Ledda/djledda-web
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

articles

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Daniel Ledda
2024-10-31 23:47:20 +01:00
parent 36b49a6a1f
commit f60e975765
47 changed files with 31671 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

534
raypeat-articles/processed/bonedensity.html Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,534 @@
<html>
<head><title>Bone Density: First Do No Harm</title></head>
<body>
<h1>
Bone Density: First Do No Harm
</h1>
<article class="posted">
<p>
No topic can be understood in isolation. People frequently ask me what they should do about their
diagnosed osteoporosis/osteopenia, and when they mention “computer controlled” and “dual photon x-ray”
bone density tests, my attention tends to jump past their bones, their diet, and their hormones, to the
way they must perceive themselves and their place in the world. Are they aware that this is an x-ray
that’s powerful enough to differentiate very opaque bones from less opaque bones? The soft tissues
aren’t being studied, so they are allowed to be “overexposed” until they appear black on the film. If a
thick area like the thigh or hip is to be measured, are they aware that the x-ray dose received at the
surface where the radiation enters might be 20 times more intense than the radiation that reaches the
film, and that the 90 or 95% of the missing energy has been absorbed by the person’s cells? If I limited
my response to answering the question they thought they had asked me, I would feel that I had joined a
conspiracy against them. My answer has to assume that they are really asking about their health, rather
than about a particular medical diagnosis.
</p>
<p>
Neurologists are famous for making exquisitely erudite diagnoses of problems that they can’t do anything
to remedy. The owners of expensive dual photon x-ray absorptiometer diagnostic machines are in a very
different position. The remedies for osteoporosis are things that everyone should be doing, anyway, so
diagnosis makes no difference in what the physician should recommend to the patient.
</p>
<p>
Most often, estrogen is prescribed for osteoporosis, and if the doctors didn’t have their bone density
tests, they would probably prescribe estrogen anyway, “to protect the heart,” or “to prevent Alzheimer’s
disease.” Since I have already written about estrogen and those problems, there’s no need to say more
about it here, except that estrogen is the cause of a variety of tissue atrophies, including the
suppression of bone formation.[1]
</p>
<p>
General Electric, a major advocate of x-ray screening for osteoporosis and breast cancer, has advertised
that 91% of breast cancers could be cured if everyone used their technology. Breast cancer has not
decreased despite the massive application of the technology, though the US government and others (using
crudely deceptive statistis) claim that the War on Cancer is being won. Similarly, during the last
decades when the “high technology” x-ray machines have been more widely used, the age-specific incidence
of osteoporosis has increased tremendously. This apparently includes a higher rate of shortening of
stature with aging than in earlier generations.[2]
</p>
<p>
I think there are several reasons for avoiding x-ray tests of bone density, besides the simple one that
everyone should eat a bone-protective diet, regardless of the present density of their bones.
</p>
<p>
Even seemingly identical x-ray machines, or the same machine at a different time, can give very
different estimates of bone density.[3-10] Radiologists evaluating the same images often reach very
different conclusions.[11] Changes in the tissue water and fat content can make large differences in
apparent bone density,[12] and estrogen, which affects those, could appear to cause improved bone
density, when it is merely causing a generalized inflammatory condition, with edema. A machine that is
accurate when measuring an aluminum model, won’t necessarily give meaningful results when the
composition of the tissue, including the bone marrow, has changed. Calcification of soft tissues can
create the impression of increased bone density.[13] Studies of large groups of people show such small
annual losses of bone density (around 1%), especially in the neck of the femur (which is important in
hip fractures) that the common technical errors of measurement in an individual seem very large.
</p>
<p>
Ultrasound devices can do an extremely good job of evaluating both bone density and strength [14-16],
rather than just density.
</p>
<p>Ultrasound stimulates bone repair.</p>
<p>X-rays accelerate the rate of bone loss.</p>
<p>X-rays do their harm at any dose; there is no threshold at which the harm begins.</p>
<p>
X-ray damage is not limited to the area being investigated. Deflected x-rays affect adjacent areas, and
toxins produced by irradiated cells travel in the bloodstream, causing systemic effects. Dental x-rays
cause thyroid cancer and eye cancer. Recent experiments have shown that low doses of radiation cause
delayed death of brain cells. The action of x-rays produces tissue inflammation, and diseases as
different as Alzheimer’s disease and heart disease result from prolonged inflammatory processes.
</p>
<p>
I have never known a physician who knew, or cared, what dose of radiation his patients were receiving. I
have never known a patient who could get that information from their doctors.
</p>
<p>
The radiation exposure used to measure bone density may be higher (especially when the thigh and hip are
x-rayed) than the exposure in dental x-rays, but dental x-rays are known to increase the incidence of
cancer. Often, dentists have their receptionists do the x-rays, which probably doesn’t matter, since the
dentist is usually no more concerned than the receptionist about understanding, and minimizing, the
dose. Even radiological specialists seldom are interested in the doses they use diagnostically.
</p>
<p>
It was only after a multitude of dentists had a finger amputated that it became standard practice to ask
the patient to hold the film, while the dentist stood safely back away from the rays.
</p>
<p>
Just after the beginning of the century, Thomas Edison was helping to popularize x-rays, but the
horrible death of his chief technician turned Edison into an enemy of the technology. By the 1940s, the
dangers of radiation were coming to be understood by the general public, and it was only the
intervention of the US government, to popularize atomic bombs and nuclear power, that was able to
reverse the trend.
</p>
<p>
In 1956 and 1957, Linus Pauling was the only well known scientist who opposed the government’s policies.
The government took away his passport, and his opportunities to write and speak were limited by a
boycott imposed by a variety of institutions, but instigated by the nuclear industry and its agent, the
Atomic Energy Commission. The government which considered Pauling a threat to national security, had
placed thousands of German and Hungarian “ex”-Nazis in high positions in industry and government
agencies, after protecting them from prosecution as war criminals. The official government policy,
directed by the financier Admiral Strauss who controlled the Atomic Energy Commision, was to tell the
public that radiation was good. Their extreme secrecy regarding their radiation experiments on
Americans, however, indicated that they were aware of the malignant nature of their activities<strong
>;</strong> many of the records were simply destroyed, so that no one could ever know what had been
done. Scientists who worked for the government, Willard Libby, John Goffman, and many others, were
working to convince the public that they shouldn’t worry. Of the multitude of scientists who served the
government during that time, only a few ever came to oppose those policies, and those who did were
unable to keep their jobs or research grants. Gofman has become the leader in the movement to protect
the public against radiation, especially, since 1971, through the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility,
PO Box 421993, San Francisco, CA 94132..
</p>
<p>
Gofman has said<strong>: "I was stupid in those days. In 1955, '56, people like Linus Pauling were
saying that the bomb fallout would cause all this trouble. I thought, 'We're not sure. If you're not
sure, don't stand in the way of progress.' I could not have thought anything more stupid in my life.
</strong>
</p>
<p>
<strong>
"The big moment in my life happened while I was giving a health lecture to nuclear engineers. In the
middle of my talk it hit me! What the hell am I saying? If you don't know whether low doses are safe
or not, going ahead is exactly wrong. At that moment, I changed my position entirely."[17]
</strong>
</p>
<p>
<strong>
In 1979, Gofman said: "There is no way I can justify my failure to help sound an alarm over these
activities many years sooner than I did. I feel that at least several hundred scientists trained in
the biomedical aspect of atomic energy - myself definitely included - are candidates for
Nuremburg-type trials for crimes against humanity for our gross negligence and irresponsibility. Now
that we know the hazard of low-dose radiation, the crime is not experimentation - it's murder." [18]
</strong>
</p>
<p>
Many ordinary people were making exactly that argument in the 1950s, but government censorship kept the
most incriminating evidence from the public. The climate of intimidation spread throughout the culture,
so that teachers who spoke about the dangers of radiation were called disloyal, and were fired. Now,
people who don’t want x-rays are treated as crackpots. Probably because of this cultural situation,
Gofman’s recommendations are very mild--simply for doctors to use good technology and to know what they
are doing, which could lead to ten-fold or even hundred-fold dose reduction. Even with such mild
restraint in the use of diagnostic x-rays, Gofman’s well founded estimate is that 250,000 deaths caused
by radiation could be prevented annually. I believe many more deaths would be prevented if ultrasound
and MRI were used consistently instead of x-rays. Using Gofman’s estimate, I think we can blame at least
ten million deaths on just the medical x-rays that have been used inappropriately because of the
policies of the U.S. government in the last half century. That wouldn’t include the deaths caused by
radioactive fallout from bomb tests and leaks from nuclear power plants, or the vast numbers of people
mentally impaired by all sorts of toxic radiation.<strong></strong>
</p>
<p>
<strong>Although nearly all the people who committed the radiation crimes of the 1950s and 1960s have
died or retired, the culture they created remains in the mass media and scientific journals, and in
the medical and academic professions.
</strong>
</p>
<p>
Medical journals describe ways to minimize diagnostic x-ray exposure, and they advocate many seemingly
effective treatments for osteoporosis, giving an impression that progress is being made in “managing”
osteoporosis, but the real situation is very different. Fractures resulting from osteoporosis are
increasing, and osteoporosis is affecting younger and younger people. I think it would be reasonable to
say that a woman with osteoporosis is usually better off when it’s not diagnosed, because of the
dangerous things prescribed for it. Estrogen has become the main “treatment” for osteoporosis, but many
of the other ways of “managing” osteoporosis are both ineffective and unsafe.
</p>
<p>
Many women are told to stop taking a thyroid supplement when osteoporosis is diagnosed, but
hypothyroidism often leads to hyperprolactinema and hypercortisolemia, which are two of the most clearly
established causes of osteoporosis. Calcitonin, vitamin D-active metabolite, and estrogen-”HRT”
treaments can cause respiratory alkalosis (relative hyperventilation),[19-24] and hypothyroidism
produces a predisposition to hyperventilation.[25] Hyperventilation tends to cause calcium loss. In
respiratory alkalolis, CO2 (and sometimes bicarbonate) are decreased, impairing calcium retention, and
in “<strong><em>metabolic</em></strong> alkalosis,” with <strong><em>increased</em></strong>
bicarbonate, calcium is retained more efficiently and bone formation is stimulated, and its dissolution
is suppressed.
</p>
<p>
Other women are told to reduce their protein consumption, or to take fluoride or whatever drug has been
most recently promoted. A protein deficiency is a clear cause of osteoporosis, and bone density
corresponds to the amount of protein consumed. Milk protein, especially, protects against osteoporosis,
independently of milk’s other important nutrients. Too much fluoride clearly increases the risk of bone
fractures,[26] and the side effects of other drugs haven’t been properly studied in humans, while they
often have dangerous effects in animals.
</p>
<p>
Calcium, magnesium, vitamin A, vitamin B6- , vitamin K, and vitamin D are important for the development
and maintenance of bones. For example, a vitamin A deficiency limits the synthesis of progesterone and
proteins. In calcium deficiency, parathyroid hormone is increased, and tends to cause the typical
changes of aging, shifting calcium from hard tissues to soft, and decreasing the ratio of extracellular
to intracellular (excitatory) calcium.
</p>
<p>
Polyunsaturated fats are converted to prostaglandins (especially under the influence of estrogen), and
several prostaglandins have toxic effects on bone. Those fats also suppress the formation of thyroid
hormone and progesterone. The increased use of the unsaturated oils has coincided with the increase of
osteoporosis.
</p>
<p>
The oxidation of proteins caused by free radicals is increased with aging and by the use of unsaturated
fats, and it contributes to tissue atrophy, including the age-related shrinkage of the bones. In animal
studies, “adequate” dietary protein, 13.8% of the diet (equivalent to about 80 grams per day for a
person) is associated with more oxidative damage to tissue proteins than the very high protein diets,
25.7% or 51.3%, that would be equivalent to about 150 or 300 grams of protein daily for a person.[27]
Yet, many physicians recommend a low protein diet to protect against osteoporosis.
</p>
<p>
Avoiding fluoridated water and the polyunsaturated oils, and drinking two quarts of milk daily (which
will provide only 66 grams of protein), and using some other nutrient-rich foods such as eggs and
fruits, are probably the basic things to protect the bones. For vitamins, especially K, occasional liver
can be helpful. Meats, fruits, leaves, and coffee are rich in magnesium.
</p>
<p>
Some people have argued that the acidity of urine produced by eating meat causes calcium loss. However,
a high protein diet also improves the absorption of calcium by the intestine. Another overlooked
function of dietary protein is that it stimulates insulin secretion, and insulin is anabolic for
bone.[28]
</p>
<p>
The same diet that protects against osteoporosis, i.e., plenty of protein and calcium, etc., also
protects against kidney stones and other abnormal calcificatons.
</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong><h3>REFERENCES</h3></strong></p>
<p>
1. Proc Assoc Am Physicians 1996 Mar;108(2):155-64 <strong>Potential mechanism of estrogen-mediated
decrease in bone formation: estrogen increases production of inhibitory insulin-like growth
factor-binding protein-4.</strong> Kassem M, Okazaki R, De Leon D, Harris SA, Robinson JA, Spelsberg
TC, Conover CA, Riggs BL.
</p>
<p>
<strong> 2.</strong> Am J Phys Anthropol 1990 Dec;83(4):467-76. <strong>Stature loss among an older
United States population and its relation to bone mineral status.</strong> Galloway A, Stini WA, Fox
SC, Stein P. “With advancing age there is a gradual decrease in height apparently beginning in the
mid-40s. Thereafter, there is a relatively rapid decrease in measured height. <strong>This contrasts to
the much slower rates predicted from earlier populations (Trotter and Gleser: American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 9:311-324, 1951).
</strong>The rate of stature loss is associated with diminution of bone mineral density as well as with
maximum height. Since there are suggestions of a secular trend toward greater reductions in bone mineral
density, this study suggests there may be a secular trend toward an increase in statural loss with age.”
</p>
<p>
<strong> 3.</strong> Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 1994 Mar;160(3):260-5. <strong
>[The quantitative determination of bone mineral content--a system comparison of similarly built
computed tomographs].</strong> [Article in German] Andresen R, Radmer S, Banzer D, Felsenberg D,
Wolf KJ Klinik fur Radiologie, Universitatsklinikum Steglitz der FU Berlin. An intercomparison of 4 CT
scanners of the same manufacturer was performed. The bone mineral content of 11 lumbar vertebral columns
removed directly post mortem was determined in a specially constructed lucite-water phantom. Even
devices of the same construction were shown to yield a variation in the quantitative evaluation markedly
exceeding the annual physiological mineral loss. As long as scanner adjustment by physical calibration
phantoms has not yet been established, a course assessment and therapy control of bone mineral content
should always be carried out on the same QCT scanner.
</p>
<p>
<strong> 4.</strong> Osteoporos Int 1990 Oct;1(1):23-9. <strong>Vertebral bone mineral density measured
laterally by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.</strong> Slosman DO, Rizzoli R, Donath A, Bonjour JP.
“The bone mineral density (BMD) of lumbar vertebrae in the anteroposterior (AP) view may be
overestimated in osteoarthritis or with aortic calcification, which are common in elderly.” “Then, we
compared the capability of BMD LAT and BMD AP scans for monitoring bone loss related to age and for
discriminating the BMD of postmenopausal women with nontraumatic vertebral fractures from that of young
subjects. In vitro, when a spine phantom was placed in lateral position in the middle of 26 cm of water
in order to simulate both soft-tissue thickness and X-ray source remoteness, the coefficient of
variation (CV) of six repeated determinations of BMD was 1.0%. In vivo, the CV of paired BMD LAT
measurements obtained in 20 healthy volunteers<strong> after repositioning was 2.8%.”</strong>
</p>
<p>
<strong> 5.</strong> Eur J Nucl Med 1990;17(1-2):3-9.<strong>
Comparative study of the performances of X-ray and gadolinium 153 bone densitometers at the level of
the spine, femoral neck and femoral shaft.</strong> Slosman DO, Rizzoli R, Buchs B, Piana F, Donath
A, Bonjour JP. “In vivo, at the spine level, with DPA, mean<strong>
CV of BMD measured 6 times after repositioning in 6 healthy volunteers was 3.8% +/- 1.9% and 2.1%
+/- 0.7% . . . .”
</strong>
</p>
<p><strong> &nbsp;</strong></p>
<p>
<strong> 6. </strong> Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 1995 Apr;162(4):269-73. <strong
>[Experimental studies of the visualization of the vertebral body spongiosa by high-resolution computed
tomography].</strong> Henschel MG, Freyschmidt J, Holland BR. “The measured lower limit of<strong>
visualisation of cancellous bone structures is clearly worse than expected from the measurements of
spatial resolution with standard phantoms used for HR-CT (0.6 versus 0.4 mm). True and exact imaging
of normal cancellous bone cannot be achieved even by modern HR-CT. Noise creates structures
mimicking cancellous bone.”
</strong>
</p>
<p>
7. J Comput Tomogr 1984 Apr;8(2):91-7. <strong>Quantitative computed tomography assessment of spinal
trabecular bone. I. Age-related regression in normal men and women.</strong> Firooznia H, Golimbu C,
Rafii M, Schwartz MS, Alterman ER. “Computed tomography, <strong>utilized in conjunction with a
calibrated phantom containing a set of reference densities</strong> (K2HPO4 and water), is capable
of determining the mineral content of the trabecular bone of the spine with an<strong>
accuracy of about 6%</strong> of the ash weight of the vertebrae scanned (specimen studies).”
</p>
<p>
8. Calcif Tissue Int 1991 Sep;49(3):174-8. <strong>Precision and stability of dual-energy X-ray
absorptiometry measurements.</strong>
<hr />
<strong></strong>
</p>
<p>
<strong> 9.</strong> J Comput Assist Tomogr 1993 Nov-Dec;17(6):945-51. <strong>Influence of temperature
on QCT: implications for mineral densitometry.</strong> Whitehouse RW, Economou G, Adams JE.
“Inaccuracies in quantitative CT (QCT) for vertebral bone mineral measurements may result from
differences between the temperature of the vertebrae and the calibration standards.” “In the computer
simulation, the<strong>
fat error associated with single energy QCT for trabecular bone mineral densitometry was 20% less
for specimens at room temperature than at body temperature.”</strong> “The fat error of
single<strong>
energy QCT for mineral densitometry may have been underestimated in previous in vitro studies using
vertebral specimens scanned at room temperature.”</strong>
</p>
<p>
<strong> 10.</strong> Phys Med Biol 1986 Jan;31(1):55-63. <strong>Quantitative CT measurements: the
effect of scatter acceptance and filter characteristics on the EMI 7070.</strong> Merritt RB,
Chenery SG “Non-linearities in projection values on computed tomography (CT) scanners <strong>cause
corresponding errors in derived Hounsfield unit attenuation measurements. Existing commercial
machines have been refined for clinical usefulness but not necessarily for quantitative
accuracy.”</strong>
<strong>“It is concluded that, irrespective of any quality assurance protocol, interpatient and
interslice errors can be expected to range from 3 to 10% for water-equivalent materials and the
intraslice positional dependence of the CT number can vary up to 5% for dense bone-like materials in
a uniform phantom.”</strong>
</p>
<p>
<strong> 11.</strong> Skeletal Radiol 1986;15(5):347-9. <strong>Observer variation in the detection of
osteopenia.</strong> Epstein DM, Dalinka MK, Kaplan FS, Aronchick JM, Marinelli DL, Kundel HL. In
order to determine observer variation in the detection of osteopenia, 15 pairs of lateral chest
radiographs obtained within two weeks of each other were reviewed separately by two radiologists and one
orthopedist on three separate occasions. Intra- and interobserver variations were calculated for each
individual film and film pairs using Kappa values. <strong>The individual observers were not able to
give consistent readings on the same film on different days</strong>
<hr />
<strong>additional factors of repeat films</strong>
<hr />
<strong>or separate observers</strong>
<hr />
<strong>agreement was even worse.</strong>
<strong>The identification of osteopenia from the lateral view of the thoracic spine is highly
subjective and variable from film to film and observer to observer.</strong>
</p>
<p>
<strong> 12.</strong> P. Schneider and C. Reiners, Letter, JAMA 277(1), 23, Jan. 1, 1997. <strong>"The
influence of fat distribution on bone mass measurements with DEXA can be of considerable magnitude
and ranges up to 10% error per 2 cm of fat."</strong>
</p>
<p>
<strong> 13.</strong> Calcif Tissue Int 1990 Apr;46(4):280-1. <strong>Effect of radiographic
abnormalities on rate of bone loss from the spine.</strong> Dawson-Hughes B, Dallal GE. <strong
>“Spurious rates of loss of spine BMD are likely to be found in subjects with calcification of the
aorta, osteophytes or other abnormalities in the spine scan field. This should be kept in mind when
serial spine scans are being considered in these subjects.”
</strong>
</p>
<p>
<strong> 14.</strong> Przegl Lek 2000;57(2):93-9. [No title available]. Jaworski M, Lorenc RS. <strong
>“. . .</strong>Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) method is a reference method to diagnose
osteoporosis. This method allows to <strong>measure bone density and bone mass, however bone quality can
not be estimated. Quantitative ultrasound (QUS)</strong>
<strong>method provides information about bone structure.”</strong>
</p>
<p>
<strong> 15.</strong> Osteoporos Int 2000;11(4):354-60.<strong>
Assessment of a new quantitative ultrasound calcaneus measurement: precision and discrimination of
hip fractures in elderly women compared with dual X-ray absorptiometry.</strong> He YQ, Fan B, Hans
D, Li J, Wu CY, Njeh CF, Zhao S, Lu Y, Tsuda-Futami E, Fuerst T, Genant HK.
</p>
<p>
<strong> 16.</strong> Cas Lek Cesk 2000 Apr 26;139(8):231-6 <strong>[X-ray densitometry and
ultrasonography of the heel bone--sensitivity and comparison with densitometry of the axial
skeleton].</strong> [Article in Czech] Michalska D, Zikan V, Stepan J, Weichetova M, Kubova V,
Krenkova J, Masatova A. “The DXA of the heel underestimates the prevalence of osteoporosis. The results
of the heel QUS (Stiffness) appear to be better correlated to femoral BMD than heel BMD.”
</p>
<p>
<strong>17.</strong> John Gofman, M.D. (biographical chapter. pages 401-412.) In Studs Terkel's book
<strong><em>Coming of Age. The Story of our Century by Those Who Lived It.</em></strong> The New Press.
NY. 1995.
</p>
<p>
<strong>18.</strong> Gofman, J.W. <strong>An irreverent, illustrated view of nuclear power.</strong>
Committee for Nuclear Responsibility. San Francisco, CA. pp. 227-228, 1979.
</p>
<p>
<strong> 19.</strong> Kidney Int 1992 Sep;42(3):727-34. <strong>Chronic respiratory alkalosis induces
renal PTH-resistance, hyperphosphatemia and hypocalcemia in humans.</strong> Krapf R, Jaeger P,
Hulter HN Department of Medicine, Insel University Hospital, Berne, Switzerland. <strong>“The effects of
chronic respiratory alkalosis on divalent ion homeostasis have not been reported in any
species.”</strong> “Chronic respiratory alkalosis (delta PaCO2, -8.4 mm Hg, delta[H+] -3.2
nmol/liter) resulted in a sustained decrement in plasma ionized calcium concentration (delta[IoCa++]p,
-0.10 mmol/liter, P less than 0.05) and a sustained increment in plasma phosphate concentration
(delta[PO4]p, +0.14 mmol/liter, P less than 0.005) <strong>associated with increased fractional
excretion of Ca++ . . .”
</strong>
</p>
<p>
<strong> 20.</strong> J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999 Jun;84(6):1997-2001 <strong>Hormone replacement
therapy causes a respiratory alkalosis in normal postmenopausal women.</strong>
<hr />
<strong>partial pressure of carbon dioxide. . . .”</strong>
<strong>“Accompanying changes in blood pH were apparent in the estrogen plus MPA group, where there was
an upward trend at 1 week</strong>
<hr />
</p>
<p>
<strong> 21.</strong> Wien Klin Wochenschr 1979 Apr 27;91(9):304-7 <strong>[Investigations on the
pathogenesis of distal renal tubular acidosis].</strong> Schabel F, Zieglauer H. <strong
>“Bicarbonate loading is followed by a lowering of calcium excretion to within the normal range and a
decrease in the uncharacteristic renal hyperaminoaciduria.”
</strong>
</p>
<p>
<strong> 22.</strong> Calcif Tissue Int 1984 Sep;36(5):604-7. <strong>Respiratory alkalosis and reduced
plasmatic concentration of ionized calcium in rats treated with 1,25
dihydroxycholecalciferol.</strong> Locatto ME, Fernandez MC, Caferra DA, Gimenez MC, Vidal MC, Puche
RC. “The daily administration of supraphysiological doses of 1,25 dihydroxycholecalciferol (0.1-2.5
micrograms/d/100 g body weight) to rats, produced respiratory alkalosis. With the doses of 0.1-0.2
micrograms/d/100 g and feeding a diet with 0.7% of calcium, calcemias did not exceed 2.75 mM, and
significantly reduced plasma ionized calcium levels were measured. The latter<strong>
phenomenon was found associated with increased urinary excretion of cAMP, soft tissue calcium
content,</strong> and polyuria with hypostenuria, all known effects of parathyroid hormone.”
</p>
<p>
<strong> 23.</strong> Am J Physiol 1996 Jul;271(1 Pt 2):F216-22. <strong>Metabolic alkalosis decreases
bone calcium efflux by suppressing osteoclasts and stimulating osteoblasts.</strong> Bushinsky
DA.<strong>
“In vivo and in vitro evidence indicates that metabolic acidosis, which may occur prior to complete
excretion of end products of metabolism, increases urinary calcium excretion.</strong>
<strong>The additional urinary calcium is almost certainly derived from bone mineral.”</strong> “To
determine whether metabolic alkalosis alters net calcium efflux (JCa+) from bone and bone cell function,
we cultured neonatal mouse calvariae for 48 h in either control medium (pH approximately equal to
7.4,<strong> [HCO3-] approximately equal to 24</strong>), medium simulating mild alkalosis (pH
approximately equal to 7.5, [HCO3-] approximately equal to 31), or severe alkalosis (pH approximately
equal to 7.6,<strong> [HCO3-] approximately equal to 39) </strong>and measured JCa+ and the release of
osteoclastic beta-glucuronidase and osteoblastic collagen synthesis. Compared with control, metabolic
alkalosis caused a <strong>progressive decrease in JCa+</strong>, which was correlated inversely with
initial medium pH (pHi). Alkalosis caused <strong>a decrease in osteoclastic beta-glucuronidase
release,</strong> which was correlated inversely with pHi and directly with JCa+. Alkalosis also
caused an increase in osteoblastic collagen synthesis, which was correlated directly with pHi and
inversely with JCa+. There was a strong inverse correlation between the effects alkalosis on
osteoclastic beta-glucuronidase release and osteoblastic collagen synthesis. Thus metabolic alkalosis
decreases JCa+ from bone, at least in part, by decreasing osteoclastic resorption and increasing
osteoblastic formation. These results suggest that the provision of base to neutralize endogenous acid
production may improve bone mineral accretion.”
</p>
<p>
<strong> 24.</strong> Am J Physiol 1997 Nov;273(5 Pt 2):F698-705 <strong>The effects of respiratory
alkalosis and acidosis on net bicarbonate flux along the rat loop of Henle in vivo.</strong> Unwin
R, Stidwell R, Taylor S, Capasso G.
</p>
<p>
<strong>25.</strong> Can J Anaesth 1999 Feb;46(2):185-9. <strong>Acute respiratory alkalosis associated
with low minute ventilation in a patient with severe hypothyroidism.</strong> Lee HT, Levine M.
<strong>“His profoundly lowered basal metabolic rate and decreased CO2 production, resulting probably
from severe hypothyroidism, may have resulted in development of acute respiratory alkalosis in spite
of concurrently diminished minute ventilation.”</strong>
</p>
<p>
<strong>26.</strong> Am J Epidemiol 1991 Apr 1;133(7):649-60.<strong>
A prospective study of bone mineral content and fracture in communities with differential fluoride
exposure.</strong> Sowers MF, Clark MK, Jannausch ML, Wallace RB. “Residence in the higher-fluoride
community was associated with a <strong>significantly lower radial bone mass</strong> in premenopausal
and postmenopausal women, an increased rate of radial bone mass loss in premenopausal women, and
significantly more fractures among postmenopausal women. There was no difference in the 5-year relative
risk of any fracture in the higher-calcium community versus the control community; however, <strong>the
relative risk was 2.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-4.4) in women in the higher-fluoride
community compared with women in the control community.</strong>
<strong>There was no difference in the 5-year risk of wrist, spine, or hip fracture in the
higher-calcium community versus the control community; however, the 5-year relative risk for women
in the higher-fluoride community, compared with women in the control community, was 2.2 (95% CI
1.1-4.7).</strong> Estimates of risk were adjusted for age and body size.”
</p>
<p>
<strong>27.</strong> J Nutr 2000 Dec;130(12):2889-96.<strong>
Long-term high protein intake does not increase oxidative stress in rats.</strong> Petzke KJ, Elsner
A, Proll J, Thielecke F, Metges CC. <strong></strong>
</p>
<p>
<strong>28.</strong> Med Hypotheses 1995 Sep;45(3):241-6.<strong>
Anabolic effects of insulin on bone suggest a role for chromium picolinate in preservation of bone
density.</strong> McCarty MF. “Physiological levels of insulin reduce the ability of PTH to activate
protein kinase C in osteoblasts, suggesting that insulin may be a physiological antagonist of bone
resorption. In addition, insulin is known to promote collagen production by osteoblasts.” <strong>[I
think chromium is too toxic to use as a supplement.]</strong>
</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>
29: Anesthesiology 1998 Dec;89(6):1389-400. <strong>Effects of hyperventilation and
hypocapnic/normocapnic hypoxemia on renal function and lithium clearance in humans.</strong>
Vidiendal Olsen N, Christensen H, Klausen T, Fogh-Andersen N, Plum I, Kanstrup IL, Hansen JM Department
of Neuroanaesthesia, Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark. NVO@DADLNET.DK BACKGROUND: Using the renal
clearance of lithium as an index of proximal tubular outflow, this study tested the hypothesis that
acute hypocapnic hypoxemia decreases proximal tubular reabsorption to the same extent as hypocapnic
normoxemia (hyperventilation) and that this response is blunted during normocapnic hypoxemia. METHODS:
Eight persons were studied on five occasions: (1) during inhalation of 10% oxygen (hypocapnic
hypoxemia), (2) during hyperventilation of room air leading to carbon dioxide values similar to those
with hypocapnic hypoxemia, (3) during inhalation of 10% oxygen with the addition of carbon dioxide to
produce normocapnia, (4) during normal breathing of room air through the same tight-fitting face mask as
used on the other study days, and (5) during breathing of room air without the face mask. RESULTS:
Hypocapnic and normocapnic hypoxemia and hyperventilation increased cardiac output, respiratory minute
volume, and effective renal plasma flow. Glomerular filtration rate remained unchanged on all study
days. Calculated proximal tubular reabsorption decreased during hypocapnic hypoxemia and
hyperventilation but remained unchanged with normocapnic hypoxemia. Sodium clearance increased<strong
></strong>slightly during hypocapnic and normocapnic hypoxemia, hyperventilation, and normocapnic
normoxemia with but not without the face mask. CONCLUSIONS:<strong></strong>The results indicate
that<strong>
(1) respiratory alkalosis with or without hypoxemia decreases proximal tubular reabsorption and that
this effect, but not renal vasodilation or natriuresis, can be abolished by adding carbon dioxide to
the hypoxic gas; (2) the increases in the effective renal plasma flow were caused by</strong>
increased ventilation rather than by changes in arterial oxygen and carbon dioxide levels; and (3) the
natriuresis may be secondary to increased renal perfusion, but application of a face mask also may
increase sodium excretion.
</p>
<p>
31: Wien Klin Wochenschr 1979 Apr 27;91(9):304-7. <strong>[Investigations on the pathogenesis of distal
renal tubular acidosis].</strong> [Article in German] Schabel F, Zieglauer H In distal (type 1) RTA,
renal acid excretion is impaired by the inability to establish adequate pH gradients between plasma and
distal tubular fluid at any level of acidosis. Main clinical signs in infancy are anorexia, vomiting and
failure to thrive. Despite low serum bicarbonate levels the renal threshold of bicarbonate is normal,
while urinary pH levels are high even with values below the threshold. <strong>Under conditions of
bicarbonate-induced systemic alkalosis urinary the pCO2 exceeds blood pCO2 in normal
subjects.</strong> by contrast, the urinary pCO2 tension is not significantly greater in distal RTA,
indicating a failure of the cells of the distal nephron to secrete hydrogen ions even without a
gradient. Red cell carbonic anhydrase is within the normal range, whilst the inhibition of carbonic
anhydrase activity has no effect on distal tubular function. Until now no histological or enzymatic
defect could be detected to explain the ineffective acidification. <strong>Bicarbonate loading is
followed by a lowering of calcium excretion to within the normal range</strong> and a decrease in
the uncharacteristic renal hyperaminoaciduria.
</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p></p>
</article>
</body>
</html>