Kickas.org Forums Ankylosing Spondylitis General Discussion #1 AS Web Support Group Bisphosphonate Drugs & Osteonecrosis - law suit

Thanks rumble, I will see if I can get at health store. The Doctor's Best shows that there is nothing in it I can't take. So will give a try. Thanks for finding the info for me.

Hugs
Gerri and Makaylah :o)

Don't know who would have said to take Vit-D and calcium *with Strontium Citrate. Incorrect. SC should not be taken with any of such vits, not even with milk or milk products...as could compete with each other for absorption. 'Two capsules per day, 340mg x 2, with or without food'. Not to be taken if have severe renal impairment; check with health practitioner before taking. Also, may cause constipation.

Doctor's Best - Strontium Bone Maker www.drbvitamins.com

Well, I am afraid to take my Atelvia because of the necrosis and the swallowing problems, I think I've taken it twice this year...I already have swalling problems, so...no to the bis drugs for me too but I have a bad bone density and I need to build up bone, is that what the Strontium Citrate does Molly?

I was given Atelvia and told that it doesn't cause swallowing difficulties. Have seen commercial to that end. Within 2 months, I had swallowing difficulties. They went away after stopping Atelvia. YMMV. Have had no problems with strontium, but won't know what effect it has on my osteoporosis till a year from now. I'm willing to try it that long. (did I post this before?) If you've got swallowing problems, maybe SC would work for you? It's up to you, though...don't take my word for it--check it out.

Yeah rumble, I think I saw that on the Atelvia commercial too and don't worry about it if you did post about it before, it's still new to some people, as not everyone logs on every day and/or reads every post or thread...I hope the SC works for you and I think I'm going to give it a try too, I didn't realize it was a supplement, I thought yall were talking about a new prescription med... Thanks for the help...

Jay, I hear what you are saying, but it does not make any sense to me personally. I am not saying that others should think this way, but if I did not trust a medical practitioner to treat me, I would have no reason to have confidence in their diagnosis. For me, going to a doctor exclusively for a diagnosis would be pointless.

I referenced the results of the niacin study specifically because it was all over the mainstream media on Friday. (See CNN.com.) I did not include it to nitpick the details of the study, although I understand that some people will have a desire to do so. Unless they are coming from strictly natural whole food or beverage sources, all vitamins, minerals, and supplements are altered of processed in some way. It would be extraordinarily difficult to eat the volume of food that would be required to equal the equivalent supplement dosage that some people take or recommend. If you are taking it out of a box, bag, vial, jar or other form of packaging, it has been processed or altered in some way. Someone somewhere is going to have a problem with a filler, binder, buffering agent, coating, capsule, etc.. The implication that a supplement is somehow better or more pure if processed by a supplement manufacturer vs a pharmaceutical manufacturer just does not hold water. Just like Pharmaceutical companies are in business to make a profit, so are Supplement companies.

** http://infoviewer.biz/infodisplay/story/imn052620111430125415.html?APP=7&CU=imn5804
The above link is to an article about the discontinuation of the niacin study. The final report has not yet been written, and the link where I first read the information is not available to the general public. However, as I said previously, this news was all over the mainstream media on Friday and Saturday. This is certainly not the only study that has shown little or no direct medical benefit from supplements. That is not to say that supplements have no benefit, just that they are not the "cure all" "side effect free" answer that some people (often supplement manufacturers or retailers) like to claim.

I have been using Miacalcin. It is a man made form of a hormone that occurs naturally in the thyroid gland. It works by regulating calcium in the blood and bone. My GI put me on it years ago after several courses of Pred for my UC. He didn't want me taking any of the Bisphosphonates because he thought they would be hard on my GI system. Since it is a nasal spray that is absorbed into your blood stream, it is different then any of the other drugs. I don't know how effective it really is. I have developed Ostiopeena since then, but I don't know if it would be better or worse if I wasn't taking the Miacalcin. At least it doesn't have any severe side effects. I take calcium citrate in the AM and strontium citrate in the PM.

It is a matter of how we, as individuals, wish to address our ailments. I have no reservations about seeing a medical doctor for diagnostic input, yet not choosing to follow their prescribed course of medicine. Different strokes for different folks.

Thank you for the article. I had not seen this information as I typically ignore the lamestream media outlets (regardless of political leanings). This study means nothing to me due to the following observations. Others can decide what they take away from this study.



Duh! These folks were on statins. Statins deplete the body's levels of COQ10 thus potentially causing muscle problems. The heart is a muscle. Pretty straightforward to me.

I'm not sure that I ever read that niacin was purported to reduce cardiovascular events. Have a favorable effect on cholesterol? Possibly. Perhaps one day cholesterol levels will be decoupled from cardiovascular events. It is arterial inflammation and plaque buildup (which includes oxidation of certain cholesterol), not cholesterol in and of itself that causes problems.



The above is a little bit the problem I have with headlines such as “NHLBI Halts Niacin Study Early; No Added Reduction in Cardiovascular Events Seen”. It does not disclose to the reader that a high dose extended-release form of niacin was utilized in conjunction with statins (and in some cases, another medication). This in contrast to niacin in its most unadulterated form and without the inclusion of any other medications. I can only guess that headlines in the lamestream media stories were similar. It is, in my opinion, purposely done to mislead the readers. They count on the majority of readers not reading anything more than the headline to a certain degree. Therefore it makes for easy demonization of niacin in this instance. I recall they did something with a big Vitamin E study some years back. However, the study was largely refuted due to form of the vitamin they used, amount they used, and maybe some other considerations.



While a doubling in the number of strokes is nothing to disregard, I can't help wonder how much different this is than the number of strokes in the general population regardless of what they ingested. 28 strokes over 32 months is less than one a month. Additionally, I'd really question the safety profile of this particular extended-release form of niacin if they are attributing these stroke events to the Niaspan since niacin is a water soluable vitamin and needs to replenished on a consistent basis. It should have been washed out of their system a long time before.



3,414 participants with cardiovascular disease and the, more than, doubling of strokes was due to the niacin. Sure. Ummm...yeah...did someone overlook the term vascular in the word cardiovascular disease?



Every individual was on a statin drug. Additionally, some participants were administered a second medication. One, in my opinion can only point fingers at niacin for any adverse health effects (stroke or otherwise) if the vitamin is the only agent PROPERLY administered as part of the study. The administration of the other medications clouds things greatly.



Again, I have a huge problem with the headline when this is buried in the story. Shame on the journalists. Perhaps I should call them entertainers.



Personally, I'm flummoxed as to why it was important to raise HDL cholesterol while there was “excellent LDL cholesterol control”. It sound like these folks were nothing more than somebody's guinea pigs if they were already happier than pigs in [*bleep*] on their statins.



Niaspan, not niacin was administered. Sure, it seems like niaspan is the same thing as niacin (nicotinic acid), but not so fast. One really doesn't know what, if any, influence the inactive ingredients have. It can't be accepted that niacin is a problem when more than niacin was formulated in the agent administered.



Perhaps the dosing is too high. I don't know, I'm not an expert. The RDA for adult males is 16mg; 14mg for females according to the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University. The Tolerable Upper Intake Limit (UL) is listed at 35mg/day per the USDA Dietary Guidance, however this is “based on flushing as the critical adverse effect”. Not sure what I make of that.

However, 500mg is a little over 31 times (3,125%) the daily RDA for males; nearly 36 times (3,571%) for females. 2000mg is 125 (12,500%) times RDA for males; nearly 143 times (14,286%) times for females! My multivitamin contains 50mg of niacin (250% or 2.5 times RDA based on 20mg/day) per dose. My B-Complex contains 100mg (500% of RDA based on 20mg/day) per dose. I'm getting 750% of RDA (based on 20mg/day). Keep in mind that is with other nutrients that may compete for absorption as part of the same supplement.

Granted, the Niaspan theoretically releases about 21mg to 83mg per hour if averaged over a 24 period (one dose). However, what guarantee is there that a perfectly metered dose is administered in every instance? Looking at a sample of some available supplements from a national online retailer, most appear to be in a dose of 500mg. I note one 1,000mg dose formulation. There are a few time release formulations, but at 500mg or less. One of the standard 500mg formulations carries a warning of “Caution: Follow Label Directions. Do not take more than 500mg of niacin per day or switch to 250mg of sustained release per day, except under the supervision of a physician.”. It makes me wonder how prudent it is to take such large doses of a sustained release niacin even if it is recommended by a physician. It also makes me wonder, since niacin is a water soluable vitamin, if niacin is meant to be utilized in sustained release form at such high doses. Perhaps it is too much for the body to continually process. Whether medications (oft synthesized from plants) or synthetic nutrients (i.e. vitamin supplements), more is not necessarily better.



NHLBI Halts Niacin Study Early; No Added Reduction in Cardiovascular Events Seen

Niaspan Prescribing Information

Linus Pauling Institute - Oregon State University - Niacin

USDA Dietary Guidance - Niacin

Supplement Retailer - Niacin

Granted, I don't what female parts you may or may not have, humans are not Wistar rats, and this is only one study, but it is interesting nonetheless. Found it in another forum.

Olive Oil effectively mitigates ovariectomy-induced osteoporosis in rats

Re: Niacin not to be taken if you have liver problems. It will cause severe pain, from your liver. On advice from doctor I took it, wish I hadn't. I had read earlier that liver doesn't filter the Niacin, and will cause pain. I had pain from liver area all they way down my leg. As I make most my meals, there is no chance of Niacin in my food.

Hugs
Gerri and Makaylah