The Delano Report
Enhancement Methods for Bodies & Minds
Enhancement Methods for Bodies & Minds
Feb 15th
Jaroslav Flegr is no kook. And yet, for years, he suspected his mind had been taken over by parasites that had invaded his brain. So the prolific biologist took his science-fiction hunch into the lab. What he’s now discovering will startle you. Could tiny organisms carried by house cats be creeping into our brains, causing everything from car wrecks to schizophrenia?
No one would accuse Jaroslav Flegr of being a conformist. A self-described “sloppy dresser,” the 63-year-old Czech scientist has the contemplative air of someone habitually lost in thought, and his still-youthful, square-jawed face is framed by frizzy red hair that encircles his head like a ring of fire.
Certainly Flegr’s thinking is jarringly unconventional. Starting in the early 1990s, he began to suspect that a single-celled parasite in the protozoan family was subtly manipulating his personality, causing him to behave in strange, often self-destructive ways. And if it was messing with his mind, he reasoned, it was probably doing the same to others.
The parasite, which is excreted by cats in their feces, is called Toxoplasma gondii (T. gondii or Toxo for short) and is the microbe that causes toxoplasmosis—the reason pregnant women are told to avoid cats’ litter boxes. Since the 1920s, doctors have recognized that a woman who becomes infected during pregnancy can transmit the disease to the fetus, in some cases resulting in severe brain damage or death. T. gondii is also a major threat to people with weakened immunity: in the early days of the AIDS epidemic, before good antiretroviral drugs were developed, it was to blame for the dementia that afflicted many patients at the disease’s end stage. Healthy children and adults, however, usually experience nothing worse than brief flu-like symptoms before quickly fighting off the protozoan, which thereafter lies dormant inside brain cells—or at least that’s the standard medical wisdom.
But if Flegr is right, the “latent” parasite may be quietly tweaking the connections between our neurons, changing our response to frightening situations, our trust in others, how outgoing we are, and even our preference for certain scents. And that’s not all. He also believes that the organism contributes to car crashes, suicides, and mental disorders such as schizophrenia. When you add up all the different ways it can harm us, says Flegr, “Toxoplasma might even kill as many people as malaria, or at least a million people a year.”
An evolutionary biologist at Charles University in Prague, Flegr has pursued this theory for decades in relative obscurity. Because he struggles with English and is not much of a conversationalist even in his native tongue, he rarely travels to scientific conferences. That “may be one of the reasons my theory is not better known,” he says. And, he believes, his views may invite deep-seated opposition. “There is strong psychological resistance to the possibility that human behavior can be influenced by some stupid parasite,” he says. “Nobody likes to feel like a puppet. Reviewers [of my scientific papers] may have been offended.” Another more obvious reason for resistance, of course, is that Flegr’s notions sound an awful lot like fringe science, right up there with UFO sightings and claims of dolphins telepathically communicating with humans.
But after years of being ignored or discounted, Flegr is starting to gain respectability. Psychedelic as his claims may sound, many researchers, including such big names in neuroscience as Stanford’s Robert Sapolsky, think he could well be onto something. Flegr’s “studies are well conducted, and I can see no reason to doubt them,” Sapolsky tells me. Indeed, recent findings from Sapolsky’s lab and British groups suggest that the parasite is capable of extraordinary shenanigans. T. gondii, reports Sapolsky, can turn a rat’s strong innate aversion to cats into an attraction, luring it into the jaws of its No. 1 predator. Even more amazing is how it does this: the organism rewires circuits in parts of the brain that deal with such primal emotions as fear, anxiety, and sexual arousal. “Overall,” says Sapolsky, “this is wild, bizarre neurobiology.” Another academic heavyweight who takes Flegr seriously is the schizophrenia expert E. Fuller Torrey, director of the Stanley Medical Research Institute, in Maryland. “I admire Jaroslav for doing [this research],” he says. “It’s obviously not politically correct, in the sense that not many labs are doing it. He’s done it mostly on his own, with very little support. I think it bears looking at. I find it completely credible.”
What’s more, many experts think T. gondii may be far from the only microscopic puppeteer capable of pulling our strings. “My guess is that there are scads more examples of this going on in mammals, with parasites we’ve never even heard of,” says Sapolsky.
Familiar to most of us, of course, is the rabies virus. On the verge of killing a dog, bat, or other warm-blooded host, it stirs the animal into a rage while simultaneously migrating from the nervous system to the creature’s saliva, ensuring that when the host bites, the virus will live on in a new carrier. But aside from rabies, stories of parasites commandeering the behavior of large-brained mammals are rare. The far more common victims of parasitic mind control—at least the ones we know about—are fish, crustaceans, and legions of insects, according to Janice Moore, a behavioral biologist at Colorado State University. “Flies, ants, caterpillars, wasps, you name it—there are truckloads of them behaving weirdly as a result of parasites,” she says.
Consider Polysphincta gutfreundi, a parasitic wasp that grabs hold of an orb spider and attaches a tiny egg to its belly. A wormlike larva emerges from the egg, and then releases chemicals that prompt the spider to abandon weaving its familiar spiral web and instead spin its silk thread into a special pattern that will hold the cocoon in which the larva matures. The “possessed” spider even crochets a specific geometric design in the net, camouflaging the cocoon from the wasp’s predators.
Flegr himself traces his life’s work to another master of mind control. Almost 30 years ago, as he was reading a book by the British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, Flegr was captivated by a passage describing how a flatworm turns an ant into its slave by invading the ant’s nervous system. A drop in temperature normally causes ants to head underground, but the infected insect instead climbs to the top of a blade of grass and clamps down on it, becoming easy prey for a grazing sheep. “Its mandibles actually become locked in that position, so there’s nothing the ant can do except hang there in the air,” says Flegr. The sheep grazes on the grass and eats the ant; the worm gains entrance into the ungulate’s gut, which is exactly where it needs to be in order to complete—as the Lion King song goes—the circle of life. “It was the first I learned about this kind of manipulation, so it made a big impression on me,” Flegr says.
After he read the book, Flegr began to make a connection that, he readily admits, others might find crazy: his behavior, he noticed, shared similarities with that of the reckless ant. For example, he says, he thought nothing of crossing the street in the middle of dense traffic, “and if cars honked at me, I didn’t jump out of the way.” He also made no effort to hide his scorn for the Communists who ruled Czechoslovakia for most of his early adulthood. “It was very risky to openly speak your mind at that time,” he says. “I was lucky I wasn’t imprisoned.” And during a research stint in eastern Turkey, when the strife-torn region frequently erupted in gunfire, he recalls being “very calm.” In contrast, he says, “my colleagues were terrified. I wondered what was wrong with myself.”
His bewilderment continued until 1990, when he joined the biology faculty of Charles University. As it happened, the 650-year-old institution had long been a world leader in documenting the health effects of T. gondii, as well as developing methods for detecting the parasite. In fact, just as Flegr was arriving, his colleagues were searching for infected individuals on whom to test their improved diagnostic kits, which is how he came to be asked one day to roll up his sleeve and donate blood. He discovered that he had the parasite—and just possibly, he thought, the key to his baffling self-destructive streak.
He delved into T. gondii’s life cycle. After an infected cat defecates, Flegr learned, the parasite is typically picked up from the soil by scavenging or grazing animals—notably rodents, pigs, and cattle—all of which then harbor it in their brain and other body tissues. Humans, on the other hand, are exposed not only by coming into contact with litter boxes, but also, he found, by drinking water contaminated with cat feces, eating unwashed vegetables, or, especially in Europe, by consuming raw or undercooked meat. Hence the French, according to Flegr, with their love of steak prepared saignant—literally, “bleeding”—can have infection rates as high as 55 percent. (Americans will be happy to hear that the parasite resides in far fewer of them, though a still substantial portion: 10 to 20 percent.) Once inside an animal or human host, the parasite then needs to get back into the cat, the only place where it can sexually reproduce—and this is when, Flegr believed, behavioral manipulation might come into play.

The parasite T. gondii, seen here, may be changing connections between our neurones, altering how we act and feel. (Dennis Kunkel Microscropy, Inc./Visuals Unlimited/Corbis Images)
Researchers had already observed a few peculiarities about rodents with T. gondii that bolstered Flegr’s theory. The infected rodents were much more active in running wheels than uninfected rodents were, suggesting that they would be more-attractive targets for cats, which are drawn to fast-moving objects. They also were less wary of predators in exposed spaces. Little, however, was known about how the latent infection might influence humans, because we and other large mammals were widely presumed to be accidental hosts, or, as scientists are fond of putting it, a “dead end” for the parasite. But even if we were never part of the parasite’s life cycle, Flegr reasoned, mammals from mouse to man share the vast majority of their genes, so we might, in a case of mistaken identity, still be vulnerable to manipulations by the parasite.
In the Soviet-stunted economy, animal studies were way beyond Flegr’s research budget. But fortunately for him, 30 to 40 percent of Czechs had the latent form of the disease, so plenty of students were available “to serve as very cheap experimental animals.” He began by giving them and their parasite-free peers standardized personality tests—an inexpensive, if somewhat crude, method of measuring differences between the groups. In addition, he used a computer-based test to assess the reaction times of participants, who were instructed to press a button as soon as a white square popped up anywhere against the dark background of the monitor.
The subjects who tested positive for the parasite had significantly delayed reaction times. Flegr was especially surprised to learn, though, that the protozoan appeared to cause many sex-specific changes in personality. Compared with uninfected men, males who had the parasite were more introverted, suspicious, oblivious to other people’s opinions of them, and inclined to disregard rules. Infected women, on the other hand, presented in exactly the opposite way: they were more outgoing, trusting, image-conscious, and rule-abiding than uninfected women.
The findings were so bizarre that Flegr initially assumed his data must be flawed. So he tested other groups—civilian and military populations. Again, the same results. Then, in search of more corroborating evidence, he brought subjects in for further observation and a battery of tests, in which they were rated by someone ignorant of their infection status. To assess whether participants valued the opinions of others, the rater judged how well dressed they appeared to be. As a measure of gregariousness, participants were asked about the number of friends they’d interacted with over the past two weeks. To test whether they were prone to being suspicious, they were asked, among other things, to drink an unidentified liquid.
The results meshed well with the questionnaire findings. Compared with uninfected people of the same sex, infected men were more likely to wear rumpled old clothes; infected women tended to be more meticulously attired, many showing up for the study in expensive, designer-brand clothing. Infected men tended to have fewer friends, while infected women tended to have more. And when it came to downing the mystery fluid, reports Flegr, “the infected males were much more hesitant than uninfected men. They wanted to know why they had to do it. Would it harm them?” In contrast, the infected women were the most trusting of all subjects. “They just did what they were told,” he says.
Why men and women reacted so differently to the parasite still mystified him. After consulting the psychological literature, he started to suspect that heightened anxiety might be the common denominator underlying their responses. When under emotional strain, he read, women seek solace through social bonding and nurturing. In the lingo of psychologists, they’re inclined to “tend and befriend.” Anxious men, on the other hand, typically respond by withdrawing and becoming hostile or antisocial. Perhaps he was looking at flip sides of the same coin.
Closer inspection of Flegr’s reaction-time results revealed that infected subjects became less attentive and slowed down a minute or so into the test. This suggested to him that Toxoplasma might have an adverse impact on driving, where constant vigilance and fast reflexes are critical. He launched two major epidemiological studies in the Czech Republic, one of men and women in the general population and another of mostly male drivers in the military. Those who tested positive for the parasite, both studies showed, were about two and a half times as likely to be in a traffic accident as their uninfected peers.
When I met Flegr for the first time, last September, at his office on the third floor of Charles University’s Biological Sciences building, I was expecting something of a wild man. But once you get past the riotous red hair, his style is understated. Thin and slight of build, he’s soft-spoken, precise with his facts, and—true to his Toxo status—clad in old sneakers, faded bell-bottom jeans, and a loose-fitting button-up shirt. As our conversation proceeds, I discover that his latest findings have become—to quote Alice in Wonderland—“curiouser and curiouser,” which may explain why his forehead has the deep ruts of a chronic worrier, or someone perpetually perplexed.
He’s published some data, he tells me, that suggest infected males might have elevated testosterone levels. Possibly for that reason, women shown photos of these men rate them as more masculine than pictures of uninfected men. “I want to investigate this more closely to see if it’s true,” he says. “Also, it could be women find infected men more attractive. That’s something else we hope to test.”
Meanwhile, two Turkish studies have replicated his studies linking Toxoplasma to traffic accidents. With up to one-third of the world infected with the parasite, Flegr now calculates that T. gondii is a likely factor in several hundred thousand road deaths each year. In addition, reanalysis of his personality-questionnaire data revealed that, just like him, many other people who have the latent infection feel intrepid in dangerous situations. “Maybe,” he says, “that’s another reason they get into traffic accidents. They don’t have a normal fear response.”
It’s almost impossible to hear about Flegr’s research without wondering whether you’re infected—especially if, like me, you’re a cat owner, favor very rare meat, and identify even a little bit with your Toxo sex stereotype. So before coming to Prague, I’d gotten tested for the parasite, but I didn’t yet know the results. It seemed a good time to see what his intuition would tell me. “Can you guess from observing someone whether they have the parasite—myself, for example?,” I ask.
“No,” he says, “the parasite’s effects on personality are very subtle.” If, as a woman, you were introverted before being infected, he says, the parasite won’t turn you into a raving extrovert. It might just make you a little less introverted. “I’m very typical of Toxoplasma males,” he continues. “But I don’t know whether my personality traits have anything to do with the infection. It’s impossible to say for any one individual. You usually need about 50 people who are infected and 50 who are not, in order to see a statistically significant difference. The vast majority of people will have no idea they’re infected.”
Still, he concedes, the parasite could be very bad news for a small percentage of people—and not just those who might be at greater risk for car accidents. Many schizophrenia patients show shrinkage in parts of their cerebral cortex, and Flegr thinks the protozoan may be to blame for that. He hands me a recently published paper on the topic that he co-authored with colleagues at Charles University, including a psychiatrist named Jiri Horacek. Twelve of 44 schizophrenia patients who underwent MRI scans, the team found, had reduced gray matter in the brain—and the decrease occurred almost exclusively in those who tested positive for T. gondii. After reading the abstract, I must look stunned, because Flegr smiles and says, “Jiri had the same response. I don’t think he believed it could be true.” When I later speak with Horacek, he admits to having been skeptical about Flegr’s theory at the outset. When they merged the MRI results with the infection data, however, he went from being a doubter to being a believer. “I was amazed at how pronounced the effect was,” he says. “To me that suggests the parasite may trigger schizophrenia in genetically susceptible people.”
Feb 2nd
In another outrageous power-grab, FDA says your own stem cells are drugs—and stem cell therapy is interstate commerce because it affects the bottom line of FDA-approved drugs in other states!
We wish this were a joke, but it’s the US Food and Drug Administration’s latest claim in its battle with a Colorado clinic over its Regenexx-SD™ procedure, a non-surgical treatment for people suffering from moderate to severe joint or bone pain using adult stem cells.
The FDA asserts in a court document that it has the right to regulate the Centeno-Schultz Clinic for two reasons:
Stem cells are drugs and therefore fall within their jurisdiction. (The clinic argues that stem cell therapy is the practice of medicine and is therefore not within the FDA’s jurisdiction!)
We discussed the very ambiguous issue of interstate commerce last September—it’s an argument the FDA frequently uses when the basis for their claim is otherwise lacking. As we noted then, the FDA holds that an “interstate commerce” test must be applied to all steps in a product’s manufacture, packaging, and distribution. This means that if any ingredient or tool used in the procedure in question was purchased out of state, the FDA would in its view have jurisdiction, just as they would if the final product had traveled across state lines.
This time the FDA just nakedly says in court documents that the agency wants to protect the market for FDA-approved drugs. No more beating around the bush—their agenda is right out in the open! This appears to be a novel interpretation of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C), as evidenced by the government’s failure to cite any judicial precedent for their argument.
The implication of the FDA’s interpretation of the law, if upheld by the court, would mean that all food, drugs, devices, and biologic or cosmetic products would be subject to FDA jurisdiction. The FDA is expanding its reach even to commerce within the state, which we argue is far beyond its jurisdiction, in order to protect drug company profits.
Last year we ran a two-part series on the current status of federal and state law—and FDA jurisdiction—and how it affects integrative treatments (part one and part two).
The Centeno-Schultz Clinic takes your blood, puts it into a centrifuge machine that separates the stem cells, and a doctor puts them back in your body where there is damaged tissue. The clinic has argued numerous times that stem cells aren’t drugs because they are components of the patient’s blood from his or her own body.
The FDA says otherwise: “Stem cells, like other medical products that are intended to treat, cure, or prevent disease, generally require FDA approval before they can be marketed. At this time, there are no licensed stem cell treatments.” There they go again, saying that components of your body are drugs and they have the authority to regulate them! It’s the only way the agency can claim that adult stem cell therapy is within FDA’s purview.
However, the agency seems to be of two minds. When ESPN magazine was doing a story on stem cell treatments, the FDA stated that US policy is to allow the injection of stem cells that are treated with “minimal manipulation,” which federal regulations define as “processing that does not alter the relevant biological characteristics of cells or tissues”—which is certainly the case with the Regenexx clinic.
Despite this policy, FDA has been attacking the clinic for the past four years. They have tried injunctions and demanded inspections in their attempts to make the company bend; this court battle is merely the latest salvo.
The primary role of adult stem cells in a living organism is to maintain and repair the tissue in which they are found. The hard part has been to get enough of them. But new technology is giving doctors the ability to obtain more stem cells from a patient than previously thought possible, which is why we’re now seeing new treatments. Blood, fat, or tissue is withdrawn from the patient, stem cells are obtained using one of these new processes, and the cells are injected back into the patient where they can repair the patient’s tissue.
Gov. Rick Perry received this kind of stem cell therapy. We and others noted that the governor’s defense of freedom of healthcare choice when it came to his own treatment was starkly at odds with his directive to administer HPV vaccines to young girls against their own (and their parents’) wishes. It’s also at odds with his support for some of the most egregious witch-hunters on the Texas State Medical Board, which he appoints.
Behind Perry’s blatant inconsistency and the latest FDA attempted power grab lies the same problem: a medical system run by special interests under the leadership of the US government, the same government that is supposed to represent “we the people.”
Jan 11th
A recent study, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, found that the cholesterol-lowering drugs known as statins increase the risk of diabetes within postmenopausal women by 48%.
This new finding adds to a growing body of clinical evidence that statin drugs are fundamentally diabetogenic, which is not surprising considering the National Library of Medicine contains peer-reviewed, published research on over 300 other known adverse effects associated with their use.
The profound irony here is that most of the morbidity and mortality associated with diabetes is due to cardiovascular complications. High blood sugar and its oxidation (glycation) contribute to damage to the blood vessels, particularly the arteries, resulting in endothelial dysfunction and associated neuropathies due to lack of blood flow to the nerves. Statin drugs, which are purported to reduce cardiovascular disease risk through lipid suppression, insofar as they contribute to insulin resistance, elevated blood sugar, and full-blown diabetes, are not only diabetogenic but cardiotoxic, as well.
Cardiotoxicity, in fact, is a characteristic property of this chemical class. Because the heart muscle is muscle, and because the most well-known adverse effect of statin drugs is their muscle-damaging (myotoxic) properties, it does not take more than commonsense to deduce that statin drugs are toxic to the heart muscle as well.
Indeed, ever since the Journal of Clinical Cardiology published the results of a 2009 study on statin drug use and heart function, it has become alarmingly clear that they actually weaken the heart muscle:
“CONCLUSION: Statin therapy is associated with decreased myocardial function as evaluated with SI [strain imaging].”
Is it possible, therefore, that statin drugs are inducing an as-of-yet under-appreciated and under-reported epidemic of heart disease and congestive heart failure in the populations using them? What is, after all, the most important nutrient widely recognized to benefit cardiovascular health? Coenzyme Q10 would be the correct answer. And what do statin drugs do but suppress the production (via mevalonate pathway inhibition) of this indispensable factor in mitochondrial ATP production. The heart muscle is so ATP-dependent that each cardiac muscle cell has as many as 200 times higher levels of mitochondria than skeletal muscle cells. It is, after all, the muscle that never stops working.
Statins, therefore, can be considered the most oxymoronic chemical class of its kind: a “heart” drug that by its very nature harms the heart. And coenzyme Q10 deficiency caused by statin drugs is just the tip of the iceberg. There are a wide range of nutritional deficiencies that these drugs induce, including selenium, zinc, and vitamin E deficiency — all of which may profoundly harm cardiovascular function.
Jan 10th
Did you know that most calcium supplements on the market today are basically limestone? Yes, that’s chalk. Conceal it within a capsule, a slickly glazed tablet, or in the form of a silky smooth liquid, and it is magically transformed into a “calcium supplement”: easy to swallow, “good for the bones” and a very profitable commodity for both the dietary supplement and mining industries. After all, a sizable portion of the Earth’s crust is composed of the stuff.
Calcium carbonate comes very cheap. But does it work? A review published in Osteoporosis International Aug. 2008 concluded that calcium monotherapy (without vitamin d) actually increases the rate of fracture in women. If we believe the results of this study, it would appear that calcium alone may do nothing to prevent bone fracture or the loss of bone quality. Were this the end of the story, we might write off the $100 or more we spend on calcium supplements every year as a loss, and start drinking more milk. Not so quick!
In the Harvard Nurses’ Health Study, a review tracking 78,000 nurses for 12 years found that the more cow’s milk they consumed, the higher rate of bone fracture they experienced; in the study, the relative risk of hip fracture was 45% higher in those women who drank two or more glasses of milk per day versus those who drank one glass or less. In fact, in countries where both dairy consumption and overall calcium levels in the diet are the lowest, bone fracture rates are also the lowest; conversely, in cultures like the United States where calcium consumption is among the highest in the world, so too are the fracture rates among the highest (see: The China Study).
Osteoporosis, after all, is a complex disease process, involving lack of strenuous exercise, chronic inflammation, multiple mineral and vitamin deficiencies, inadequate production of steroid hormones, dietary incompatibilites and many other known and unknown factors, the least of which is in any probability related to a lack of elemental calcium in the diet. Also, osteoporosis, as defined by X-ray analysis, e.g. Dual-emission X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans, can only directly measure bone mineral density and not structural integrity/strength, which is the real-world indicator of whether your bone will resist breaking when under the trauma, say, of a serious fall.
If we rule out drug (e.g. steroids, synthroid, acid-blockers) and hyperparathyroidism-induced osteoporosis, arguably the two main contributing factors associated with lower-than-normal bone mineral density are:
1) Dietary Acidosis: caused by the excessive consumption of acid forming foods like starchy grains, dairy (excluding goat’s milk) and meat, all of which result in the leaching of the alkaline mineral stores in our bones. (Additionally, the consumption of highly acidic substances like coffee, alcohol, sugar, over the counter and prescribed drugs, and even the metabolic byproducts of chronic stress can all put the acid/alkaline balance beyond the tipping point). The flip-side is the under-consumption of alkalinizing fruits and vegetables, which disburden the mineral stores within the skeletal system of their sacrificial, acid-neutralizing role.
2) Malabsorption Syndrome: caused in large part by the excessive consumption of wheat, cow’s milk products, soy (non-fermented) and corn.* All four of these foods, in fact, can be used to produce industrial adhesives, e.g .wheat = book binding glue, cow’s milk protein (casein) = Elmer’s glue, soy = plywood glue, corn = cardboard glue, and while not a problem for everyone, for many, their ingestion leads to a disruption of the absorptive capacity of the villi in the intestines by producing a “gluey coating,” contributing to inflammation and atrophy of the villi. Other causes include dysbiosis, an overgrowth of unfriendly and undergrowth of friendly bacteria in the alimentary canal, as well as acute and/or chronic stress which depletes the glutamine without which the intestinal villi die (villi cell turnover occurs within 2 days, indicating even acute bouts of stress of short duration can cause profound damage). You don’t see a lack of calcium or Boniva in this picture, do you?
Fortunately these two factors are completely preventable and treatable through dietary and lifestyle changes. It is increasingly clear that osteoporosis is not caused by a lack of calcium; to the contrary, it appears that excessive calcium intake may actually cause greater bone fracture rates, especially later in life! After all, the traditional Chinese peasant diet, based as it is on eating a calcium-poor, plant-based diet, included approximately 250 mg of food calcium a day – not the 1200 mg (or more!) a day the National Osteoporosis Foundation claims is necessary for women and men over 40 to maintain strong bones.
Paradoxically, not only does the aforementioned hypothetical Chinese peasant have less dense bones than your average Westerner, but s(he) also has incomparably stronger bones. In fact, the Chinese have no traditional word for osteoporosis, and this is at least a 3,000 year old language!
These facts beg for a scientific explanation. A Dutch researcher by the name of Thijs Klompmaker, in his 2000 article Excessive Calcium Causes Osteoporosis, provides a brilliant explanation as to why too much calcium interferes with bone health. According to Klompmaker’s analysis, the consumption of excessive calcium introduced through diary products and mineral supplementation may be making our bones weaker…
Due to the fact that excess calcium can deposit into soft tissues, leading to osteoarthritis, muscle cramping, insomnia, constipation, kidney stones, and increased rates of breast and prostate cancers (note: calcium crystals like hydroxylapatite (bone meal) can be mitogenic, stimulating proliferation of cells), the body prevents “calcium overload” by shunting the extra calcium into the bone, where it is stored until it can be safely excreted. This can be a life-saving mechanisms because excess calcium in the blood can lead to the accumulation and destabilization of plaque in the arteries, can exert a hypertensive effect on the heart muscle, and may even induce cardiac arrest. According to two meta-analyses published in the British Journal of Medicine last year, 500 mg of supplemental elemental calcium a day increases the risk of heart attack by at least 24%!
However, there is a price to be paid for having to continually sequester excess calcium into the bone, which is that it stimulates the accelerated replication of osteoblasts (bone-building cells), and when osteoblasts replicate approximately 60-70% die as they become part of the new bone mineral matrix they lay down. Because there are only a fixed number of progenitor cells, and replication cycles available to each cell lineage, in a given lifetime, the osteoblasts become prematurely senescent and incapable of replicating at a rate rapid enough to keep up with the osteoclasts, which break down bad bone. These osteocasts are still much younger and active than the osteoblasts, which tips the scales in favor of increased bone turnover, resulting in a rapid decline in bone mineral density and bone quality later in life. This explains why Asians eating their traditional calcium-poor diet, for instance, have lower bone mineral density throughout their life, but reach peak bone mass later, showing slower declines than Westerners while experiencing their golden years.
Sadly, conventional medicine pays far too little, if any attention to the link between dietary and tissue acidosis/malabsorption syndrome and osteoporosis in particular, and the obvious causal link between diet and disease processes, in general. Moreover, with its questionable bias towards viewing disease as genetically predetermined and treatable with chemical therapies, the true causes of suffering are rarely perceived, treated and resolved. In fact today a popular first-line treatment for osteoporosis is the use of bisphosphonates, a class of “bone-building” drugs (e.g. Fosomax, Actonel, Boniva, Reclast), which are made from a chemical first employed to soften water in irrigation systems used in orange groves. The same toxic substance once used to prevent corrosion and scaling on industrial equipment is being given to millions of Americans to “treat” their weakening bones.
These chemicals are highly toxic, and are known to poison the group of bone-building cells known as the osteoclasts, which break down weak bone, making room for new, stronger bone that the osteoblasts put in its place. This unnatural intervention causes weak bone to accumulate beneath the new strong bone, resulting in an increase in bone density at the expense of bone quality. Three to five years into taking these drugs, though bone density usually increases, bone fracture rates may increase as well. The side effects of taking these drugs can be life-threatening, e.g. perforation of the intestines, ulceration of the stomach and intestines, liver and kidney damage, atrial fibrillation, spontaneous bone fractures and an irreversible degeneration of the jawbone known as osteonecrosis. (View all 39 adverse effects here). To make matters worse, there is a systematic trend to label over 18 million Americans with a “disease” known as “osteopenia,” when in fact this is not a clinically relevant, evidence-based term at all, based on a completely arbitrary standard that highly favors overdiagnosis and overtreatment….
Osteopenia does not describe a disease state, nor is it an accurate predictor of future bone fracture rates. Technically speaking, “osteopenia” is defined having a T score -1 to -2 standard deviations from an arbitrarily defined norm, which is the approximate age in the human life cycle for peak bone mass: 25 years of age. The Z score, were it to be emphasized, would take into the age of the person being evaluated (along with other variables such as well as sex, ethnicity, etc). The Z-score, because it is age-mediated, takes into account that as one ages the bone naturally becomes less dense. The use of the T-score generates the illusion that older men and women who are experiencing the natural gradual decline in bone density called aging are not going through a normal process but rather a disease process. This is all the more disturbing when we take into account that higher bone density later in life has been correlated with far higher (300% or higher!) rates of malignant breast cancer. (View studies here)
Ultimately the present T-score based bone density scoring system provides justification for prescribing unnecessary and extraordinarily dangerous medications. Bone health has everything to do with things we control, such as our ability to stay active, and what we ingest. Vision and gait disorders, in fact, are at least as important as low bone mineral density in contributing to increased bone fracture rates. We should not allow ourselves to be convinced that swallowing limestone supplements or metabolic poisons will in any way fill the void that a lack of genuine nutrition and exercise left there.
Here are a few tips that should help you go a long way in preventing or reversing bone loss:
1) Eat high-quality protein and vitamin C rich fruits and vegetables! All bone begins as collagen, a substance whose intricate triple helix structure is formed through the Vitamin C driven hydroxlation of the essential amino acids L-lysine and L-proline. Focusing on selecting a diet closer to our hunter and gathered predecessors (not too distant from where we are now, in biological time) appears to be a key factor in preserving both bone density and bone strength. And remember: Vitamin C is not the same thing as ascorbic acid. Szent-Gyorgyi, who received the Nobel Prize for its discovery in 1937, himself concluded that we need a whole food source of this vitamin, e.g. paprika or adrenal extract, and not the synthetic crystals we now carelessly identify with this life-giving food factor in food in order to prevent scurvy.
2) Get sunlight! Vitamin D supplements are to sunlight, what ascorbic acid crystals are to the Vitamin C activity found in whole, raw food. 3) Vitamin K works with vitamin D, preventing hypercalcemia and ectopic calcification, as well as strengthening the bone, without altering bone mineral density. It is is found in wonderfully nutrient-dense foods like kale, and as a by-product of the metabolic activity of friendly bacteria in our gut or in cultured foods.
3) Eliminate Wheat & Gluten from your diet. No grain is more harmful to human health, with over 120 documented adverse health effects culled directly from the National Library of Medicine.
4) Incorporate bone-building/strengthening substances into your diet. For a list of over 200 carefully reviewed natural substances with value, use the GreenMedInfo.com Osteoporosis resource page.
*While soy protein and flours, consumed excessively, will contribute to intestinal issues, including malabsorption of nutrients, in moderate quantities — and treated as a medicine, not a food — soy has profound therapeutic properties. The byproduct of soy fermentation will generate a phytoestrogen known as genistein, for instance, which is probably one of the most powerful, evidence-based bone-strength and density preserving substances in nature.
Jan 5th
Well the Food and Drug Administration has really made a name for themselves this time. In response to claims by a company named Diamond Foods that walnuts possess health benefits, the FDA sent the company a letter informing them of their wrongdoing. What did Diamond Foods do wrong? According to the FDA, claims made by Diamond Foods that omega-3′s found in walnuts produce health benefits make their walnuts “drugs”. As far as the FDA is concerned, these “drugs” can not be legally marketed in the United States without an approved new drug application.
FDA Actions Portray Government Lunacy at its Best
It seems bureaucratic tyranny is really taking shape in America. Despite 35 peer-reviewed published papers showing that walnuts improve vascular health and promote heart function being held in the US National Library of Medicine database,the FDA refuses to allow Diamond Foods to make such claims. The evidence revolving around the benefits of walnuts evidently must be authorized by the FDA before those benefits can even be marketed. A letter sent to the company from the FDA states:
“We have determined that your walnut products are promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease.”
The FDA goes on to say that the products are also “misbranded” because they “are offered for conditions that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners; therefore, adequate directions for use cannot be written so that a layperson can use these drugs safely for their intended purposes.”
All the while, the FDA is more than happy to allow marketing of chemical-laden, diabetes-inducing foods such as Apple Jacks or Fruit Loops, often targeted at young children. Not only that, but they would much rather the population ‘treat’ their problems with harmful pharmaceuticals rather than with a healthy diet. The government’s actions against natural solutions are sickening to say the least, and saying that walnuts or pomegranates are drugs is an outright false claim. But why are they even making these crazy statements?
The truth is that the pharmaceutical industry, multi-national corporations, and government officials all have both indiscrete and blatant financial ties. Junk food manufacturers heavily lobby the federal government for favorable treatment in order to vacuum in greater profits. In response to the ingestion of massive amounts of junk foods, your body responds so negatively that various health-complications surface, causing you to search for a solution. It just so happens that the pharmaceutical industry has been pushing ‘solutions’ on you for years through mass advertising, making drug ingestion and medical devices the norm instead of healthy alternatives. As far as the government is concerned, there is absolutely no reason for you to live a healthy lifestyle, since many of the government officials would be losing out on a great sum of money.
The FDA simply does not have your best interest at heart. This kind of action truly reflects government lunacy at its best.
Mike Barrett
Natural Society
Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:08 CST
Recent Comments