After almost 3 decades in clinical practice this is the cascade of what I witnessed. It was a polypharma linked cascade. I always tried to steer my patients into more non pharmaceutical therapies with moderate success. Most of the patients in my practice leaned in that direction to begin with, so it was not a hard sell.

Perimenopausal and menopausal women are often given hormone replacement therapy for their hot flashes etc.. Instead of seeking out bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, they are usually given the big pharm drug Premarin. The Premarin starts trashing the stomach fairly quickly - diagnosis, GERD. Enter new med - either a PPI or H2 blocker for the GERD. These drugs interfere with proper digestion - protein and mineral absorption that both require an acidic environment. That stomach acid is also needed as part of nature's front line defense against dietary infectious material in food. This lack of stomach acid over the years eventually leads to weakened bones and skeletal muscle. (As a side note: Most people don't have a problem with too much stomach acid. They in fact have a situation of low stomach acid. But in this cascade scenario, there is also the component of side effects due to a hormone replacement drug.)

Bogus guidelines then redefine parameters for diagnosis of osteoporosis. This has been the case with many conditions that used to fall within "normal" guidelines. The newer guidelines sell more drugs. These patients now become the perfect demographic to sell a new drug for their weakened bones. New drug added - a bisphosphonate for osteoporosis.

Bone remodeling requires one cell to remove old diseased bone and one cell to build bone. A bisphosphonate cuts off one side of this remodeling pathway - the cells that remove bone. This is a pathway that is supposed to exist in balance. Some genius thought that it would be a good idea to just leave one part of that pathway intact, the bone building cells, while inhibiting the other part of this important pathway. The problem: What first may look good on paper, ends up being a disaster in the application. That so called new bone that was left is not normal bone. It becomes very brittle leaving the person vulnerable to breakage. Normal bone healing in the event of injury or other damage did not seem to be a consideration. Basic physiology here.

Some older orthopedic guys I have spoken with complained about this brittle bone when it came time to replace a hip or a knee. They have been around long enough to have noticed the change. The younger ones that have come onboard, not so much. The bone is not healthy and since the pathway to normal bone remodeling has been interfered with, the post operative healing may be an issue. In the case of an elderly patient, it can be life threatening. There are also cases of patients on these drugs getting necrosis of the jaw just getting a tooth extracted. I have seen some case studies from oral surgeons that were horrific. Even if a patient stops taking the drug, it can remain active in the bones up to 10 years or longer.

All of the above described situations were something I made note of over my years in practice. It does not hold true all the time, but it was frequent enough to notice a pattern. I also noticed the increase in polypharma situations and the bombardment of vaxxinations. These observations are starting to see the light of day long after I was sounding the alarm bells. I was not alone. Especially with the bisphosphonates. Just some common sense and actually reading the pharmacological actions of these drugs were enough for me to say, hey, we may need to rethink this. I also had not slept through my anatomy and physiology coursework. I was not jumping on that bandwagon. These people are truly evil.