Category: Integrative Healthcare

Prior to the 20th century, mood disorders and mental illness were treated with a variety of obscure and often barbaric methods including frontal lobotomies (with no anesthesia), exorcisms, and shamanistic potions.

Dr. Benjamin Rush, the “father of American psychiatry,” was the first to believe that mental illness is a disease of the mind and not a “possession of demons.” His classic work, Observations and Inquiries upon the Diseases of the Mind, published in 1812, promoted the belief at the time, that “madness” was an arterial disease, an inflammation of the brain.

Dr. Rush wrote that as much as “four-fifths of the blood in the body” should be drawn away. Rush bled one patient forty-seven times, removing four gallons of blood over time. He confined others in his “Tranquilizer Chair” that completely immobilized every part of their bodies for long periods and blocked their sight with a bizarre wooden shroud, while they were doused in ice cold water.

In the early 1900’s, frontal lobotomies and electrical shock therapy were standard fair.

Insulin Coma Therapy was introduced into psychiatry in 1933. And within a few years, every psychiatric clinic in Germany was doing Insulin Coma Therapy. Along with all the praise it received, it was also associated with a very high mortality rate and eventually lost its appeal.

In 1954 the first “modern” sedative drug known as Thorazine fueled by a huge promotion campaign by Smith, Klein & French, swept the nation. This new medication along with Haldol, spawned an additional class of drugs known as benzodiazepines (tranquilizers). The effect of taking these drugs was explicitly compared to having a lobotomy, and they were thought to induce “chemical lobotomies.” Thorazine became the drug du jour during the 1950’s and the number of individuals taking it went from 428 in 1952 to over 2,000,000 in 1957.

In the 1960’s, Hoffman La Roche was successful in marketing the benzodiazepine (tranquilizers) Librium and Valium. Benzodiazepines became a frequent recommendation for any number of illnesses associated with mental stress. In fact, these drugs became known as “mother’s little helper.”

To combat the ills of modern day stress, housewives, college students, and busy executives were encouraged to take these medications. Valium became the best-selling drug at that time. Klonopin, Ativan, and Xanax followed, all hailed as safer and more effective than the anti-anxiety drugs that preceded them.

In reality, all of these drugs work about the same and have similar side effects, including sleep disturbances (poor sleep), seizures, neuropsychiatric disturbances (mania, depression, suicide, etc.), tinnitus (ringing in the ears), transient memory loss (amnesia), dizziness, agitation (anxiety), disorientation, hypotension (low blood pressure), nausea, edema (fluid retention), ataxia (muscular in-coordination), tremors, sexual dysfunction (decreased desire and performance), asthenia (weakness), somnolence (prolonged drowsiness or a trance-like condition that may continue for a number of days), and headaches.

Forty percent of adults, sixty or older experience drug-induced tics or tardive dyskinesia (tremors or uncontrollable shakes) from taking a benzodiazepine drug. Tragically, only 10 to 30 percent are able to successfully stop taking these drugs. Most are addicted for life. (Please see my past article, “SOS Save Our Seniors”).

 

Modern Era

 

In the 1960’s, Merck introduced the tricyclic antidepressant drug, Amitriptyline (Elavil). Tricyclic drugs were promoted as safer and more effective than benzodiazepines. Initially all the rage, these drugs became synonymous with sedation, weight gain, loss of sex drive, nervousness, weakness, blurred vision, muscle spasms or tremors, dry mouth, and convulsions. These drugs fell out of favor when the newer, supposedly safer, but largely over-hyped selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI’s) medications became available.

The first SSRI to hit the American market was Prozac in 1987 (please see my past articles “Warning Your Antidepressant May be Your Problem,” and “The Depressing Truth About Antidepressants”) and was quickly hailed as the “wonder drug” of the 20th century. But, like many of the so-called “wonder drugs,” Prozac and the rest of the SSRI drugs haven’t lived up to all the hype. The popularity of these medications is largely due to the false belief that SSRI’s are safe, effective, and have relatively few risks. However, their side effects include-anxiety, depression, headache, muscle pain, chest pain, nervousness, sleeplessness, drowsiness, weakness, changes in sex drive, tremors, dry mouth, irritated stomach, loss of appetite, dizziness, nausea, rash, itching, weight gain, diarrhea, impotence, hair loss, dry skin, chest pain, bronchitis, abnormal heart beat, twitching, anemia, low blood sugar, and low thyroid.

In December of 2006, the FDA warned that SSRI drugs cause increased suicidality in young adults. Suicide occurs more than twice as much on antidepressants than on sugar pills in individuals under age twenty-five. And to top it all off, studies show that up to 70 percent of those taking antidepressant medications do just as well by taking a placebo or sugar pill.

 

21st Century Psychotics

 

The new class of “wonder drugs” for the treatment of mood disorders is known as atypical antipsychotics: Zyprexa, Risperdal, Geodon, Ivega, Abilify, Clozril, and Seroquel. Originally used for schizophrenia and bi-polar patients, atypicals have now become routine in the treatment of ADD, anxiety, depression, and Alzheimer’s disease.

They’re being marketed as safer and more effective than the older antipsychotic benzodiazepines—less shakes, better response. Of course, like most wonder drugs, they come with a steep cost—atypicals cost some twenty times more than the older psychotic drugs. The FDA has gone on record warning that there’s no proof that these drugs are safer or better and any advertisement that promotes this is false.

No problem. Even though they couldn’t promote their drugs, the drug companies could and did hire academics and doctors to recommend these drugs.

In an attempt to squelch the debate, in 2005 the U.S. government funded a $60 million study called CATIE (Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness). The study concluded, first, atypicals were generally no more effective than the older drug, perphenazine (similar to Haldol) and, secondly, slightly fewer people on atypicals dropped out of the study due to tremors, but the new drugs had their own distinct side effects—weight gain and diabetes.

According to Harvard trained psychiatrist, Dr. Stefan Kruszewski, “The new generation of antipsychotics substantially increase the risk of obesity, diabetes type II, hypertension, cardiovascular complications, heart attacks and stroke.” Persons on atypicals have been found to commit suicide two to five times more frequently than the schizophrenic population in general. Other potential side effects include tardive dyskinesia, low blood pressure (seen as dizziness and possibly fainting), increased heart beat, seizures, liver problems, difficulty swallowing, sleepiness, dry mouth, dizziness, restlessness, constipation, upset stomach, weight gain, increased appetite, and tremor.

Stay tuned. I’m sure there will be another antipsychotic “wonder drug” appearing in a media campaign soon. I can’t wait to hear how the new drug is safer and more effective than today’s atypicals.

 

Rodger Murphree, D.C., has been in private practice since 1990. He is the founder of, and past clinic director for a large integrated medical practice, which was located on the campus of Brookwood Hospital in Birmingham, Alabama. He is the author of Treating and Beating Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Heart Disease What Your Doctor Won’t Tell You, and Treating and Beating Anxiety and Depression with Orthomolecular Medicine. He can be reached at www.treatingandbeating.com, by email at [email protected] or call 1-205-879-2383.

References

1. R. H. Murphree, D.C. Treating and Beating Anxiety and Depression with Orthomolecular Medicine. Harrison and Hamptom Publishing Birmingham Alabama 2005.

2. Figures from Judith Swazey’s book, Chlorpromazine in psychiatry, published 1974.

 

I graduated from Life College in 1990 and, within a couple of years, had built a large “straight” practice—adjusting seventy to eighty patients a day. While I was able to help most of my patients, some still suffered from illnesses that didn’t always respond to chiropractic care alone. “Why?” I asked. I started asking my patients about their diets and lifestyles. I found that most of my patients had such unhealthy lifestyles and were so uninformed about their bodies that they were doomed to a life of poor health and misery.

I began to slowly add diet and nutritional advice into my practice. I found that patients who took a good multivitamin/mineral supplement started having less pain, more energy, and felt better overall. I read dozens of medical and nutritional books and traveled around the country training with some of the masters of nutritional and integrative medicine. I took all the post-graduate classes I could on nutrition and biochemistry. Slowly, I saw my practice change from seeing seventy to eighty patients a day, to seeing fifteen to twenty-five “medical misfit” patients a day. These “medical misfits” had either fallen through the conventional medical cracks (didn’t respond) or were seeking a more natural way to restore their health.

My practice continued to grow to accommodate the ever-increasing misfits, especially those with fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). And I was able to help many of them. But I began to feel that my practice was inferior to conventional medical practices. Surely, if my patients could get prescription drugs along with nutritional therapy, they’d do even better.

To counter my insecurity, I decided I would open my own medical practice. Advanced Family Medicine was based on integrating prescription and natural therapies (integrative medicine) for the prevention and treatment of disease. As the clinical director, I either wrote or oversaw all of the nutritional and medical therapies used in our practice, including chelation therapy, oxygen therapy (H202 IV’s), vitamin/mineral IV’s, human growth hormone (HGH) injections, nutritional protocols and, of course, prescription drug therapies. I learned a great deal about integrating traditional and alternative methods. I saw how prescription medications could provide quick relief for many of the common illnesses. Some prescription medications were tremendously helpful, including natural bio-identical hormones (tri-estrogen and progesterone cream), Armour thyroid, T3 Therapy, low dose Cortef, proper sleep medications (only after 5-HTP [5-Hydroxytryptophan], melatonin or other naturals didn’t work), antibiotics for acute bacterial infections, and cortisone for acute back pain and respiratory infections.

But, I also (re-) learned, from first hand experience, that prescription drugs often lead to more health problems.

The medical practice continued to grow and we moved onto the campus of a large hospital in Birmingham, Alabama. Eventually, we became so overwhelmed with patients that we fell back into the conventional medical paradigm of ten to fifteen minute office visits ending with more prescriptions (either nutritional or medical). We had lost some of the original ideas that prompted me to start the medical practice. And between managing six doctors, a staff of fifteen, and never ending day-to-day stress, I lost my joy of practicing. It was time for a change.

In 2003, my first book, Treating and Beating Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, was released to bookstores.

That same year I sold my integrative medical practice and, with some trepidation, opened my own one-man practice again. I found, through trial and error, that the less I referred to my old medical clinic, the better my fibromyalgia patients did. The reasons were many but, mainly, the less medication the patient was on, the easier it was to restore their own self-healing mechanisms.

This doesn’t mean I don’t refer to medical doctors; as needed, I do. But, now that I’ve been on both sides of the fence (conventional medicine and nutritional medicine), I know that nutritional medicine and chiropractic care are often enough. I had come full circle. I knew that the best way for my patients to feel better, and get well, was to get them healthy from the inside out. Funny, since this is exactly what D. D. and B. J. Palmer, the founding fathers of chiropractic, said years ago.

Patients now call or travel from all over the country to consult with me. Why? Because chiropractic and nutritional therapy work, even if traditional medicine says it doesn’t. Conventional medicine continues to promote more and more drugs while ignoring and even attacking the merits of scientific, research based, nutritional medicine.

There is no doubt that conventional medicine saves thousands of lives each year. Conventional medicine excels at life saving treatments. It’s often effective in alleviating many of the symptoms associated with certain illnesses. However, no one is born with or develops a drug deficiency.

Treating symptoms doesn’t translate to having better health. Conventional medicine therapies often attempt to mop the wet kitchen floor (symptom) while ignoring the leaky roof (cause). Even those within the medical profession are acknowledging that the use of drugs to pacify every symptom is only a temporary band-aid, at best, and, at worst, causes many of the symptoms seen in doctor’s offices each day.

Author John R. Lee, MD, author of What Your Doctor May Not Tell You about Menopause, has this to say on the subject: “Most over-the-counter, and almost all prescribed, drug treatments merely mask symptoms…. Drugs almost never deal with the reasons why these problems exist, while they frequently create new health problems as side-effects of their activities.”

Chiropractors often refer to a saying by Thomas Edison: “The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame, in diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease.”

The greener grass isn’t always as satisfying as we imagine. Giving up my medical practice and practicing solo again has helped me appreciate just how rewarding it is to be one of the thousands of chiropractors who are the doctors of the future of which Edison spoke.

 

Rodger Murphree, D.C., has been in private practice since 1990. He is the founder of, and past clinic director for a large integrated medical practice, which was located on the campus of Brookwood Hospital in Birmingham, Alabama. He is the author of Treating and Beating Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Heart Disease What Your Doctor Won’t Tell You, and Treating and Beating Anxiety and Depression with Orthomolecular Medicine. He can be reached at www.treatingandbeating.com, by email at [email protected] or call 1-205-879-2383.

 

Children these days spend an enormous amount of time watching television, on the computer and playing video games. Their physical activity levels have decreased and their body weights have increased. It has been estimated that almost half of children between the ages of eight and sixteen years watch three to five hours of television a day. Due to lack of exercise, it is these same kids who have the highest incidence of obesity.

According to the National Institutes of Health, childhood obesity is now epidemic in the United States. In the last twenty to thirty years, the number of children who are overweight has more than doubled. This increase is in both children and adolescents and in all age, race and gender groups.

Homeopathy is the only healing modality that has a successful 200 year history and, yet, is still on the cutting edge of medical technology! The field of medicine is only just recently beginning to recognize the vital importance of considering the human body as a complex, connected, dynamic whole. Attempts to treat just the symptomatic aspect of an individual’s disease or disorder are often unsuccessful in restoring health and frequently cause a number of undesirable side effects. Homeopathy is the absolute safest treatment available for weight loss, due to its ability to stimulate the body’s own natural healing processes, allowing each individual to regain and maintain a state of optimal health.

The correct combination of homeopathic ingredients has particular emphasis on six key issues behind weight gain and difficult or impossible weight loss:

• genetically inherited factors of obesity;

• appetite control;

• malfunctioning pituitary, hypothalamus, adrenal and/or thyroid gland;

• aversion to mental and/or physical exertion;

• digestive disturbances or disorders

• emotional factors that cause children or adults to overeat;

In order to present the complexity of the homeopathic approaches to healthy appetite and weight control, we can group the large number of beneficial ingredients into three categories:

1. Similia similibus curentur (Like cures like). Ingredients under this category are based upon the homeopathic principle known as the Law of Similars, meaning that, at high concentrations, these ingredients cause characteristic symptoms which are relieved at low or ultra-low homeopathic concentrations. These ingredients include botanicals, zoologicals, elements, and elemental compounds which have been proven to correct the causes and eliminate the symptoms associated with weight gain, water retention, abnormal appetite and difficult weight loss.

2. Aequalia aequalibus curentur (Same causes cure in same). Ingredients under this category rely upon one of the earliest innovations of homeopathy, isopathy, which is based upon the principle of sameness. Over the 200 year history of homeopathy, it was discovered that preparations of healthy organs or glands can relieve disease or disorder and restore healthy functioning in those exact same organs or glands when given to the individual in homeopathic form. This fascinating discovery is incorporated by the inclusion of four endocrine glands we call PHAT: the pituitary, hypothalamus, adrenal, and thyroid—which are heavily implicated in weight gain, water retention, and dysfunctional appetite. These homeopathic glandulars are prepared according to strict standards from healthy domestic animals used as food sources for humans.

3. Pondera rememdium (Balanced healing). The remainder of beneficial ingredients have amazing effects on weight, appetite and water retention control. These ingredients act by enhancing the body’s modulating abilities or, in other words, by enabling the body to balance its health by altering its sensitivity and/or response to these ingredients within the body.

For example, adrenaline regulates appetite and satiety as a neurotransmitter in the brain. As a circulating hormone, it acts as a “fat-burner” by stimulating lipolysis in adipose tissue (metabolic breakdown of fat in fat-storing tissue). It is a known stimulant that increases pulse rate and blood flow, increases muscular strength and endurance, and promotes an invigorated state of mind. Homeopathically, adrenaline has an almost identical function. It has been proven to relieve increased appetite, apathy, lack of ambition, loss of strength, general anemia, and even belching after meals. Thus, the body appears to respond to homeopathic adrenaline by encouraging a healthy sensitivity and response to this chemical as it naturally occurs in the body. Because we are enhancing the body’s natural processes, there is no risk of causing over or under stimulation.

Obesity presents numerous problems for a child. Many serious medical conditions are linked to obesity, including type 2 diabetes, pediatric hypertension, heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, certain types of cancer, gallbladder disease and gallstones, fatty liver disease, GERD (acid reflux disease), osteoarthritis, gout, respiratory problems and reproductive problems in women. The results of a study performed at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore a couple of years ago “suggest that overweight patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis will have greater curve progression and less successful results following orthotic treatment than those who are not overweight.”¹

Then, too, emotional suffering is probably one of the most painful parts of obesity. Society emphasizes physical appearance and usually “attractive” is “slim.” These “messages” make overweight people feel unattractive. Children and teens who are obese often face prejudice or discrimination at school, in social situations and even in their own families. Lifelong feelings of rejection, shame or depression may be the result.

Homeopathy functions very differently from other remedies, such as herbs, vitamins and minerals. While herbs, vitamins and minerals work on a bio-chemical level to change or support body chemistry, homeopathy works on a bio-energetic level to bring balance to our higher communication networks. All body functions are controlled and coordinated through energetic communication networks such as our nervous system. Every chemical within our body has a particular charge to respond very specifically to our energetic control networks. By balancing our energetic communications with homeopathy, the roots to our bio-chemical functions can also be restored. The bio-energetic realm of life controls the bio-chemical realm of life.

We have found that the easiest and most effective way to rebuild our health, physically and emotionally, is to first restore the communication networks within our body. The deeper works of homeopathy can make all of our other efforts to enhance health much simpler. In fact, homeopathy will empower our body to respond much more effectively to all our efforts in building health.

As the inner integrity of our health is restored with homeopathy:

• recurring subluxation patterns will stabilize and correct;

• good eating habits become more effectual;

• herbal and nutritional supplements become more effectual;

• exercise efforts become more effectual;

• even our efforts to manage stress and think more positively become more effectual.

As we grasp more completely the power of these healing principles, we will be able to take on a greater level of authority and control in our health. We will become more successful stewards of our bodies.

Homeopathy works so deeply within the inner fabric of the human body that actual cures can take place. Even inherited problems and weaknesses (called miasms in homeopathy) have well documented cures. With homeopathy, we possess another tool to help stop the inheritance of genetic problems and weaknesses by our offspring, in addition to offering the safest, most effective, time-tested regime when it comes to obesity and its many difficulties and complications.

 

Frank J. King Jr., ND, DC, is a nationally recognized researcher, author and lecturer on homeopathy. In addition, Dr. King is the founder and director of King Bio, an FDA registered homeopathic manufacturing company dedicated to completing chiropractic destiny with the marriage of homeopathy. These procedures can be used with any homeopathic company’s product line and are so easy you can apply them in one day. Call King Bio, Asheville, NC, 1-800-543-3245 or email [email protected].

 

Reference

1. O’Neill, Patrick J., MD, et al. Decreased Orthotic Effectiveness in Overweight Patients with Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American), 2005;87:1073.

In the 1992 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton was a heavy underdog to popular incumbent George H. W. Bush. Bush was considered unbeatable due to foreign policy successes including the end of the Cold War and routing Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War. But Bush’s approval ratings, which had been in the 90 percent range, began to dip as his campaign ignored the economic recession. Clinton’s campaign manager James Carville’s now famous campaign slogan, “It’s the economy stupid,” helped turn the tide and Bill Clinton became the forty-second American president.

Just like George Bush’s 1992 presidential campaign, today’s medical community continues to promote the medical myths associated with cholesterol while ignoring the real cause of cardiovascular disease, inflammation.

Conventional opinion and current medical dogma holds that low cholesterol, especially low LDL cholesterol, reduces the risk and incidence of heart disease and stroke. This belief is so entrenched in the medical community that the FDA now approves drugs to prevent heart disease, as it did with Zetia and Vytorin, solely on the evidence that they lower LDL cholesterol levels. Zetia has never been proven to reduce heart attacks, strokes or death. Statin drugs help reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke for those who’ve already had a cardiac event (one percent over placebo) but fail to reduce death in women, the elderly, men over the age of 47, and in men without cardiovascular risk factors.

A 2006 study in The Archives of Internal Medicine looked at seven trials of statin use in nearly 43,000 patients, mostly middle-aged men without heart disease. In that review, statins didn’t lower mortality.

Nor did they in a study known as Prosper, published in The Lancet in 2002, which studied statin use in people seventy and older. Nor did they in a 2004 review in The Journal of the American Medical Association, which looked at thirteen studies of nearly 20,000 women, both healthy and with established heart disease.

Despite a growing voice of reason, which became even louder after the recently released Enhance study, the cholesterol zealots continue to view cardiovascular disease with tunnel vision. This myopic vision fuels the cholesterol drug war which rages on as each pharmaceutical company seeks to gain economic gain in the 40 billion dollar a year lipid lowering drug market.

In an attempt to take on the cholesterol Goliath, Pfizer’s Lipitor (10 billion dollars in sales annually), Merck and Schering-Plough combined their cholesterol lowering drugs, Zocor and Zetia, to form the “super drug” known as Vytorin. Vytorin’s goal was to lower LDL cholesterol more than either drug could alone. Zetia lowers blood cholesterol by blocking the absorption of dietary cholesterol from the intestines. Zetia used alone is modestly effective in lowering LDL cholesterol by approximately 17 percent. Zocor alone lowers LDL levels by 36 percent—similar to Lipitor.

The hope was that by lowering LDL to dramatically low levels, Vytorin would do a better job of slowing the accumulation of fatty plaques in the arteries. Vytorin did, in fact, reduce LDL—by a whopping 51 percent (similar to AstraZeneca’s Crestor).

However, the two-year “Enhance” trial failed to prove that Vytorin is better than Zocor alone for slowing plaque accumulation; instead atherosclerosis worsened in those taking Vytorin.

Merck and Schering-Plough suppressed this finding for twenty months.

The study results were not revealed until the two drug companies were pressured into doing so by an article in The New York Times and a Congressional inquiry. The marketers of Vytorin said they had nothing to hide. It’s hard to believe they weren’t just a little reluctant to publish their highly anticipated study. The news that Vytorin, which retails for $100 a month and did $2 billion in sales in 2007, was clinically inferior (perhaps even dangerous) to generic simvastatin (statin), costing less than $20 a month, obviously wasn’t what stockholders wanted to hear.

Merck and Schering-Plough are running full-page ads daily in the Times and Wall Street Journal, warning people not to be confused by a single study and to continue taking Vytorin. The advice was backed by the American Heart Association, which the Times reported receives nearly $2 million a year from Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals.

Other LDL lowering drugs have bitten the dust in the last coupe of years as well.

Pfizer’s trial of its much-anticipated drug torcetrapib, which raised HDL, the good cholesterol, and lowered LDL, had to be stopped in 2006 because the drug caused heart attacks and strokes.

Estrogen replacement therapy, which is known to lower LDL cholesterol levels, failed to reduce the incidence of heart attack and stroke in clinical studies.

Ok, if cholesterol lowering isn’t the answer for everyone, why do statins help people with existing heart disease? Dr. James K. Liao of Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has been investigating this question for over a decade. He suspects that statins have other biological effects. His research shows that statin drugs not only block cholesterol, but also an inflammation-generating enzyme known as rho-kinase.

When Liao reduced the rho-kinase levels in rats, they didn’t get heart disease. “Cholesterol lowering is not the reason for the benefit of statins,” he concludes. Of course, there are dozens of inflammatory chemicals that play a role in triggering cardiovascular disease. Diet, health habits, our environment, even our personality may initiate inflammatory chemicals that perpetuate cardiovascular disease events.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “People see only what they are prepared to see.” As the evidence about inflammation and cardiovascular disease rises, will conventional medicine and the public at large be prepared to see that it’s not about lowering cholesterol but in reducing inflammation? Hopefully, “It’s the inflammation, stupid,” will become a common slogan in the campaign to fight cardiovascular disease.

Rodger Murphree, D.C., has been in private practice since 1990. He is the founder of, and past clinic director for a large integrated medical practice, which was located on the campus of Brookwood Hospital in Birmingham, Alabama. He is the author of Treating and Beating Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Heart Disease What Your Doctor Won’t Tell You, and Treating and Beating Anxiety and Depression with Orthomolecular Medicine. He can be reached at www.treatingandbeating.com, by email at [email protected] or 1-205-879-2383.

References

1. Harriet Rosenberg and Danielle Allard “Evidence for Ca Women and statin use.” Women and Health Protection June 2007.

2. Business Week magazine Lipitor cover story: “Do Cholesterol Drugs do any Good?” January 17, 2008.

3. TheHeart.org from Web MD www.theheart.org, see video blog of Eric J. Topol, MD, “Temple of the LDL Cholesterol.”

4. “REPEAT/New Study Showed VYTORIN^® Superior to Lipitor in Reducing LDL ‘’Bad’’ Cholesterol in Patients with Type II Diabetes at the Recommended Usual Starting Doses.” Business Wire. June 12, 2006.

5. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics, www.thincs.org.

6. Rodger H. Murphree D.C., Heart Disease What Your Doctor Won’t Tell You. Harrison and Hampton Publishing Birmingham, AL. 2006.

 

Accounting for 6.5 percent of the total market share, statin drugs are the most widely sold pharmaceutical drugs in history. To date, Forbes Magazine tells us that statins are earning drug companies $26 billion in annual sales.

Pfizer spends over $3 billion each year to convince us that we need more and more drugs to be healthy. The public and the medical profession have been bamboozled by the legions of drug reps, billion dollar ad campaigns, and creative statistics. Every weekday, some 38,000 Pfizer sales reps, roughly the size of three army divisions, make their pitches around the globe. They’re armed with briefcases full of free drug samples, reams of manipulated clinical data, and lavish expense accounts for wining and dining doctors and their staffs. The medical profession, its organizations, the media, and the public at large have swallowed the statin drug propaganda, hook, line and sinker.

In 2004, Pfizer’s blockbuster drug Lipitor became the first prescription drug to make more than $10 billion in annual sales. Over twenty-six million Americans have taken Lipitor, the most popular statin drug. Pfizer is now running full-page Lipitor ads in numerous papers, including The New York Times and USA Today. The ads feature Dr. Robert Jarvik, inventor of the artificial heart. The ad reads: In patients with multiple risk factors for heart disease, LIPITOR REDUCES RISK OF HEART ATTACK BY 36%.* The noteworthy part of this ad is the asterisk and this explanation of the 36 percent statistic: “That means, in a large clinical study, 3% of patients taking a sugar pill or placebo had a heart attack compared to 2% of patients taking Lipitor.”

Another Jarvik/Lipitor Times ad proclaims: “In patients with type 2 diabetes, LIPITOR REDUCES RISK OF STROKE BY 48%.* If you also have at least one other risk factor for heart disease….” The explanation: “That means, in a large clinical study, 2.8% of patients taking a sugar pill or placebo had a stroke compared to 1.5% of patients taking Lipitor.”

Twenty-six billion dollars a year for a one to two percent decreased risk for heart attack and stroke—that’s what all the fuss is about? It almost seems like snake oil. Yet, some doctors are recommending we put statins in the drinking water. Others are now suggesting that infants with a family history of heart disease should take statins as a preventative measure.

The Washington Post ran an article that reported on the PROVE-IT study: “‘The findings should prompt doctors to give much higher doses of drugs known as statins to hundreds of thousands of patients who already have severe heart problems,’ experts said.”

Perhaps “the experts” aren’t aware of studies that show low serum total cholesterol is associated with a marked increase in mortality in advanced heart failure.

One of the largest of these studies was conducted at UCLA Department of Medicine and Cardiomyopathy Center in Los Angeles. The study involved more than a thousand patients with severe congestive heart failure (CHF). After five years, 62 percent of the patients with cholesterol below 129 mg/l had died, but only half as many of the patients with cholesterol above 223 mg/l.

The Post article goes on to say: “In addition, it will probably encourage physicians to start giving the medications to millions of healthy people who are not yet on them and to boost dosages for some of those already taking them to lower their cholesterol even more.”

The last line of the quote above should ellicit alarm from every taxpayer in America. Why? Because it will be the taxpayers who will pay for all those Medicaid and Medicare statin prescriptions, amounting to billions of dollars spent on worthless and dangerous drugs. Worse, we’ll also be paying for all the costs associated with the drug-induced side effects of the statin medications—congestive heart failure, polyneuritis, muscle pain, depression, memory loss (dementia), poor immune function, and fatigue, to name a few.

Okay, the real question is this: “Do statin drugs reduce deaths associated with cardiovascular disease?”

Contrary to the Lipitor ads, apparently not, since a meta-analysis of forty-four trials involving almost 10,000 patients showed the death rate was identical at one percent of patients in each of the three groups—those taking atorvastatin (Lipitor), those taking other statins and those taking nothing.

And what about using statins as a prophylactic measure?

A meta-analysis of five major statin drugs showed that statin drugs provided a total absolute reduction in total mortality of 0.3 percent among those who showed no signs of having cardiovascular disease (primary prevention). With respect to preventing heart attack and stroke, the five combined studies showed that statins prevented these events by a mere 1.4 percent.

We’d be wise to read the study below before putting statins in the drinking water.

The British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology reported on an analysis of all the major controlled trials before the year 2000 and found that long-term use of statins for primary prevention of heart disease produced a one percent greater risk of death over ten years, compared to a placebo.

The only thing statin drug trials have proven for sure is that statin drugs lower cholesterol by inhibiting an enzyme known as HMG-CoA-Reductase. Regardless of their ability to lower cholesterol, they failed to show that this effect has any meaningful benefit for preventing early death from heart disease, heart attack or stroke. And they’ve proven to be a catalyst for dangerous side effects.

The most common side effect associated with statin drugs is muscle pain and weakness. The symptoms are most likely due to the depletion of CoQ10, a nutrient that supports muscle function. One study found that 98 percent of patients taking Lipitor and one-third of the patients taking Mevachor (a lower-dose statin) suffered from muscle problems.

A Denmark study that evaluated 500,000 patients found that taking statins for one year raised the risk of nerve damage by about 15 percent—about one case for every 2,200 patients. For those who took statins for two or more years, the additional risk rose to 26 percent.

Former astronaut Dr. Duane Graveline describes in his book, Lipitor: Thief of Memory, his complete memory loss due to the side effects of Lipitor.

The incidence of congestive heart failure (CHF) has steadily increased since the introduction of statin drugs. In fact, while heart attacks have slightly declined, CHF has more than doubled since 1989. Statins were first prescribed in 1987.

An article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reveals that, in every study with rodents to date, statins have caused cancer. In the CARE trial, breast cancer rates of those taking a statin went up 1500 percent.

And one last reason to avoid statins—men whose cholesterol levels are lowered through the use of prescription medications double their chances of committing suicide.

I applaud Pfizer for coming clean on their new Lipitor ads. I just hope the public and the brainwashed medical community pays attention to the asterisk and the fine print. A one to two percent benefit earns Pfizer ten billion dollars a year. Mind-boggling, isn’t it?

Rodger Murphree, D.C., has been in private practice since 1990. He is the founder of, and past clinic director for a large integrated medical practice, which was located on the campus of Brookwood Hospital in Birmingham, Alabama. He is the author of Treating and Beating Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Heart Disease What Your Doctor Won’t Tell You, and Treating and Beating Anxiety and Depression with Orthomolecular Medicine. He can be reached at www.treatingandbeating.com, by email at [email protected] or by phone at 1-205-879-2383.

References

 1. Harriet Rosenberg and Danielle Allard “Evidence for Caution: Women and statin use” Women and Health Protection June 2007

  2. Business Week magazine Lipitor cover story: “Do Cholesterol Drugs do any Good?”January 17, 2008.

 3. TheHeart.org from Web MD www.theheart.org, see video blog of Eric J. Topol, MD, “Temple of the LDL Cholesterol.”

 4. “REPEAT/New Study Showed VYTORIN® Superior to Lipitor in Reducing LDL ”Bad” Cholesterol in Patients with Type II Diabetes at the Recommended Usual Starting Doses.”  Business Wire. June 12, 2006.

 5. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics, www.thincs.org.

 6. Rodger H. Murphree D.C., Heart Disease What Your Doctor Won’t Tell You.  Harrison and Hampton Publishing Birmingham, AL. 2006.

It’s estimated that, by the year 2010, some forty percent of Americans sixty-five or older will have adult-onset diabetes.

Diabetes was a rare illness in the United States in 1880, with only 2.8 persons out of every 100,000 having diabetes. The rise in diabetes is associated the modern Western diet.

In the early 1800’s, the per capita consumption of sugar (sucrose) was about twelve pounds a year. Today, in the United States, the per capita consumption of sugar is more than 150 pounds a year.

For every person who consumes only five pounds of sugar, there is another who eats 295 pounds annually. This accounts for 550 to 650 calories a day, or almost three pounds per week. In 2001, Americans spent $21 billion on candy alone—more than the gross national products of Lithuania, Costa Rica, and Mozambique combined.

As our consumption of high-fructose corn syrup has risen 250 percent in the past fifteen years, our rate of diabetes has increased approximately 45 percent in about the same time period.

Sixty five million Americans are now obese—more than the total population of Great Britain.

The Western diet of refined grains, snacks, “fast foods,” and sugary sweets increases the risk for developing type 2 diabetes by fifty percent. The Western diet combined with obesity increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 1,100 percent!

A healthy diet, daily exercise, and weight management offers the best defense for reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes.

One study showed that, while some medications delay the development of diabetes, diet and exercise work better. Just thirty minutes a day of moderate physical activity, coupled with a five to ten percent reduction in body weight, produces a fifty-eight percent reduction in the incidence of diabetes among people at risk.

In several large scale studies with follow up periods of six to fourteen years, there was a decrease of thirty to fifty per cent in the development of type 2 diabetes among those who exercised regularly, compared with those who were sedentary. This result was found in both obese and non-obese men and women.

 

What about Insulin?

 

In Part One of this article, I explored the hypoglycemic anti-diabetic drugs (Avandia, Actos, and Metformin). These medications can be helpful, but are associated with life threatening side effects and ultimately fail to stop the progression of type 2 diabetes. “What about insulin therapy?” you may ask.

Good question. Before insulin therapy, type 1 diabetes meant a life of misery and premature death. Insulin is a life saving and, therefore, essential therapy for type 1 diabetes. The number of medical professionals advocating insulin therapy for type 2 diabetes continues to grow.

However, its use isn’t without risk. Insulin stimulates weight gain, a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease. As patients on insulin therapy gain weight, so do their requirements for increased insulin.

The majority of patients, some ninety percent are non-insulin dependent type 2 diabetic, and suffer from poor diet, obesity, and inactivity, not from a lack of insulin. I encourage my patients with type 2 diabetes to try neutraceutical therapies instead.

 

Neutraceuticals for Type 2 Diabetes

 

In the fight against type 2 diabetes there are dozens of safe and effective neutraceutical therapies. I’ll mention a few of my favorites below.

Corosolic acid is found in the leaves of the banaba plant that grows in the Philippines. Subjects using a corosolic acid preparation called Glucotrim each day for two weeks experienced a thirty percent drop in blood sugar levels. Researchers considered both levels of blood sugar reduction significant.

Corosolic acid may be defined as a phyto-insulin or insulin-like plant extract.

And how about this for a potential side effect: Subjects receiving the corosolic acid seem to show an increased tendency toward weight loss (an average weight loss of 3.2 pounds).

Gymnema sylvestre, an Indian herb used in Ayurvedic medicine, lowers the two-hour postprandial plasma glucose concentrations, by thirteen percent (207 vs. 180mg/dl).

Gymnema Sylvestre research reveals that it lowers HbA1c from 10.1 percent to 9.3 percent. This is as good, if not better, than common diabetic drugs.

Clinical trials of vanadyl sulfate have been carried out in both type 1 and type 2 diabetics. Modest improvement in glucose tolerance and/or insulin sensitivity, especially in type 2 diabetes, has been observed, although the trials have been for a short period. In eleven type 2 diabetic subjects who were treated with150 mg/day of vanadyl sulfate for six weeks, there was a 20 percent reduced fasting plasma glucose and a ten percent reduced percent hemoglobin A1c from 8.2 to 7.6 percent.

Studies show that alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) speeds the removal of glucose (sugar) from the blood of people with diabetes and that this antioxidant may prevent kidney damage associated with diabetes. And several studies suggest that treatment with ALA may help reduce pain, burning, itching, tingling, and numbness in people who have nerve damage caused by diabetes.

In several studies, the mineral biotin has been shown to enhance the performance of insulin. Biotin supplements can also increase the activity of an enzyme, glucokinase, which the liver uses early in the process of utilizing blood sugar.

Chromium is an essential mineral for human nutrition and aids in the normal function of insulin. In twelve out of fifteen controlled studies of people with impaired glucose tolerance, chromium supplementation was found to improve some measure of glucose utilization or to have beneficial effects on blood lipid profiles.

The type 2 diabetic dilemma: Do they suffer with the advances of unchecked diabetes, including risk of heart attack, stroke, and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease death? Or, do they take conventional anti-diabetic drugs and increase their risk of heart attack, stroke, and death from cardiovascular disease? My patients opt for a healthy diet, daily exercise, and neutraceutical therapies. They decide to use prescription anti-diabetic drugs only when these safe and, often, more effective natural approaches fail to work alone.

 

Rodger Murphree, D.C., has been in private practice since 1990. He is the founder of, and past clinic director for a large integrated medical practice, which was located on the campus of Brookwood Hospital in Birmingham, Alabama. He is the author of Treating and Beating Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Heart Disease What Your Doctor Won’t Tell You, and Treating and Beating Anxiety and Depression with Orthomolecular Medicine. He can be reached at http://www.treatingandbeating.com/, by email at [email protected]or 1-205-879-2383

 

References

1. Van Dam RM, Rimm, EB, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Hu FB. Dietary patterns and risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus in U.S. men. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:201-209.

2. Beckles GLA et al. American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 1998;21(Suppl 2).

3. Colwell JA. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124(1pt2):131-135.

4. Abraira C et al. Diabetes Care. 1992;15:1560-1571.

5. Klein R et al. Am J Epidemiol. 1987;126:415-428.

6. Sheard NF. Moderate changes in weight and physical activity can prevent or delay the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus in susceptible individuals. Nutr Rev. 2003 Feb;61(2):76–9.

7. Sedentary (N Engl J Med, 1991; 325: 147-52; Lancet, 1991; 338: 774-8; Am J Epidemiol, 1995; 41: 360-8).

8. Cowie CC et al. Diabetes in America. 2nd ed.vol. 44, November 0l. 44, November, References.

9. How to Prevent and Treat Diabetes with Natural Medicine, Michael Murray. Riverhead Books, New York, NY 10014, 2003.

10. K. Cusi et al. Vanadyl Sulfate Improves Hepatic and Muscle Insulin Sensitivity in Type 2 Diabetes.University of Texas Health Science Center (K.C., R.A.D.), San Antonio, Texas 78284.

11. Thompson KH, Orvig C, “Vanadium Compounds in the Treatment of Diabetes,” Met Ions Biol Syst. 2004;41:7:221-252..

12. Ametov AS, Barinov A, et al. The sensory symptoms of diabetic polyneuropathy are improved with alpha-lipoic acid: The Sydney trial. Diabetes Care. 2003 Mar;26(3):770–6.

13. Broadhurst CL, Domenico P. Clinical studies on chromium picolinate supplementation in diabetes mellitus—a review. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2006;8(6):677-687.

 

Over nineteen million Americans suffer with type 2 diabetes. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) relates that the incidence of type 2 diabetes (formerly known as adult-onset diabetes) has risen by 33 percent in the past decade and three out of every fifty American adults currently have this diet-related condition. Complications related to diabetes are the sixth leading cause of death in the United States. Long-term outcome for those with the disease isn’t good.

People with type 2 diabetes have an average life expectancy of fifteen years less than those without diabetes. Heart disease and stroke account for about 65 percent of deaths in people with diabetes. The risk of stroke is also found to be two to four times higher in people with diabetes. Unfortunately, the news has gone from bad to worse with the FDA’s warning about the dangers of two common diabetic drugs: Avandia and Actos.

A meta-analysis looked at four long-term trials comprising 14,291 people and found that Avandia increased risk of heart attack by 42 percent and doubled the risk of heart failure. The Actos meta-analysis looked at nineteen trials comprising more than 16,000 patients. It found that Actos lowered the risk of heart attack, stroke, and death by 18 percent, but raised risk of heart failure by forty percent.

About one million Americans are currently taking Avandia, which sells for between $90 and $170 for a one-month supply. Its U.S. sales topped $2.2 billion last year.

Dr. David Graham, a drug safety officer with the FDA’s Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology, estimates that Avandia has caused as many as 205,000 heart attacks and strokes, some of them fatal, between 1999 and 2006. Graham’s analysis indicates that, since Avandia was approved, some 80,000 patients have died from the drug’s side effects. For every month that Avandia is sold, he said, 1,600 to 2,200 patients will suffer more of these events.

GlaxoSmithKline LLC, based in London, told the agency of the risk two years ago. Yet, the FDA failed to pass along the warning to the one million Americans who already take the drug. There are probably 2.2 billion reasons why this information wasn’t made public until this year. Only after researchers at the Cleveland Clinic forced the FDA to take notice did the word get out to the media.

The FDA has placed a warning on the labels of these drugs but has elected not to remove them from the market. Its continued approval of this drug, therefore, is a kind of death sentence for American consumers, racking up a body count so large that it already exceeds the total number of Americans killed in the entire Vietnam War!

Since three quarters of all diabetics die from heart disease related conditions, doesn’t it seem strange that the drugs doctors commonly recommend for controlling diabetes actually increase the incidence of cardiovascular related deaths? I believe it does. So does Gerald Del Pan, director of the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology, who has voiced his concerns about Avandia by stating, “Cardiovascular disease being the leading cause of death of people with diabetes, having a treatment that causes that is something that doesn’t make sense to me.”

It doesn’t make sense to me either. And to add fuel to the fire, recent evidence suggests thiazolidinediones are associated with an increased risk of peripheral fractures in post-menopausal women.

This is not the first time warning bells rang concerning diabetic drugs. Prior to Avandia and Actos, the drug Rezulin, another thiazolidinedione, was pulled from the market due to safety issues. Rezulin was a “fast track” drug that went through an abbreviated version of the FDA’s approval process and was approved over the objections of several FDA scientists. On March 21, 2000, per the FDA’s request, the manufacturer finally issued the Rezulin recall after its controversial run on the U.S. market. It was suspected of causing 391 deaths, including hundreds of liver damage cases.

Other commonly used diabetic drugs, known as sulfonylureas (DiaBeta, Micronase, Glynase, Diabinese, Glucatrol, Orinase, Tolinase, and Amyrel), are also associated with an increased risk of heart attack and strokes. Orinase has been shown to increase the risk for heart attack and stroke by 300 percent and increases the risk of death from all illnesses by 250 percent over those taking a sugar pill. These drugs carry a warning label, which states, “The administration of oral hypoglycemic drugs has been reported to be associated with increased risk of cardiovascular mortality as compared with treatment with diet alone or diet plus insulin.”

Insulin sensitizers or enhancing drugs, including Metformin (Glucophage) and Phenformin, are known as biguanides. Metformin is now the most commonly prescribed oral anti-diabetic drug in the world. It works by increasing insulin sensitivity in the liver. It also has a number of other beneficial effects, including weight loss, reduced cholesterol-triglyceride levels, and improved endothelial function.

Metformin is tolerated better than many other anti-diabetic prescription drugs. However, it’s not without potential health risks. Those taking Metformin should be made aware that it’s associated with lactic acidosis. Lactic acidosis is a rare but serious complication that can occur due to glucophage accumulation and is fatal 50 percent of the time. Phenformin was pulled from the market in 1977 due to an increased risk in developing lactic acidosis; Metformin has avoided being banned by the FDA. And, by the way, before it was pulled from the market, the warning bells rang loud and clear: Phenformin increases the risk of heart disease deaths by 300 percent.

Once again, like so many illnesses, once you get past the smoke and mirrors, the recommended medical “cure” is often worse than the illness. The type-2 diabetic now faces a dilemma. Do they suffer with the advances of unchecked diabetes, including heart attack, stroke, and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease death? Or do they take conventional anti-diabetic drugs and increase their risk of heart attack, stroke, and death from cardiovascular disease?

Thankfully, like a lot of dilemmas, there are other choices available. In Part 2 of this article, we’ll look at how diet, exercise and specific neutraceuticals can help prevent and often reverse type 2 diabetes. And these protocols don’t increase the risk of death, pancreatitis, broken bones, or lactic acidosis.

 

Rodger Murphree, D.C., has been in private practice since 1990. He is the founder of, and past clinic director for a large integrated medical practice which was located on the campus of Brookwood Hospital in Birmingham, Alabama. He is the author of Treating and Beating Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Heart Disease What Your Doctor Won’t Tell You, and Treating and Beating ANXIETY and Depression with Orthomolecular Medicine. He can be reached at www.treatingandbeating.com, by email at [email protected] or by calling 1-205-879-2383.

 

References

1. American Diabetic Association Website. www.Diabetes.org

2. Van Dam RM, Rimm, EB, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Hu FB. Dietary patterns and risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus in U.S. men. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:201-209.

3. Steven E. Nissen, M.D., and Kathy Wolski, M.P.H. Effect of Rosiglitazone on the Risk of Myocardial Infarction and Death from Cardiovascular Causes. N Engl J Med 356(24):2457-2471, June 14 2007.

4. Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center (2007, July 27). Diabetes Drugs Increase Risk of Heart Failure, Research Shows.

5. How to Prevent and Treat Diabetes with Natural Medicine, Michael Murray, N.D. Riverhead Books, New York, NY 10014, 2003.

6. Reversing Diabetes, Julian Whitaker, M.D. Warner Books, New York, NY 10020, 2001 PG 77 and PG 89

7. Monthly Prescribing Guide October 2007. New York, NY 10001.

 

The majority of osteoporosis cases could be prevented. Bone is a living tissue that is constantly being broken down and rebuilt. Bone health is dependent on routine weight-bearing exercise, healthy habits (no smoking; moderate alcohol, caffeine, and sugar consumption, etc.) and an intricate interplay of over a dozen nutrients.

Children consuming a typical nutrient-deficient Western diet are setting the stage for the onset of osteoporosis.

Few twelve- to nineteen-year-olds consume the recommended amounts of certain nutrients. Adolescent girls consume only 14 percent of the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for calcium, 31 percent of vitamin A, and only 18 percent of the RDA for magnesium. Adolescent boys aren’t much better.

Soft drinks, which now make up one-third of an adolescent’s daily beverage intake, depletes bone building calcium. Ninth- and tenth-grade girls who drink sodas have three times the risk of bone fractures compared with those who don’t drink carbonated beverages.

Fifty-six percent of eight-year-olds down soft drinks daily, and a third of teenage boys consume three or more cans of soda a day. The average teenager is getting twenty teaspoons of sugar a day from soft drinks alone. Teenage boys get 44 percent of their 34 teaspoons of sugar a day from soft drinks. Teenage girls get 40 percent of their 24 teaspoons of sugar from soft drinks.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recommends that people eating 2,200 calories a day not eat more than 12 teaspoons a day of refined sugar. Sugar consumption upsets the natural homeostasis of calcium and phosphorus in the blood. Normally, these minerals exist in a precise ratio of ten to four. The excess serum calcium, which comes from the bones and teeth, cannot be fully utilized because phosphorus levels are too low.

Calcium is excreted in the urine or stored in abnormal deposits such as kidney stones and gallstones. High-fructose corn, which is the predominate sugar in soft drinks, inhibits copper metabolism. A deficiency in copper leads to bone fragility, as well as many other unwanted health conditions.

Other research suggests that high-fructose corn syrup, which has climbed from zero consumption in 1966 to 62.6 pounds per person in 2001, alters the magnesium balance in the body which, in turn, accelerates bone loss. An optimal level of magnesium, which helps with calcium absorption, is essential for bone formation. Studies have found that magnesium deficiency is associated with osteoporosis and bone fragility and that adequate magnesium intake results in increased bone mineral density. The latest government study shows a staggering 68 percent of Americans do not consume the recommended daily intake of magnesium. Even more frightening are data from this study showing that 19 percent of Americans do not consume even half of the government’s recommended daily intake of magnesium.

In contrast to the normal nutrient depleted “Western diet,” research shows that consumption of fruits and vegetables, especially dark green leafy vegetables, offers considerable protection from osteoporosis. These foods are a rich source of bone-building vitamins and minerals that include calcium, magnesium, boron, and vitamin K. Vitamin K helps facilitate the production of osteocalcin, the major non-collagan protein in bone. Osteocalcin keeps calcium molecules anchored within bone. Boron supplementation has been shown to reduce urinary calcium excretion by 44 percent. It’s also required to activate certain important bone building hormones like vitamin D and 17-beta-estradiol, the most active form of estrogen.

Of course, most kids won’t go near a green leafy vegetable. And adults aren’t much better. Less than 10 percent of Americans eat the minimum recommendation of two fruits and vegetables a day. And, worse, only 51 percent eat at least one vegetable a day.

So, unfortunately, most folks are setting themselves up for trouble.

Calcium intake is the cornerstone for osteoporosis prevention. Several studies have shown that calcium can reduce bone loss and suppress bone turnover. However, calcium supplementation alone doesn’t halt bone loss completely, but does reduce calcium excretion by 30-50 percent. One study shows that postmenopausal women taking one gram of elemental calcium were four and half times less likely to fracture than those on placebo.

The absorption of calcium is dependant on stomach acid for ionization. Because gastric acid facilitates the absorption of insoluble ingested calcium, stomach acid reducing drugs, including Tums, Zantac, Nexium, Pepcid, Prilosec, and Tagament, increase the risk of bone loss.

Studies show the risk of hip fracture is directly related to the duration of proton pump and antacid drugs, ranging from 22 percent for one year of use to 59 percent for four years of use, relative to nonuse.

You should know that corticosteroids, and most diuretics (Lasix, Dyazide, Maxzide, and others) also deplete calcium. Vitamin D, a hormone-like substance, is crucial for the absorption of calcium. The skin makes Vitamin D after exposure to sunlight or ultraviolet radiation, and vitamin D deficiency is widespread throughout the United States. In the winter, vitamin D levels often plummet. Less than 10 percent of adults fifty to seventy years old, and only about 2 percent of people over seventy were found to be getting the recommended amounts of vitamin D from food. Even when supplements were added into consideration, still, only about 30 percent of people ages fifty to seventy and 10 percent of those over seventy were reaching the recommended vitamin D intake.

Until recently, hormone replacement therapy was considered the best way to prevent bone loss and osteoporosis. However, the benefits have to be weighed against recent evidence linking conventional estrogen replacement therapy to increased risk of breast cancer, stroke, heart attack, and blood clots.

Another, certainly safer, option is to use phytoestrogens. Phytoestrogens are estrogen-like compounds found in certain foods including fennel, celery, soy, nuts, whole grains, apples, and alfalfa. A semi-synthetic isoflavanoid, known as ipriflavone, is similar in structure to soy and has been approved for osteoporosis prevention in Japan, Hungary, and Italy. Studies show that ipriflavone, now available as a supplement in the US, increases bone density in individuals with osteoporosis.

Several studies show that progesterone stimulates proliferation of bone building osteoblast cells. Of course, like synthetic estrogen, progestins (synthetic progesterone) are associated with numerous, potentially dangerous, side effects.

Based on the pioneering work of John Lee, MD, compounded (from wild yams) progesterone cream has been safely used by thousands of women to reduce menopause symptoms, prevent bone loss, and reverse osteoporosis.

Individuals who wish to avoid osteoporosis would be wise eat more fruits and vegetables, maintain a consistent exercise program, avoid sodas, avoid health robbing habits (smoking, excess alcohol and sugar), and take a good optimal daily allowance multivitamin. Those females who want to reverse bone loss should take, in addition to their multivitamin, extra calcium, magnesium, vitamin D, and one or more of ancillary treatments mentioned above (ipriflavone and natural progesterone).

But, we need to realize, good health doesn’t come from a pill bottle, but from daily dietary choices made over a lifetime. I think I’ll have a green leafy salad with dinner tonight. How about you?

Rodger Murphree, D.C., has been in private practice since 1990. He is the founder of, and past clinic director for a large integrated medical practice which was located on the campus of Brookwood Hospital in Birmingham, Alabama. He is the author of Treating and Beating Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Heart Disease What Your Doctor Won’t Tell You, and Treating and Beating Anxiety and Depression with Orthomolecular Medicine. He can be reached at www.treatingandbeating.com, by email at [email protected] or call 1-205-879-2383.

 

References

1. Harkness, LS, Ph.D., R.D. Vitamin D deficiency in adolescent females. Journal of Adolescent Health. Volume 37, Issue 1 July 2005, Page 75.

2. Cromie, WJ. Soda pop increases risk of bone breaks. Harvard Gazette Archives June 15 2000.

3. Melvin E Page, Degeneration, Regeneration 1949. Available from the Price Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, San Diego, CA.

4. Sally Squires. Sweet but Not So Innocent? Washington Post. Tuesday, March 11, 2003; Page HE01.

5. Ryder KM, Shorr RI, et al. Magnesium intake from food and supplements is associated with bone mineral density in healthy older white subjects. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005 Nov;53(11):1875–80.

6. Saito N, Nishiyama S. [Aging and magnesium]. Clin Calcium. 2005 Nov;15(11):29–36.

7. Sasaki S. [Calcium, magnesium, and potassium as dietary nutrients]. Clin Calcium. 2006 Jan;16(1):110–5. Japanese.

8. King D, Mainous A 3rd, Geesey M, Woolson R. Dietary magnesium and C-reactive protein levels. J Am Coll Nutr. 2005 Jun 24(3):166-71.

9. Neilsen FH, Hunt CD, Mullen LM, Hunt JR. Effect of dietary boron on mineral, estrogen, and testoterone metabolism in postmenopausal women. FASEB J 1987; 1:394-397.

10. Block G. Dietary guidelines and results of food consumption surveys. Am J Clin Nutr 1991; 53: 356S-357S.

11. Vermer C, Gijsbers BL, Cracium AM et al. Effects of vitamin K on bone mass and bone metabolism. J Nutr 1996: 126: 1187S-1119S.

12. US Department of Health and Human Services, US Department of Agriculture. Dietary guidelines for Americans, 2005. 6th ed. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 2005.

13. Reid IR, Ames RW,Evans MC et al. Long-term effects of calcium supplementaion on bone loss and fractures in postmenopausal women. A randomized controlled trial. Am J Med 1995; 98:331-335.

14. Pelton, R. Lavalle, J., et al. Drug Induced Nutrient Depletion Handbook. Lexi-Comp, Inc. Hudson, OH 1999-2000.

15. Yang, Yu-Xiao. Gastric Acid Suppression Therapy May Raise Risk of Hip Fracture. JAMA 2006;296:2947-2953.

16. Castelo-Branco C. Management of osteoporosis: An overview. Drugs Aging 1998;12(Supp1.1):25–32.

17. Lian F, Li Y, Bhuiyan M, Sarkar FH. p53- independent apoptosis induced by genistein in lung cancer cells. Nutr Cancer. 1999;33(2):125-31.

18. Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D. Liquid Candy How Soft Drinks are Harming Americans’ Health. www.northland.cc.mn.us/biology/Biology1111/readingsindex.htm

19. Klevay, Leslie, Acting Director of the U.S. Agriculture Department’s Human Nutrition Research Center, Grand Forks, N.D.