Uncategorized

New Study – Milk is Bad for your Bones

November 6, 2017

A study done in Sweden and published in the British Medical Journal reveals that milk fuels cancer and is bad for your bones.

“The study, which tracked 61,433 women aged 39 to 74 over 20 years, and 45,339 men of similar age for 11 years, found that the more cow‚Äôs milk people drank, the more likely they were to die or experience a bone fracture during the study period.”

This is a great article, very well-written that all women need to read. The effect of milk on our bones has to do with unbalancing the calcium/magnesium ratio. I have an article on that on this site which I wrote ten years ago.

It also has to do with pasteurization, which makes the food value of milk pretty much obsolete. It becomes a negative that the body has to eliminate, rather than a positive with food value. Make sure you catch this piece:

Dairies count on many heat treatments to mask their inferior sanitary conditions: milk filled with pus, manure and debris. Consumer Reports found 44% of 125 pasteurized milk samples contained as many as 2200 organisms per cubic centimeter (fecal bacteria, coliforms).” Eeeeek!

I know milk – not to mention, cheese – is very hard to give up. We have all been well programmed! Although the article does say cheese is not as bad for us as milk. I did it years ago and I still fall for it sometimes. But now there are other¬† studies connecting it with cancer as well, it’s really time to put our big girl pants on and put it behind us.

The link to cancer has to do with the way farmers pump the poor cows full of hormones so they lactate until they die. That is not natural and was not done when our parents drank their unhomogenized milk back in the day.

Whenever someone says to me on the phone, ‘Oh, I couldn’t give up milk ( or cheese) I know they are addicted and they probably won’t listen until it’s too late and they have destroyed their health. That’s a choice we all have to make for ourselves. But maybe reading this article will help you choose.

Here’s the link.

You can also read my previous blog on belief change for a tool to change your behavior around dairy.

You could install some of these new beliefs:

I only feed my body food that nourishes it.
I love my healthy body more than my taste buds.
I am releasing my addiction to dairy right now.
I can easily replace dairy with other delicious foods.
I am stronger than my cravings.

You can think up your own ūüėČ

Blessings,

Pam

Change Your Beliefs, Change Your Reality

October 31, 2017

I have written about our beliefs changing our reality before and it’s hard for me to know how many people accept the importance that their beliefs have in their lives. For instance our beliefs about health, aging, drugs, etc. are affecting our bodies every minute.

Wouldn’t it be nice to think of growing older as an adventure, with new explorations on our horizons? My adventures are not so much in the outer world right now but on the inner plane. I can learn anything I want to from the computer, books and research and I can change my beliefs and my health in a few minutes.

I don’t accept the American way of dying, slow and tortuous with 90% of our health spending in the last ten years, sucking away our children’s inheritance.

I’ve installed the beliefs that support me being happy, healthy and learning new things until I curl up my toes one night far from this one.

But, although I have known about beliefs being vitally important, I did not find out how to change them easily until now. I’ve been searching all my life for this and I’ve finally found it.

It’s tricky for me to know what will offend some of my customers so I have put the information on my other site where I am not selling anything. It’s where I can be more woo-woo and more adventurous than here. This is a site about bone health primarily.

I actually haven’t done much on the other site recently because I have been too busy finding out about all the secrets that have been hidden from us for years in the US. It all blew me off balance for a long while.

But now I have found out how to change my beliefs quickly and easily it makes the future look more positive. I am excited to share it with you – for free – so if you are open-minded to finding out the power that was given to us all to create the lives that we want, please go to the other blog and read about it there http://healthyover50.com/belief-and-reality-change/

Blessings,

Pam

 

The Calcium Lie

August 19, 2017

Anyone who reads my site knows that I have been warning women about the dangers of calcium for decades. Calcium supplements are bad for your health, plain and simple. They increase menopausal symptoms, hurt your bones, are bad for your babies and increase heart disease.

Now here is a book, written by a doctor, for those who only believe what an MD says ;), that puts the whole story out for you clearly.

I ordered my copy today although I know all this stuff, so I can convince women who visit me with the examples and studies in the book. You probably know I’m not too enthralled by scientific studies because most of them have turned out to be outright falsifications. But this is a white hat doctor who has used the honest studies.

Dr Robert Thompson released the first volume of The Calcium Lie in 2008 to get the word out about all of the dangers of calcium and the truth about bone health. But most doctors weren’t listening, so now he has updated his book. Check it out here http://www.calciumlie.com/

Considering how much calcium is added to all kinds of foods, you could be eating way too much calcium even if you don’t take the supplements. So read your labels and don’t buy anything that has been fortified with calcium. It’s probably not good for you anyway.

Go to the site and read the information there even if you decide not to get the book and tell all the women you know that added calcium is not your friend. Get your calcium from eating or juicing greens and you will be affecting your life enormously for the better.

Update – 10/31/17

A woman called to buy a vest today and was asking which kind of calcium is better. She had a health history that made her cautious about heart attacks.

So I had glanced at the book when it arrived but I was busy remodeling my house and hadn’t read it yet. I thought I’d look at the book quickly this evening and see if I could find the connection between heart attacks and calcium.

In the first 2 chapters I learned that all supplementary calcium is bad for you and he says we should all be taking Ionic trace minerals instead because we need ALL minerals and we need them in Ionic form so our bodies can absorb them easily. They have a charge on them which allows them to move into the cell.

I take one called Omica Super Ionic – fulvic and ocean minerals.

Also he says we should be putting Himalayan or sea salt in all the water we drink. That’s funny because I started doing that a few months ago and now my pH balance is perfect – 7.25, all the time and I could never get it perfect before, even though I took baking soda at night.

The way I do that is to make a ‘Sole’, which is chunks of Himalayan salt in good water for 48 hours. Then I put a small spoon of that liquid salt into my water. I like it that way now, it tastes boring without it.

He quotes many studies that show the more dairy or fortified, processed food you eat and drink, the more likely you are to have a heart attack. In fact, here’s a quote from another doctor, Jacob Teitelbaum, MD;
“Taking plain calcium for osteoporosis, or even as an antacid, can increase heart attack deaths by a whopping 31%.”

Oh, another thing he said was that taking Vitamin D AND calcium, which most docs recommend is even worse for you in terms of depositing the calcium in places that it shouldn’t be.

So I think everyone should read this book and educate their friends and family. He covers statins and other drugs and puts most health problems down to medical greed so he’s a kindred soul for me. And I’ve only read the first two chapters. If I come across any more must-have info I will update this post again so it’s all in the same place.

Much love,

Pam

 

Ulcer Drugs Increase Risk of Osteoporosis and Dementia

June 28, 2017

If you are taking proton pump inhibitors for ulcers or acid stomach you are running a significant risk of getting dementia (44%) and of breaking a hip.

From a great article on GreenMedInfo by Linda Woolven & Ted Snider:

“Research has linked PPIs to osteoporosis and–get this- -heart attack. Using PPIs for 7 or more years is associated with a 92% increase in the risk of osteoporosis related fractures. After 5 years, there is a 62% increased risk specifically of hip fractures (CMAJ 2008;179:319-26). Women who used PPIs for only 2 years in a study of 79,899 postmenopausal women had a 35% greater risk of hip fracture: the risk was especially great for smokers. When the researchers added this study to 10 others in a meta-analysis, they found a 30% increased risk of hip fracture with PPI use (BMJ 2012;344:e372).”

Read the whole article here.

They also tell you how to use natural cures to take care of your acid reflex and ulcers with NO side effects.

Apparently these are some of the most popular drugs in the world and also the most dangerous. So if you are taking Prilosec, Nexium, Prevacid etc please read the article and get off the drugs.

I’m very grateful to have found GreenMedInfo because Sayer Ji, the founder, likes to do the research through medical studies that I find mind boggling. His site has an amazing amount of information on all health topics and natural solutions so you should check it out before taking any drugs.

Up until now I have limited my information to subjects that I have personal experience with but now I can broaden my scope and bring other things to your attention.

Stay well,

Pam

How Osteopenia was Invented.

June 19, 2017

I have been giving out this information for ten years but I know there are women who don’t believe me about some of it because I didn’t have proof. I am not the kind of person who backs up everything I say with the scientific references. Life is too short and I have too much to do. I read it, decide if I agree or not and then pass it on. It’s up to my readers to check out the information for accuracy.

Now I have found an article written by Sayer Ji, of GreenMedInfo that has all the scientific studies to back up what I have been saying. I love the information on his site and really recommend that you check there whenever you have a health question.

So I have permission to use the whole article. I know some people hesitate to click on links. It’s long but it is vital information.

Osteoporosis Myth: The Dangers of High Bone Mineral Density

Bone Scans or Scams? How Dense Bones Can Harm Your Health

The present-day definitions of Osteopenia and Osteoporosis were arbitrarily conceived by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the early 90’s and then projected upon millions of women’s bodies seemingly in order to convince them they had a drug-treatable, though symptomless, disease.

Osteopenia (1992)[i] and Osteoporosis (1994)[ii] were formally identified as skeletal diseases by the WHO as bone mineral densities (BMD) 1 and 2.5 standard deviations, respectively, below the peak bone mass of an average young adult Caucasian female, as measured by an x-ray device known as Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA, or DEXA). This technical definition, now used widely around the world as the gold standard, is disturbingly inept, and as we shall see, likely conceals an agenda that has nothing to do with the promotion of health.

Deviant Standards: Aging Transformed Into a Disease

A ‘standard deviation’ is simply a¬†quantity calculated to indicate the extent of deviation for a group as a whole, i.e. within any natural population there will be folks with higher and lower biological values, e.g. height, weight, bone mineral density, cholesterol levels.¬†The choice of an average young adult female (approximately 30-year old) at peak bone mass in the human lifecycle as the new standard of normality¬†for all women 30 or older, was, of course, not only completely arbitrary but also highly illogical. After all, why should a 80-year¬†old’s¬†bones be defined as “abnormal” if they are less dense than a 30-year¬†old’s?

Within the WHO’s new BMD definitions the aging process is redefined as a disease, and these definitions targeted women, much in the same way that menopause was once redefined as a “disease” that needed to be treated with synthetic hormone replacement (HRT) therapies; that is, before the whole house of cards collapsed with the realization that by “treating” menopause as a disease the medical establishment was causing far more harm than good, e.g. heart disease, stroke and cancer.

As if to fill the void left by the HRT debacle and the disillusionment of millions of women, the WHO’s new definitions resulted in the diagnosis, and subsequent labeling, of millions of healthy middle-aged and older women with what they were now being made to believe was another “health condition,” serious enough to justify the use of expensive and extremely dangerous bone drugs (and equally dangerous mega-doses of elemental calcium) in the pursuit of increasing bone density¬†by any means necessary.

One thing that cannot be debated, as it is now a matter of history, is that this sudden transformation of healthy women, who suffered no symptoms of “low bone mineral density,” into an at-risk, treatment-appropriate group, served to generate billions of dollars of revenue for DXA device manufacturers, doctor visits, and drug prescriptions around the world.

WHO Are They Kidding?

Osteopenia is, in fact, a medical and diagnostic non-entity.¬†¬†The term itself describes nothing more than a statistical deviation from an arbitrarily determined numerical value or norm.¬†¬†¬†According to the osteoporosis epidemiologist¬†Dr. L. Joseph Melton at the Mayo Clinic who participated in setting the original WHO criteria in 1992, “[osteopenia] was just meant to indicate the emergence of a problem,” and noted that “It didn’t have any particular diagnostic or therapeutic significance. It was just meant to show a huge group who looked like they might be at risk.”[iii]¬†Another expert, Michael McClung, director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, criticized the newly adopted disease category osteopenia by saying¬†”We¬†have¬†medicalized¬†a¬†nonproblem.”[iv]

In reality, the WHO definitions violate both commonsense and fundamental facts of biological science (sadly, an increasingly prevalent phenomenon within drug company-funded science).  After all, anyone over 30 years of age should have lower bone density than a 30 year old, as this is consistent with the normal and natural healthy aging process.  And yet, according to the WHO definition of osteopenia, the eons-old programming of our bodies to gradually shed bone density as we age, is to be considered a faulty design and/or pathology in need of medical intervention.

How the WHO, or any other organization which purports to be a science-based “medical authority,” can make an ostensibly educated public believe that the natural thinning of the bones is not normal, or more absurdly: a disease, is astounding. In defense of the public, the cryptic manner in which these definitions and diagnoses have been cloaked in obscure mathematical and clinical language makes it rather difficult for the layperson to discern just how outright insane the logic they are employing really is.

So, let’s look closer at the definitions now, which are brilliantly elucidated by¬†Washington.edu’s¬†¬†published¬†online course on Bone Densitometry, which can viewed in its entirety here.

The Manufacture of a Disease through Categorical Sleight-of-Hand

bone mineral density loss

The image above shows the natural decrease in hip bone density occurring with age, with variations in race and gender depicted.  Observe that loss of bone mineral density with age is a normal process.

Bell Curve Bones

Next, is the classical bell-shaped curve, from which T- and Z-scores are¬†based.¬†¬†T-sores are based on the young adult standard (30-year old) bone density as being normal¬†for everyone,¬†irregardless¬†of age, whereas the much more logical Z-score compares¬†your¬†bone mineral density to that of your age group, as well as sex and ethnic background.¬†¬†Now here’s where it gets disturbingly clear how ridiculous the T-score really system is….

 

WHO definitions osteoporosis

Above is an image showing how within the population of women used to determine “normal” bone mineral density, e.g. 30-year olds, 16% of them already “have” osteopenia” according to the WHO definitions, and 3% already “have” osteoporosis! According to¬†Washington.edu’s¬†online course “One standard deviation is at the 16th percentile, so by definition 16% of young women have osteopenia! As shown below, by the time women reach age 80, very few are considered normal.”

Osteopenia and Osteoporosis Rates with Age

Above you will see what happens when the WHO definitions of “normal bone density” are applied to aging populations. Whereas at age 25, 15% of the population will “have” osteopenia, by age 50 the number grows to 33%. And by age 65, 60% will be told they have either osteopenia (40%) or osteoporosis (20%).

On the other hand, if one uses the Z-score, which compares your bones to that of your age group, something remarkable happens: a huge burden of “disease” disappears!¬† In a review on the topic published in 2009 in the Journal of Clinical Densitometry, 30-39% of the subjects who had been diagnosed with osteoporosis with two different DXA machine models were reclassified as either normal or “osteopenic” when the Z- score was used instead of the T-score. The table therefore can be turned on the magician-like sleight-of-hand used to convert healthy people into diseased ones, as long as an age-appropriate standard of measurement is applied, which presently it is not.

Bone Mineral Density is NOT Equivalent to Bone Strength

As you can see there are a number of insurmountable problems with the WHO’s definitions, but perhaps the most fatal flaw is the fact that the Dual energy X-ray¬†absorpitometry¬†device (DXA) is only capable of revealing the mineral density of the bone, and this is not the same thing as bone quality/strength.

While there is a correlation between bone mineral density and bone quality/strength ‚Äď that is to say, they overlap in places — they are not equivalent.¬†¬†In other words, density, while an excellent indicator of compressive strength (resisting breaking when being crushed by a static weight), is not an accurate indicator of tensile strength (resisting breaking when being pulled or stretched).

Indeed, in some cases having higher bone density¬†indicates that the bone is actually weaker. Glass, for instance, has high density and compressive strength, but it is extremely brittle and lacks the tensile strength required to withstand easily shattering in a fall. Wood, on the other hand, which is closer in nature to human bone than glass or stone is less dense relative to these materials, but also extremely strong relative to them, capable of bending and stretching to withstand the very same forces which the bone is faced with during a fall.¬† Or, take spider web. It is has infinitely greater strength and virtually no density. Given these facts, having “high” bone density (and thereby not having osteoporosis) may actually increase the risk of fracture in a real-life scenario like a fall.

Essentially, the WHO definitions distract from key issues surrounding bone quality and real world bone fracture risks, such as gait and vision disorders.[v] In other words, if you are able to see and move correctly in our body, you are less likely to fall, which means you are less prone to fracture. Keep in mind also that the quality of human bone depends entirely on dietary and lifestyle patterns and choices, and unlike x-ray-based measurements, bone quality is not decomposable to strictly numerical values, e.g. mineral density scores.¬†¬†Vitamin K2¬†and¬†soy¬†isoflavones, for instance, significantly reduce bone fracture rates without increasing bone density.¬† Scoring high on bone density tests may save a woman from being intimidated into taking dangerous drugs or swallowing massive doses of¬†elemental¬†calcium, but it may not translate into preventing “osteoporosis,” which to the layperson means the risk of breaking a bone.¬† But high bone mineral density may result in far worse problems….

High Bone Mineral Density & Breast Cancer

High Bone Mineral Density & Breast Cancer

One of the most important facts about bone mineral density, conspicuously absent from discussion, is that having higher-than-normal bone density in middle-aged and older women actually INCREASES their risk of breast cancer by 200-300%, and this is according to research published in some of the world’s most well-respected and authoritative journals, e.g. Lancet, JAMA, NCI. (see citations below).

While it has been known for at least fifteen years that high bone density profoundly increases the risk of breast cancer¬† — and particularly malignant breast cancer — the issue has been given little to no attention, likely because it contradicts the propaganda expounded by mainstream woman’s health advocacy organizations. Breast cancer awareness programs focus on x-ray based breast screenings as a form of “early detection,” and the National Osteoporosis Foundation’s entire platform is based on expounding the belief that increasing bone mineral density for osteoporosis prevention translates into improved quality and length of life for women.

The research, however, is not going away, and eventually these organizations will have to acknowledge it, or risk losing credibility.

Journal of the American Medical Association (1996): Women with bone mineral density above the 25th percentile have 2.0 to 2.5 times increased risk of breast cancer compared with women below the 25th percentile.

Journal of Nutrition Reviews (1997): Postmenopausal women in the highest quartile for metacarpal bone mass were found to have an increased risk of developing breast cancer, after adjusting for age and other variables known to influence breast cancer risk.

American Journal of Epidemiology (1998): Women with a positive family history of breast cancer and who are in the highest tertile bone mineral density are at a 3.41-fold increased risk compared with women in the lowest tertile.

Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2001): Elderly women with high bone mineral density (BMD) have up to 2.7 times greater risk of breast cancer, especially advanced cancer, compared with women with low BMD.

Journal Breast (2001): Women in the lowest quartile of bone mass appear to be protected against breast cancer.

Journal Bone (2003): Higher bone density (upper 33%) is associated with a 2-fold increased risk of breast cancer.

European Journal of Epidemiology (2004): Women with highest tertile bone mineral density (BMD) measured at the Ward’s triangle and at the femoral neck are respectively at 2.2-and 3.3-fold increased risk of breast cancer compared with women at the lowest tertile of BMD.

View additional citations on the breast cancer-bone density link.

High Bone Density: More Harm Than Good

The present-day fixation within the global medical community on “osteoporosis prevention” as a top women’s health concern, is simply not supported by the facts. The #1 cause of death in women today is heart disease, and the #2 cause of death is cancer, particularly breast cancer, and not death from complications associated with a bone fracture or break.¬† In fact, in the grand scheme of things osteoporosis or low bone mineral density does not even make the CDC’s top ten list of causes of female mortality. So, why is it given such a high place within the hierarchy of women’s health concerns? Is it a business decision or a medical one?

Regardless of the reason or motive, the obsessive fixation on bone mineral density is severely undermining the overall health of women. For example, the mega-dose calcium supplements being taken by millions of women to “increase bone mineral density” are known to increase the risk of heart attack by between 24-27%, according to two 2011 meta-analyses published in Lancet, and 86% according to a more recent meta-analysis¬†published in the journal Heart. Given the overwhelming evidence, the 1200+ mgs of elemental calcium the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) recommends women 50 and older take to “protect their bones,” may very well be inducing coronary artery spasms, heart attacks and calcified arterial plaque in millions of women. Considering that the NOF name calcium supplement manufacturers Citrical and Oscal as corporate sponsors, it is unlikely their message will change anytime soon.

Now, when we consider the case of increased breast cancer risk linked to high bone mineral density, being diagnosed with osteopenia or osteoporosis would actually indicate a significantly reduced risk of developing the disease. What is more concerning to women: breaking a bone (from which one can heal), or developing breast cancer? If it is the latter, a low BMD reading could be considered cause for celebration and not depression, fear and the continued ingestion of inappropriate medications or supplements, which is usually the case following a diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis.

We hope this article will put to rest any doubts that the WHO’s fixation on high bone density was designed not to protect or improve the health of women, but rather to convert the natural aging process into a blockbuster disease, capable of generating billions of dollars of revenue.


[i]¬†WHO Scientific Group on the Prevention and Management of Osteoporosis (2000¬†:¬†Geneva, Switzerland) (2003).¬†“Prevention and management of¬†osteoporosis¬†:¬†report of a WHO scientific group”¬†(PDF). Retrieved 2007-05-31.

[ii]¬†WHO (1994).¬†“Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis.¬†Report of a WHO Study Group”.¬†World Health Organization technical report series¬†843: 1‚Äď129.¬†PMID¬†7941614.

[iii]¬†Kolata, Gina (September 28, 2003).¬†“Bone Diagnosis Gives New Data But No Answers”.¬†New York Times.

[iv] Ibid

[v] P Dargent-Molina, F Favier, H Grandjean, C Baudoin, A M Schott, E Hausherr, P J Meunier, G Bréart Fall-related factors and risk of hip fracture: the EPIDOS prospective study. Lancet. 1996 Jul 20;348(9021):145-9. PMID: 8684153

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.