer relative to those who got invasive BRCA was about 22%pa.
    In this study, only slightly more BRCA were detected by mammography alone or by manual exam alone than by usual care; but twice as many BRCA ie 0.04% pa- were detected by combination of SMG plus physical exam -. Thus screening mammography offers only marginally more detection than manual exam, and no better survival..”

    Analysis of studies of results of high-tech ie technology-based screening for lung; prostate, colon, uterine and ovarian cancers, cholesterol- lipidemia or cardiovascular disease similarly gives no strong evidence favouring widespread screening in asymptomatic people without relevant symptoms or risk factors. It is common cause that, in those without strong family history of common major degenerative disease, of premature deaths and disabling diseases, preventable smoking, obesity- diabetes, vascular disease, dementia and fractures affect probably tenfold more people than preventable cancers.

    From the published data, there is just not enough evidence to justify that either the state, or medical schemes, should pay for routine high-tech screening for any disease in those who do not have risk factors or symptoms.

    Instead, all patients and doctors should be compelled by Regulators, employers and medical schemes to regularly monitor blood-pressure, dental and eye health, BMI and waist girth, since early simple management of any abnormalities have proven major longterm benefits and cost-savings, without any of the costly risks of eg false-positive high-tech screening, or of waiting for disease – obesity, vascular accident, blindness etc – to present. Changing peoples’
    lifestyle, exercise patterns is not easy, but huge benefits accrue therefrom.

    So perhaps the compromise, to meet the concern of the hawks, is that since (unlike prostates), removal of small suspicious colon polyps and breast lumps is easy, all at low risk should be accepted for breast/ colon imaging once in midlife; and if this screening be negative, left in peace unless something develops or eg the woman or man starts on HRT.

    By contrasr: Only Disease Pays the Disease Industry; so is it ethical to allow people to wilfully continue destroying their health with alcohol, smoking, overweight, neglect of hypertension, then allow them to rely on their health scheme/ insurer (which may be the State) to repair them at enormous cost, support them if disabled, when major disease breaks out?

    And is it ethical for low-risk asymptomatic patients who can afford it to be encouraged to have futile repeated high-tech screening?,,91168-1269537,00.html</a>
    When the only interventions from young age that have been proven to reduce by about 50% all-cause mortality from the common major chronic degenerative diseases of aging are:
    Regular exercise; no smoking; avoiding overweight, maintaining normal bloodpressure;
    Fish oil a few grams a day;
    And other essential multisupplements in balance that deplete in the food chain and with aging and pollution
    ie all vitamins , minerals and biologicals- (human, other species’ and plant, and appropriate HRT (thyroid, sex hormone, cortisol replacement).


    next time you are at a Mall bookshop, browse through if not buy Joseph Stiglitz & Linda Blimes’ new book The Three Trillion Dollar War.
    see The Times Online article review.

    It details why greedy leaders ancient and modern go to war – for the massive profit, at the expense of others.

    The three trillion dollar cost so far of Bush’s War on Terrorism (the cost calculated by leading economists) is just the cost to Americans,
    excluding many times that cost for the rest of the world affected by the permanent state of war and resultant rampant inflation, further global warming and burn-up of commodities.

    Never mind the hundreds of thousands killed or maimed in the conflict, and incalculable damage to health in the region, the ripples hugely aggravate poverty, mental ill-health and starvation in the rest of the world, as aggression and counter-aggression racks up the stakes between all hawkish leaders like Bush, Blair, Putin, Mugabe, Zuma at al. .

    As Stiglitz & co say, one can speculate how such untold war costs could have been spent on peaceful developments everywhere, no matter that USA families – who earn an average of $70 000 a year – can afford it, while the majority of earthlings- as in South Africa – survive or die on less than a dollar a day, often below $1000 per family per year.

    But who cares about lives and health lost, the doubling in basic food costs when war is untold billion-dollar contracts to presidents and their business cronies including medical suppliers, as even South Africa experiences.. We wish we could forsee imminent closure better than Margaret Attwood’s Oryx and Craik…



    are often a problem of defective NUTRITION among many important contributing factors.

    Both infection; cancer; and chronic anti-infection/ anti-cancer drugs
    promote poor nutrition, loss of other infection protection, and loss of muscle and bone.

    Those with high risks of infections or cancer, and
    those on anti-infection/ anticancer therapy, and
    those in whom such therapy has failed,

    should be offered both counselling;
    measurement of lean mass, fat mass; and
    risk of osteoporosis bone fracture; and
    various regimes of complementary cancer/ infection NUTRITIONAL support.

    Both with aging, illness, therapy, and with increasingly poorer food supplies, rising costs and pollution, the best diets cannot supply anywhere near optimal micronutrients – the effective doses of all ~15 vitamins, ~10 minerals, and the scores of biologicals– the dozens our own bodies make but run out of (including hormones), those from other species eg fish oil, glucosamine, and herbs.

    For an appointment to have your body composition and bone fracture risk measured,
    and to discuss and view the nutrition supports available with a relevant supplement counsellor,
    make an appointment in Cape Town by phoning 021 6831465
    or Bryanston Gauteng by phoning 011 4633604 during shop hours;
    then discuss the results and options with your doctors.

    In other countries, discuss them with your local Health Shops or Pharmacies.

    do we need “Stem cell hope for osteoarthritis”

    BBC Friday, 11 April 2008 00:08 UK

    Stem cell hope for osteoarthritis

    but who except the investors need stem cells, when oral glucosamine- chondroitin usually restore the joint cartilage and function effortlessly and naturally over months?