Tag Archives: menopause

SPECIALIST NATURAL MEDICINE CLINIC 2015

SPECIALIST NON-XRAY PAIN, BONE, BREAST, BRAIN,  HEART, CHEST, GENITOURINARY, HORMONE RISK SCREENING  @ NATURAL MEDICINE CLINIC

for appointments for consultations,   or non-xray procedures by registered practitioners :  Sure Touch breast prescreening on  Saturday mornings next on  7 February 2015  by Sister Zeneath Ismail – cash R650 (then R450 if followup scan desired within 3 months);   -QUS  ultrasound quantitative bone density  cash R450 -tariff item 3612-  anytime;  Unlike radiologists’  and thermography reports (which describe only  the imaging finding), the rates quoted include relevant breast or bone consultation and management planning  by specialist nurse & physician.

IF BOOKED TOGETHER, (not necessarily the same morning) then combined breast and bone screening is R1000.

OTHER SERIOUS health problems ARE DEALT WITH BY CONSULTATION DURING THE WEEK (OR ON A DIFFERENT SATURDAY MORN) : heart- ECG,  fatigue, HRT, sexual health, hypertension, depression, memory/dementia, lung & lungfunction, anaemia-haematology; kidney/bladder/pelvic, hormone-endocrine, depression, osteoporosis, sleep, diabetes, thyroid, adrenal; cramp; skin,  infection including STDs & HIV/AIDs, stroke, epilepsy-neurology, dizziness, heartburn/digestive/liver,  neuropathy,  sexual health, menopause, HRT, genitourinary; immune problems, or arthritis relief;

Thermography no-touch infrared screening  for suspicious  cancer /inflammatory  changes:  by Radiographer Melinda-next 23 March 2015.   R900 breasts; R1100  head and  upper;  or lower body & pelvis;  R1300 whole body.

Bookings/queries contact Evelyn/ Reyhana / Val at  the Natural Medicine Clinic, 1st Floor no 15, Grove Medical Bldg, opp ABSA (parking ABSA Parkade )  near Warwick/Cavendish  Square Claremont Cape Town RSA, ph +27216831465 or a/h +2783 4385248 or reyhanadaya@yahoo.com  .

For the disabled – by arrangement  drive  up the ramp  to the Clinic door on the Grove Bldg 1st floor  parking deck.

Under CMS Council for Med Schemes Reg 10(6), open Medical schemes eg hospital plans  have to pay from their own funds (not members’ savings) for appropriate outpatient consultation (tariff item 0191) for  PMBs ie major conditions eg  cancer,   depression, neck/spinal problems, serious heart, lung, other disease., etc. Breast and osteoporosis concerns are generally part of menopause consultations N95.9   (if not already eg breast cancer code C50) and thus are often billable  med scheme benefits. The menopause billable item only applies if you are 45yrs upwards, unless you have had total hysterectomy.

On patients’ requests, appropriate invoice can be prepared and submitted to your scheme for refund of your due benefits. Some schemes eg hospital plans  falsely deny due benefits until reported to their regulator  CMS. For medical plans where the billable tariff benefit rate is higher than the breast screening fee paid, the med plan rate 0191  will be charged eg R790 by the contracted  specialist,  and refundable by Discovery to the member. some basic schemes eg Keycare, Bonitas require preauthorization, or referral by their contracted GP  .

TOURISM HEALTH: SAFARI HEALTHSPANLIFE HEALING CAPE TOWN HOLIDAY 2013.

Health- slante, l’chaim!, hayah, sawubona! – in any country or language  is a blessing, a gift- not a right. It is insurance that has to be planned and enforced. Leaving it to fate, illness and hoping for a cure is often too late, sometimes crippling if not often  fatal. With comprehensive natural supplements, we can and should all die peacefully at an  active fit advanced  age  90years +  –   not old, incapacitated and demented. We owe this prevention to both ourselves, our  kids and our aging seniors.

So sensible lifestyle aside, promoting health  includes simple low-cost  (no-xray/no-laboratory) periodic screening:  for all,  from childhood:  of weight,  girth, eyes, teeth, bloodpressure, brainfunction- memory; and ultrasound bones – at any pharmacy/ optometrist, school or clinic;                         and  for women:  checking the breasts and pelvis for risk of  cancer.

The HealthSpanLife  South African Natural Medicine Clinic SANMC next to Cavendish Mall on the slopes of Table Mountain in beautiful Cape Town – one of the favourite world tourist  and heritage centres-  is a specialist clinic  staffed by experienced  registered professional practitioners- a medical internist specialist  (also UK registered);  a homeopath;  and a Muslim nursing sister.

It provides  one-stop holistic screening and diagnostics, and – uniquely-  evidence-based  natural remedies- nutritional support for all symptoms and chronic conditions-  also  for menopause-andropause-genitourinary- breast-sexual dysfunction- obesity-pain/headache –chiropractic  and detox ,

as well as if needed  appropriate modern specialized  testing and prescription medicines for all chronic major conditions including bio-identical hormone replacement for both genders (including implants);

and integrated referrals nearby (and in Gauteng)  as patients desire eg for autism, acupuncture, aromatherapy, physiotherapy, aquarobics,  advanced scopes, delicate restorative micro (eg hands, toes)-as well as major (eg bariatric, spinal,eye-, ear- neuro-)  surgery, infertility, xray/other scans, cancer, hyperbaric oxygen, spiritual intervention, psychiatric-hypno- therapy, and eg genetic profiling and counselling,   dialysis and transplantation, and stem cell therapy. …

Gentle Non-xray  ultrasound bone-density measurement (recommended by Cape Town , UK, and USA universities),  and tactile mechanical breast mapping (recommended by CANSA, UK, USA, Indian and Chinese studies) are available at SANMC (and in Gauteng) by appointment, and are covered by some medical aid plans;  whereas menopause consultations are covered by all open plans.

As typified by a new review last month,    World opinion is to use xray  mammography and  xray bone density imaging  only as last resort and only  in the elderly – or in staging those with breast cancer- because of the major problems and risks of xray imaging..   As world experts Profs Cornelia Baines epidemiologist in Canada, Mike Baum breast surgeon  in London and Peter Gotzsche epidemiologist  in Denmark  say,  there never has been any independent scientific evidence to support hazardous routine mass mammography crush xray screening of well women, let alone any repeated mass xray screening for decades, or the dangerous fictitious marketing hype of the American radiology-Breast Surgeons and Curves International nonsense  that xray mammo screening saves lives ..

While health tariffs must rise with inflation,  where med aid doesn’t cover, New Year 15% discount applies through January on cash-paid clinic services and in-house products. . .

For out-of-town/ overseas  visitors, accommodation and travel locally and throughout Africa and beyond can be arranged by outside experts around  clinic appointments. .  http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/visiting/Pages/default.aspx

For appointments visit  the SANMC at 1st floor no.  15 Grove Medical Bldg on Pearce St  cnr Grove Ave (parking opposite at ABSA on Grove);    or  phone +2721-6831465/  -6717415; or fax  +27865657215; or email the manageress, doctors or Sister at   sales@healthspanlife.co.za  to discuss needs,  timing and preliminary costing. For details, references  and rationale for screening and prevention,  see https://healthspanlife.wordpress.com/?s=screening.

UPDATE FEB 2012: WANNABE ALTERNATIVE HRT eg TIBOLONE LIVIFEM IS INFERIOR TO APPROPRIATE HORMONE REPLACEMENT.

24 Feb 2012  Sharifah Zainab asks about safety of tibolone after more than 10 years on it; and whether and how to wean off it.
 
No new singnificant studies change the hard evidence that tibolone may
do more harm (than good) eg may increase stroke, breast cancer, fatness and vaginal bleeding. The comprehensive Cochrane review of last week affirms this:          Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 15;2:CD008536.Short and long term effects of tibolone in postmenopausal women. Formoso G ea WHO Collaborating Centre ,  Modena, Italy.  “Tibolone is an option available for the treatment of menopausal symptoms, based on short-term data on its efficacy. However, there is a need to consider the balance between the benefits and risks of tibolone as there are concerns about breast and endometrial cancer as well as stroke.   MAIN RESULTS: When compared to placebo, tibolone was more effective in relieving the frequency of vasomotor symptoms (two RCTs, n = 847; OR 0.42), although only the 2.5 mg/day dose of tibolone was significantly better than placebo; but with increased vaginal bleeding (seven RCTs, n = 7462; OR 2.75). When compared to equipotent doses of combined HT, tibolone reduced vaginal bleeding (15 RCTs, n = 6342; OR 0.32) but was less effective in relieving the frequency of vasomotor symptoms (two RCTs, n = 545; OR 4.16).As for long term safety, two major RCTs of tibolone versus placebo provided the most relevant data. An RCT of 3098 women with breast cancer and menopausal symptoms was halted after 3.1 years because of increased tumour recurrence (OR 1.50). However, in another RCT that selected osteoporotic women with negative mammograms (n = 4506) tibolone was associated with a reduction in breast cancer compared to placebo after 2.8 years (OR 0.32) although the trial was not specifically designed to assess that outcome and the number of overall events was low. In the same RCT, an excess risk of stroke was observed (OR 2.18). There was no clear evidence of a tibolone effect on endometrial cancer compared with placebo given the low number of events (seven RCTs, n = 8152; OR 1.98).There was no evidence of a difference in long term safety between tibolone and combined HT. AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS: Tibolone, used at the daily dose of 2.5 mg, may be less effective than combined HT in alleviating menopausal symptoms although it reduced the incidence of vaginal bleeding. There was evidence that treatment with combined HT was more effective in managing menopausal symptoms than was tibolone. Available data on the long term safety of tibolone is concerning given the increase in the risk of breast cancer in women who had already suffered from breast cancer in the past and in a separate trial the increase in the risk of stroke in women whose mean age was over 60 years. Similar concerns may exist for estroprogestins but their overall benefit-risk profile is better known and is more directly related to women with menopausal symptoms.”

Why use a risky synthetic  drug designed for profit when as this column repeatedly stresses, there are so many safe natural supplements that reduce all risks?

update : Jan 2010:  WEIGHT GAIN ON TIBOLONE:

Hester asks about a better option HRT since she has gained 5kg in a few months on Livifem tibolone.

One cannot treat an unseen patient by email based on a one-line history.

all one can advise is,  read about the serious risks and deficiencies of quick-fix heavily marketed snakepills compared to finely tuned natural products eg human hormones and other natural supplements evolved/designed over millennia rather than recently in for-profit laboratories.

There are  two  new  illuminating papers on tibolone since the November review:

Dr Peter Kenemans writes from the Netherlands Vrije Universiteit:  Tibolone revisited: ‘still a good treatment option for healthy, early postmenopausal women‘.

Drs de Melo and Pompei from Sao Paolo UniversityTibolone reduces osteoporotic fracture risk and breast cancer risk, but increases the risk of stroke.

The Ziaei paper detailed below  addressed only weight issues, and describes average results.

In the  Royal Free Hospital  study in London in 1995, they found that  in their 300-patient experience over 8 years ie medium term –  an impressive 2400 patient years- that  “The major side effect was weight gain and/or a tendency to bloating and oedema which occurred in 11.28% of our women”.

This doesnt mean that tibolone increases fatness- most women inexorably get fatter and frailer once past menopause. Certainly they dont do this if they maintain good balance of human hormones- testosterone, estradiol, progesterone, thyroid and insulin-  with a sensible blend of  all the other other scores of useful  supplements, and  diet and exercise.

By contrast, shortterm controlled trials – 6 months from Turkey (2006, and 2009) and  Ziaei’s 9month trial- show that in the short term, tibolone reduced body fat and waist.

BEAR IN MIND THAT MANY STUDIES SHOW THAT EVEN JUST 10 YEARS OF APPROPRIATE SEXHORMONE THERAPY FROM EARLY IN MENOPAUSE HAS MAJOR LONGTERM BENEFITS ON REDUCING ALL RISKS eg FRACTURE, CARDIOVASCULAR AND DEMENTIA RISKS IN LATER LIFE – without any significant adverse effects. . There do not appear to be published any studies of tibolone or any other wannabe substitute  over  a mean of more than 5 years. But women now often survive more than one-third of  their lifespan post menopause- that is another 35+ years. No modern designer chronic drug  has been used and observed reasonably continuously to be safe for much more than 10years .  The only designer drugs which have been used continuously for much longer are perhaps the old diuretics and some  antihypertensives.

Tibolone is yet another designer progestin- and the Women’s Health Initiative showed that, even when started appropriately soon after menopause,  progestin (medroxyprogesterone MPA)  reversed the myriad benefits of  premarin alone  in respect of worsening fracture, breast and cardiovascular risks.

This contrasts with natural supplements like eg minerals and vitamins, the plant extracts reserpine and the  prohormone metformin,  and all the human hormones- thyroid, insulin, cortisone, testosterone, estradiol- which many patients have used continuously for over 40 years with nothing but benefits in appropriate doses.

So as always its up to  you the patient to decide whose advice, what to try. All any doctor can do is (in a brief consultation) offer advice from his experience and ongoing update studies – which may not be up to the minute. You have to decide about shortterm benefits versus long-term possible risks. In the few months on tibolone, are you just swollen-eg  needing to reduce salt?- or fatter  waist with higher bodyfat,  bloodpressure, insulin resistance etc?

Nov 18, 2009
a new study last month bears out the futility of spin,  focussing only on benefits in abstracts. The small short (9month) trial by Ziaei ea in Tehran Iran  on Comparative effects of continuous combined hormone therapy and tibolone on body composition in postmenopausal women concludes  that The effect of tibolone on body composition is favorable and therefore tibolone may be regarded as an alternative to continuous combined postmenopausal hormone therapy MHT .  Tibolone significantly increased weight, BMI and FFM and decreased WHR after the treatment in comparison with baseline (p < 0.05). However, only weight and BMI increased significantly in the CEE/MPA group after the treatment (p < 0.05). There were significant increases in weight, BMI and fat mass in the control group after 9 months..  So they confirmed what has been obvious all along: that postmenopausal women gain weight and fat post menopause, and on xenohormones (premarin+provera) gain even more fat at the expense of losing lean mass. A synthetic xenohormone progestin like tibolone increases weight, BMI,  and FFM (it’s androgenic property) –   but they ignored the multiple deficiencies of tibolone (unlike appropriate HRT), that it increases breast cancer,    stroke, vaginal bleeding and endometrial cancer and perhaps CVD, and fails to reduce either all-cause or breast cancer mortality, or depression or  dementia. .

SUMMARY: No published trials have yet shown any alternatives as good as appropriate HRT (ie estrogen -progesterone- testosterone) for overall long term benefits post menopause.
eg  with  the synthetic progestin tibolone – the 3 year LIFT trial had to be stopped early due to strokes, and in  the 3year LIBERATE trial breast cancer recurrence increased 44%. As the International Menopause Society IMS keeps stressing, all synthetic sex hormones are inferior to appropriate balanced sex hormone replacement for eg menopause symptom relief, and against osteoporosis fractures. Many different modalities relieve the short-term menopause symptoms, but these matter far less than the long term preventable degenerative effects of hormone deficiency- which are the primary concern of patients, carers, internists and geriatricians. The average gynecologist (surgeon) deals only with  menopause symptoms, which mostly subside well within 10 years ie by age 60years – but that’s when all aging medical not gynecological problems start,   increasing  incapacity problems – vascular, cancer, fracturing, mental, mood, fattening, frailty, sex, incontinence and thus loss of decades of quality life.

Analysis To August 18, 2008 ·

The LIFT trial report by Steve Cummings et al (NEJM   August 14, 2008  The Effects of Tibolone in over 4000 Older Postmenopausal Women -mean 68years)  is another nail in the coffin of tibolone.

The LIFT trial was stopped after a median of just 34 months because Tibolone doubled strokes – up from 0.34% to 0.66% per year. .

Tibolone,  unlike appropriate HRT, has no significant reported benefit on all-cause mortality, on cardiovascular disease (which increased by 37% – p0.28), on memory/ dementia and on depression , although  it almost halved fractures –  but  it doubled the risk of stroke, trebled rate of breast discomfort and vaginal bleeding- which  rose from 2.9% to 9.5%; even the incidence of cervical dysplasia rose from 3.2% to 7.6%. And it increased weight in this already overweight cohort by an excess of 0.6kg in 3years..

Breast and colon cancer rates were too low to draw conclusions about benefit. “The tibolonegroup also had a decreased risk of invasive breast cancer (relativehazard, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.80; P=0.02) and colon cancer(relative hazard, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.96; P=0.04)” – but the incidence of these and coronary artery disease were each only 2 – 3% pa on placebo..

So it finally  confirms tibolone as just another synthetic progestin looking for a disease to treat, much inferior to real supplements including  appropriate HRT (vitamin D and   lowdose parenteral human estradiol-testosterone-progesterone) for reduction of all the major diseases of aging. There are no contraindications to, only benefits from  such long term appropriate  steroid hormone replacement.

Update November 2009:

In a further LIFT trial report (Ettinger & Cummings Sept 2008), Tibolone treatment for 3 years minimally increased endometrial thickness, hyperplastic polyps, and endometrial carcinoma.

In a Danish trial , tibolone had no benefit on cartilage degeneration. whereas appropriate HRT has benefit (Forsblad Scandanavia 2004).

In the massive 31-country 2002-4 LIBERATE trial (Feb 2009 Kenemans ea ) in over 3000 women after breast cancer, recurrent breast cancer increased 44% with tibolone over a mean of 3.1yrs. Tibolone was not different from placebo with regard to other safety outcomes, such as mortality (respectively 72  vs 63 patients), cardiovascular events (14 vs 10), or gynaecological cancers (10 vs 10).

A report in September 2009 from Health and Human Services’ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality suggests that tamoxifen, raloxifene, and tibolone used to treat breast cancer significantly reduce invasive breast cancer in midlife and older women, but also increase the risk of adverse side effects.

Regretfully, tibolone has not fulfilled early  hope that it might be the first designer drug since metformin to be another panacea, reduce all-cause morbidity and mortality even in postmenopausal  women.

It appears that despite 40years  use elsewhere, tibolone (not invented and marketed by a US corporate)  has still not been  and is unlikely to be licensed for use in USA – like SERMS (tamoxifen, raloxifene) its benefits are so limited that they are not  enough to balance it’s risks. .. doubling the risk of stroke and increasing the already high  general risk of breast cancer by 44% in only 3 years. Whereas  all (ie multisystem) risks and frailty are reversed by the safe threescore mix of natural supplements plus appropriate balanced physiological human hormone replacement as regularly set out in this column. .


CHRONIC ILLNESS- MANAGED ANTIAGING & GENERAL PRACTICE CLINIC SOUTH AFRICA

update 6 April 2015

In Claremont  Cape Town

A  Specialist Family Internist Clinic offers consultations by appointment especially for managing (and ideally preventing)  the major chronic degenerative diseases of aging  and  maintaining physical, mental (and why not sexual?) vigour to a ripe and healthy old age; as well as preventing and managing acute disease at all ages.

The clinic (a specialist physician and a nutritionalist)  offers all-system evaluation and if available, natural  (as well as essential prescription orthrodox) prevention/treatment including metabolic – weight-endocrine-diabetes; heart-lung -kidney; hypertension; neurological-pain; joint & muscle; abdominal, immune system ie infection, cancer and auto-immune  support;  genito-urinary, & sexual problems;

and appropriate screening – ECG, non-xray ( no-touch thermography- eg thermomammogram;   SureTouch tactile) mammograms, non-xray (ie  ultrasound) BMD ie  bone fracture risk measurement, body composition, and appropriate hormone profiling/replacement.

Phone during office hours for appointment: for Claremont office  ph 021-6717415  or 6831465 (or 083-6299160) – at Grove Medical Bldg 1st floor no 15 (opp ABSA Bank Parkade c/o Grove Ave Pearce Rd)  , or neil.burman@gmail.com ;  or consultation by telephone/Skype or email .

by appointment only:        OFFICE HOURSby appt: ph office:  9am-5pm weekdays, 9am-1pm Saturdays.  AFTER  HOURS up to 9pm any day generally at office: –  email doctor   neil.burman@gmail.com  or ph 6am to 9pm  0836299160. EMERGENCIES  cannot be dealt with- acute emergencies and trauma, bleeding cases  must go to any  Emergency Unit .

Billing according to means ie specialist professional rates:  eg as a preferred provider for Discovery Health-  consultation procedure  0190; for needy patients, what the medical scheme pays  Detailed medical report and advice protocol provided at R300. Even Hospital Plans have to pay for outpatient consultation for scores of PMBs ie Prescribed Medical benefit conditions like Menopause.

 Needy patients desiring brief consultation can be seen by arrangement at GP rate.    Bone density scan  (covered by some medical schemes)  procedure 3612..  Non-xray mammograms are not yet covered by medical schemes codes: R650 for SureTouch including clinical consultation, R800 for thermomammogram.

Update on institutionalized modern medicines fraud: REBUTTAL & COUNTERREBUTTAL: IMPACT OF ADVERSE NEWS MEDIA ON PRESCRIPTIONS FOR OSTEOPOROSIS: EFFECT ON FRACTURES AND MORTALITY

neil.burman@gmail.com  

REBUTTAL OF: IMPACT OF ADVERSE NEWS MEDIA ON PRESCRIPTIONS FOR OSTEOPOROSIS: EFFECT ON FRACTURES AND MORTALITY

18 months ago a warning was published about   the risk of Negligence  Damages for  Prescribing Bisphosphonates- Fosomaxes- for common osteoporosis. 

 A year later an updated review of the evidence rebutted    the attempt by an Australian group (Phillip Sambrook  MD, BS, LLB, FRACP  ea )  to promote routine use of bisphosphonates, blame the news media for wrongly sensationalizing these largely unnecessary drugs’ rare but lethal  adverse effects. 

 Now three other eminent Australian professors, of   Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and  Endocrinology  (Paul Sambrook, Chris Nordin and Alastair Goss) publish a further rebuttal  of Phillip Sambrook ea for serious errors in underestimating by at least twentyfold both the incidence and the seriousness of bisphosphonate risks.

 In  a USA case for damages against Merck,  for irreversible  osteonecrosis- resulting in jaw amputation-  following Fosamax, a patient was last year awarded $1.5million . This American class action is about over 1500 Fosamax cases against Merck.  So far two related case against Merck  have been  dismissed. But all such cases are on appeal. The robust American tort system may yet hammer Merck. .

 As recently as october 2010 Merck staunchly defends Fosamax’s safety for osteoporosis.

The FDA has recently added a warning about Fosamax-related thigh fractures.

But no evidence has ever been published that the catastrophic risk of bisphosphonates- however rare-  is justified for routine osteoporosis when

1.In common osteoporosis, Bisphosphonates have no multisystemic benefits  except for halving fracture risk, and

2.Appropriate combination of natural supplements- as this column has repeatedly revewed -approximately halve all risks ie of both osteoporosis fractures and all other common major diseases of aging, and thus chronic disability and deaths, without any significant risks.

Curent Authority statements eg from the Mayo Clinic simply fail to say this- why risk bisphosphonates?  New reports  in November-December of dozens of osteonecrosis cases on bisphosphonates  have just appeared on Pubmed  from Italy, Germany, Romania and Spain.

In fact a major international study has just beeen published showing the obvious, that survival in the elderly is strongly linked to gait speed and mobility. It is common cause that such integrated function is dependent on optimal joint, neuromuscular and cardiovascular integration- to which (- unlike the score of natural human micronutrient supplements that deplete with age-) bisphosphonates and strontium contribute nothing except bone density.

Fosamax lobbyists studiously avoid the plain  truth that it is not osteoporosis; but frailty – falls –  that is the chief cause of major elderly fractures- and that bisphosphonates and strontium may make bones appear denser.

Its too early to judge strontium ranelate (which also has rare but catastrophic risk- the DRESS syndrome); but fosamaxes in some cases  make bones more brittle; without in the slightest combating senescence frailty ie muscle, mobility, vascular, cancerous, arthritic, immune, mood, cognitive and neurological deterioration (unlike the multinutrient microsupplements – vitamins, minerals and biologicals like fish oil, chondroglucosamine, sex hormones which together halve all chronic major degenerative diseases and premature mortality) ..

August 15, 2010 Regulators like the FDA  and WHO the world health organization and  their worldwide equivalents are notorious for bowing to their chief funders- Big Pharma- in registering new designer drugs on the flimsiest evidence, often despite vociferous objection from some honest assessor at the Regulator; then waiting till there is an uproar of complaints over the drug before they belatedly demand more evidence of cost-benefit from the manufacturer, and admit that key adverse data were  suppressed from the outset- as happenened and is still happening most notoriously  in the case of aspartamate Canderal.

And what was obvious from the word go,   that  in the case of last year’s swine flu vaccines and the spurious pandemic declaration, the Regulators/WHO expert committees were  heavily loaded with biased specialists paid by  vaccine  manufacturers.

But why are the fosamaxes and other  bisphosphonates  still allowed to be prescribed  for osteoporosis? When the first report of long bone fracture associated with them first appeared on Pubmed 16 years ago (Guanabens 1994) and they are unnecessary -indeed contra-indicated – for osteoporosis.   Not for nothing does a  recent ABC Good Morning America broadcast   ask: “Fosamax: Is Long Term Use of Bone Strengthening Drug Linked to Fractures”?  

This review is in fact an update on The Fraud of Modern Medicines.

 A recent review from Oxford    lists the myriad adverse effects of bisphosphonates. They say “All four  currently approved nitrogen-containing bisphosphonates have a favorable tolerability and safety profile.” But why don’t they discuss the reality which is that although all these adverse effects  may be infrequent, why risk such serious  complications  such as 30% incidence of oesophagogastric symptoms?; oesophageal stenosis and cancer?, toxiderma, atrial fibrillation, eye, muscle bone joint pain?; or incapacity from jaw and teeth loss or  longbone fracture related to bisphosphonates for osteopororis?,  when bisphosphonates  are clinically unnecessary and unjustified for osteoporosis.

 Why dont they state the truth, that there are no head to head trials against the basket of proven natural supplements, comparing fracture and global benefits versus risks of bisphosphonates ? Most reviews eg Wikipedia say bisphosphonates are “ the leading prescription for osteoporosis”; but this is simply for the same reasons that statins are for lipidemia, angiotensin blockers for hypertension and sulphonylureas/ glitazones are for type 2 diabetes, and aspartame is for artificial sweetening- because drug companies market such hoped-for $billion rainchecks overwhelmingly, and fund no comparative trials against the gold standard old supplement basket that makes most hazardous modern drugs like statins, glitazones and bisphosphonates mostly redundant.

Filleul ea from Univ Mona, Belgium have just reviewed the world literature from 2003-2009, finding 2400 cases of BIOJ bisphosphonate induced osteonecrosis of the jaw. of these about 215 were not cancer cases. Such cases very rarely occur without cancer. So why risk them?

 So why does an Australian team bewail decreased use of the fosamaxes? Impact of adverse news media on prescriptions for osteoporosis:effect on fractures and mortality. Their statistical modelling is perhaps no more than promotion of bisphosphonates since it ignores the high number of adverse effects that bisphosphonates cause long term; and the major reduction in allcause disability and premature mortality that balanced appropriate supplements ( instead of bisphosphonates ) produce. Why would the lead author of so many papers- Professor Phillip Sambrook – promote bisphosphonate as the prime pharmacological prevention, and only calcium and vitamin D as the supplementary prevention of osteoporosis fractures?  when the evidence so strongly favours safe multisupplements including appropriate lowdose hormone balance as preventative against all major chronic diseases? Can a new-drug proponent who sits on the medical advisory boards of and has received speaker fees from Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis and Servier. be considered objective ? Their critique of the media for publicizing the potential disaster from bisphosphonates is hollow when they fail to mention the numerous potential risks, and the numerous benefits instead from supplements.

Geusens, Sambrook ea in 2008 published  a major review on Drug Insight: choosing a drug treatment strategy for women with osteoporosis-an evidence–based clinical perspective.. ‘The most important clinical determinant in the clinical choice of drug therapy for fracture prevention is a woman’s fracture risk; second is the evidence for fracture prevention in terms of spectrum, size and speed of effect. Other determinants include the potential extraskeletal benefits and safety concerns of the drugs.” But they again studiously avoid considering supplements (vitamins plus minerals plus appropriate hormone combination) as one of the drug regimes, especially as osteoporosis is simply one of the co-morbidities of aging, and far less of a risk for premature death and disability than stroke, cardiovascular, cancer, diabetes, frailty, dementia, arthritic disease and premature death – all of which can along with fractures be avoided and mitigated by the basket of supplements. So their review is surely biased in excluding all but new designer patent drugs while excluding the best and safe anabolics. .

 It is well proven from observational studies that longterm use of appropriate natural supplements reduce all-cause mortality by at least a third:              In the Womens’ Health Initiative WHI, appropriate hormone replacement HRT reduced all-cause mortality i.e. deaths from vascular disease, cancer and  fractures by 1/3 as well.    In the UKPDS the plant extract metformin reduced all-cause mortality also by 1/3. Understandably, metformin halves the incidence of new diabetes by reducing insulin resistance,  hence it also reduces fracture risk let alone cancer and vascular disease risk .   

 Incontestable data shows that epidemic deficiency  of vitamin D ,  vitamin C, magnesium, vitamin B especially B6,   vitamin K,    fish oil,    and prime hormone dysregulation  (thyroid, insulin,  cortisol vs androgens and estrogens)   in first-world aging populations are associated with increased mortality from all degenerative diseases especially fracturing, cardiovascular and cancer. It also showed that  vigorous supplements of balanced vitamins,  minerals (especially B,C,D,K, and Ca, Mg, Zn, Bo, Mn, Se, Cr), fish oil,  and human sex (co)hormones (testosterone, progesterone, estradiol, metformin) drastically reduce all morbidity and especially fractures  even  (perhaps especially )  in the well-off over nourished..  

  In contrast to bisphosphonates- which are aimed solely at reducing fracture in the at-risk elderly and thus reduce all-cause mortality by perhaps 10%-  these supplements in appropriate doses and balanced combination  reduce all-cause aging disease and preventable premature mortality by at least 50%, without any adverse risks. .  

Neville-Webbe ea (2010)  note that bisphosphonates have anti-cancer potential. So use it for terminal cancer fracture pain. Why use it for anticancer potential in those with just osteoporosis when the basket of supplements (including approriate HRT, vigorous dose vitamin D and if approriate metformin) gives safe  global protection against all the major aging diseases?

 Just the reduction in excess diet omega6 oils will mean that only 10% of the current necessary omega3 daily allowance (3.5gm) will be essential.  

 In 2007 a leading team from the International menopause Society  Genazzani ea  warned that “Recent controversies with hormone replacement therapy (HRT) have caused much concern in women and their health-care providers. As a result, the number of HRT users in USA has fallen dramatically. Consequently, the potential HRT-induced reduction in fracture risk is lost so that, in the next few years, we can expect an excess of 43,008 fractures per year in women aged 65 – 69 years. In addition, the recent evidence on the merits of early initiation of HRT on cardiovascular disease risk and neurocognitive function and the effect of type and combination of hormones on breast cancer risk now require an urgent review by the regulatory authorities of their recommendations about HRT.”

 Now – 8 years after the  debacle the WHI caused – the Endocrine Society has at last come out with a Position Statement admitting the grave consequences from the hysterical misinterpretation of the early release of the Womens Health initiative results in 2002-2004, especially in rising fracture and colon cancer rates from avoidance of appropriate HRT in menopausal women across midlife. . Let alone, as Genazzani ea said above and we discussed at international, UK and European menopause meetings in 2003-2006, the potential loss of benefit against breast cancer, heart, stroke, depressive, diabetic and neurocognitive problems.

 In conclusion: A major intervention is required from governments, world authorities  to reduce all-cause morbidity and mortality : by drastically curtailing the marketing and prescription of rarely essential prescription designer drugs like bisphosphonates, and strontium ranelate for osteoporosis;  by insisting on increasing universal intake of proven natural multisupplements that are increasingly deficient in the food chain for the poor,  for infants, youngsters and the multiplying  aging- in the latter, including appropiate HRT;  and by forcing the processed food industry to stop stuffing foods and drinks with not just salt  and aspartame but also fructose, sucrose, various growh hormones, and omega6 oils.

But neither Big Pharma manufacturers, governments, so-called independent regulators, nor university and private practice leaders or retail pharmacists will do so, promote evidence-based supplements over risky new drugs- there is too much money at stake from lost taxes. research funding, lower under-patent snake-oil sales and far less major disease and hospital admissions.

So it is up to patients and honest healthcare providers to insist that evidence-based supplements – not trading practice based on huge marketting and snakeoil preaching for profiteering – be prescribed for prevention/ managing the major diseases of aging including osteoporosis.

SPECIALIST CHRONIC DISEASES CLINIC OF EXCELLENCE

   a Specialist Internist Physician [MB,ChB(UCT 1966), MRCP (UK 1974),   (fellow of the     Kronos Longevity Research Institute, Phoenix, Arizona 2004)  has opened a   CHRONIC DISEASE CLINIC    

 at Grove Medical Bldg, Grove Ave Claremont Cape Town  bewteen

ABSA Bank Parkade &  Warwick Sq opp. Cavendish Sq (also at Fish Hoek).

MISSION: To address the underlying causes of disease not just the symptoms,  to delay by decades all-cause disability and deaths.    Integrating natural and modern medicine.

managing and if possible delaying all common concurrent diseases of aging

including especially fatigue, frailty, diabetes;

 hypertension, cardiovascular, neurological, respiratory,

 abdominal, pain, headache, neurological -memory, renal, genitourinary,

endocrine , musculoskeletal, sexual and  immune diseases . 

Appropriate physiological Menopause and Aging Male HRT .

No-xray osteoporosis/BMD measurement by quantitative ultrasound.

Distance consulting.

phone/fax  +27216717415  for appointment, or respond below. .

Forbidden Medicine? Vitamin C-lecithin-fish oil- bioflavonoid interactions in the prevention of atherosclerosis, cancer and gallstones.

neil.burman@gmail.com

IS THERE ANYTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN?

Fish oil use for medicinal as well as dietary purposes  dates back at least to Viking times; but the 1922  scientific study of fish oil by Jack Drummond & Sylvester Zilva is the first paper on it on Pubmed, as a source of vitamin A.

But  in this ‘scientific’ era it took till the 1930s for fish  (ie codliver) oil’s  wide medicinal benefits  to be recognized.

Since then fish oil has proven to be the most pluripotential ‘micro’nutrient – at a dose as little as perhaps 100mg/day- in prevention and treatment (via either it’s omega3 EPA+DHA content, or its vitamins A and D content) of all common major diseases from learning , behaviour and memory disorders from birth to dotage, to infections, inflammation, arthritis, vision, pregnancy,  growth and osteoporosis, mood, Parkinson’s, hypertensive, vascular, thrombotic, lipid, cancer and diabetic disorders – probably halving all-cause ‘natural’ aging mortality.

The recognition of citrus juice- vitamin C – as a medicinal dates back apparently only 250 years to Dr James Lind’s recognition of it’s reversal of lethal scurvy. But it was first identified and isolated only about 80 years ago .  Since then it has proven to be as pluripotential a preventative as fish oil and now vitamin D3, and balanced sex hormone replacement.

The 1940s give the first reference  on Pubmed to bioflavonoids-which are anti-allergic, anti-inflammatory, anti-microbial, anti-cardiovascular disease, anti-varicose veins, anti-piles  and anti-cancer- and promote the absorption of vitamin C.

In 1971 Borgman & Haselden described the  effects of cod liver oil on dissolution of gallstones.

from 1973 Cameron Pauling & Campbell published their landmark work on vitamin C to tolerance (not antiscurvy doses or below many grams a day) in the prevention and treatment of many human cancers.

In 1974 Krumdieck & Butterworth’s landmark  paper on cholesterol-lecithin interactions: factors of potential importance in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. summarized the evidence for combining supplements of vitamin C and soy lecethin (ie polyunsaturated fatty acid at position 2)  in the prevention of atherosclerosis- since once this disease is present, it can take months to reverse.

in 1976  Navarro & Guevara described the importance of vitamin C in prevention of gallstones.

and by  1989 Wechsler  ea described how omega-3-fatty acids  – fish oil–  just 1.5gm a day decreases biliary cholesterol and lithogenicity.

by 1997 Mizuguchi ea described prevention  by fish oil of cholesterol gallstone formation in hamsters.

and in 1999  Takenaga ea described how Lecithinized ascorbic acid (PC-AS) effectively inhibits murine pulmonary metastasis.

Lecitithin is derived from food – meat, liver, legumes, cereals, fish and eggs – but not from fish oil.   It – phosphatidylcholine- is a principal component of fat metabolism, cell membranes, brain, semen, and against gallstones, atherosclerosis (and thus heart – vascular-hypertensive -brain-), breast,  cirrhosis and other liver diseases.

The crucial DHA and EPA omega3 fatty acids are, practically, derived exclusively from marine algae and thence krill and fish oil .

Hence the paramount importance (in preventing all common diseases)  of promoting fish oil (by the teaspoon or capsule) together with lecithinized Vitamin C to tolerance eg  vitamin C 50% enhanced with perhaps 15% calcium carbonate,  5% mag oxide,  10% bioflavonoid and 20% lecithin. Up to a heaped  tsp 2 – 3 times  a day of such an Enhanced Vitamin C  mix – ie to bowel tolerance- will provide 5 – 7.5g vitamin C, 500-750mg calcium, 300 -450mg magnesium, 1-1.5g bioflavonoid and 2- 3g  lecithin, without diarrhoea.

This self-degassing self-emulsifying blend puts within reach orally the eg 1gm/kg vitamin C per day vitamin C to produce the high enough plasma levels of vitamin C that have  been shown to be lethal to cancer cells in vitro and in vivo. For the much higher doses of vitamin C for this purpose eg 30gm daily, some  of the calcium and magnesium obviously need to be replaced with sodium to avoid 3000mg/day calcium and 1800mg/day  overdose.

Adding say 1tsp cod liver oil to half a glass of water with eg 3tsp of the powder blend (ie 6gm vitamin C) and beating it produces a smoothie emulsion  that is easy to drink. Who needs fish oil capsules now?. And there is  virtually no limit to the  amount of lethicinized calmag ascorbate – bioflavonoid omega3 emulsion  that can be poured into the body to combat eg infection, atherosclerosis and cancer.

Obviously to this should be added a blend of all the other few-score safe proven potential preventative supplements to combat all the other chronic diseases of premature aging including even multiple sclerosis (especially highdose vitamin D3).

So while oil and water dont usually mix in a glass, ie vitamin C and bioflavonoids are soluble in water but  not in  oil, combining them by taking them  together with lecithin, fish oil and calmag (to lessen acid load with  better absorbed calmag ascorbate) a few times a day makes huge sense for all disease prevention let alone support..

And none of it is news.

But the farce from  “authorities”- ‘Regulators’ (who are paid big protection money by Drug Companies)  – is that labels, marketing materials are  not allowed to say that cheap harmless food supplements prevent let alone treat disease!..

And “Authorities” want to regulate (or put on doctors’ prescription only) safe medicinal  food supplements when they will not ban   the biggest killer  drugs-  like DDT, PCBs,  PVCs (and other estrogenics eg from the highdose xenoestrogens & -progestins consumed  orally by possibly a billion women and excreted into the water chain to pollute land and sealife) ie  throughout the environment and  food chain; and  stuffing sodas and  processed foods with cornstarch, aspartame and phosphates; and over-the-counter refined sugar and salt, smoking tobacco and alcohol which should at best be made  prescription- or permit-only .