Save Our Bones Bulletin: Salt Causes Premature Death, Harvard Nutritionists’ Shocking Malfeasance, More Of The Usual From Big Pharma, And Much More!
The holiday season is full of temptations: to eat poorly, to grow lethargic, to accept what is offered without questioning, so I’m glad I can offer this month’s Save Our Bones Bulletin to bolster your resolve. It’s stuffed tighter than a Thanksgiving turkey with nutritional news that is sure to surprise Savers and rattle those who haven’t yet started doubting Big Pharma and Mainstream Medicine.
1. Higher Salt Consumption Causes Earlier Death While Lower Salt Consumption Extends Life
This information should be expected by Savers, who are well versed in the dangers and pitfalls of sodium. But new studies support the fact that a high-sodium diet is downright deadly.
“…a new 25-year study finds that salt — even just a bit — may increase your risk of premature death. The research found that if you normally have about 1.5 teaspoons of salt daily, adding just slightly less than a half teaspoon (1,000 milligrams) more a day can increase your odds of dying early by 12 percent. And, the risk continues to climb 12 percent for each 1,000 milligrams of salt you add to your daily diet.”1
Notice that the added salt risk impact stacks, so every additional teaspoon is another 12% increase in likelihood of early death.
As you might expect, this conclusion is reinforced by the more positive reverse result: cutting back on salt can extend your life. The study showed that you could reduce your risk of a premature death by 15% if you decrease your salt intake.
The study in question examined participants over 24 years, and found that those who consumed less than one teaspoon of salt a day (2300mg) had a 25% lower chance of dying early, as compared with those who consumed an additional half teaspoon.
Lead researcher Nancy Cook states that:
“Consuming lower levels of sodium, as advocated by the American Heart Association and the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, will lead to lower blood pressure, lower risk of cardiovascular disease and lower subsequent mortality,”1
As Savers know, processed foods are usually salt bombs waiting to blow our health (and bones) to smithereens. Unfortunately they are foisted upon us left and right by the many corporations who make a killing (pun intended) by poisoning their customers with copious doses of salt and processed sugar in frozen foods, microwaveable meals, vacuum-sealed snacks, and other nutritional atrocities.
Samantha Heller, Senior Clinical Nutritionist at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City further comments that:
“These kinds of diets raise the risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer, diabetes, obesity and other diseases for many reasons, including the fact that they are high in salt.”2
That’s why we should eat whole foods, prepare our own meals, and advocate for our healthy eating habits as much as possible, to take back control over our bodies and our bones.
2. The Sugar Industry Paid Researchers To Hide The Truth About Sugar And Coronary Heart Disease
The nutritional world is in a tizzy over the recent revelation that the course of scientific thought on one of the main causes of coronary heart disease was detoured by secret money and unacceptable industry influence.
A report written by Dr. Cristin Kearns at the University of California, San Francisco and published in JAMA Internal Medicine blew the lid off of a 60-year-old secret. The sugar industry paid well-respected nutritional scientists to refute findings that sugar was a leading factor in coronary heart disease.3
In the 1960s, a trade group deceptively named the Sugar Research Foundation successfully confounded public and official understanding of sugar’s role in the disease by paying a sum that would today equal $48,000 to two famous Harvard nutritionists: Dr. Fredrick Stare and Mark Hegsted. In exchange, these now deceased scientists wrote searing critiques of research that pointed out sugar’s role in heart disease, instead accusing only fat and cholesterol intake of responsibility.
“Early warning signals of the coronary heart disease (CHD) risk of sugar (sucrose) emerged in the 1950s. We examined Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) internal documents, historical reports, and statements relevant to early debates about the dietary causes of CHD and assembled findings chronologically into a narrative case study. The SRF sponsored its first CHD research project in 1965, a literature review published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which singled out fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of CHD and downplayed evidence that sucrose consumption was also a risk factor. The SRF set the review’s objective, contributed articles for inclusion, and received drafts. The SRF’s funding and role was not disclosed.”3
Savers know that processed sugar is to be avoided as much as possible for many reasons. And this new information just adds another bullet point to the list. This isn’t even the first time I’ve written about Dr. Kearns’ work exposing the underhanded dealings of Big Sugar.
Marion Nestle, a nutrition expert at New York University who wrote a commentary accompanying the report, had the following to say about this blatant manipulation of scientific inquiry by industry:
“Science is not supposed to work this way… Is it really true that food companies deliberately set out to manipulate research in their favor? Yes, it is, and the practice continues.”4
And it’s not just food companies. Nestle’s commentary opens with the following statement (emphasis added by me):
“Industry-sponsored nutrition research, like that of research sponsored by the tobacco, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries, almost invariably produces results that confirm the benefits or lack of harm of the sponsor’s products, even when independently sponsored research comes to opposite conclusions.”4
It took 60 years for someone to find the sugar industry’s smoking gun. Imagine how long it will take for Mainstream Medicine to recognize and accept that the pharmaceutical industry is doing the exact same thing with drug research (including osteoporosis drugs, of course).
The entire ordeal reminds me of how Big Pharma leader Merck engineered Mainstream Medicine’s understanding and diagnosing of osteoporosis to create a market for its then-new drug Fosamax.
When industries like Big Sugar and Big Pharma pay for research, they pay for whatever results allow them to make the most money. That isn’t science. It’s bribery, and it’s downright dangerous.
3. Biopharmaceutical Company Announcing Clinical Trials Of New Osteoporosis Drug
What the Sugar Industry was doing in secret 60 years ago, Big Pharma is doing openly today.
A French biopharmaceutical company called Alizé Pharma III SAS is working on the next body-wrenching chemical designed to trump up your bone mass without considering your bone health… or your quality of life.
And of course this “scientific research” is done in partnership with other pharmaceutical companies that will join forces and market whatever drug Alizé comes up with. The circularity of this system should be an obvious red flag to everyone in the health industry, and yet, doctors continue to do the bidding of these greedy corporations that prey on the ill-informed.
“Alizé Pharma III SAS, an Alizé Pharma group company specialized in the development of biopharmaceuticals to treat metabolic disorders and rare diseases, today announces it will present preclinical results from its I-HBD1 program in osteoporosis during the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) in Atlanta on September 16-19, 2016.
Alizé’s I-HBD1 program focuses on a new peptide derived from a physiological protein, IGFBP-2 (Insulin-like Growth Factor Binding Protein-2), as a new bone anabolic agent. Scientific work led by Dr David Clemmons from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (USA) and Dr Clifford Rosen from the University of Maine (USA) has established that IGFBP2 plays a key physiological role in the differentiation of osteoblasts, the cells responsible for bone formation. I-HBD1, a short peptide fragment derived from IGFBP-2, replicates the anabolic effects of IGFBP-2 on bone. It is intended to be developed as a new therapeutic approach for osteoporosis and some rare metabolic diseases associated with impaired bone formation.”5
In 2014 the global market for osteoporosis drugs was estimated at over 8.3 billion dollars.5 This, in spite of the known risks of these drugs. This, in spite of all the evidence that osteoporosis drugs don’t have the one positive results they’re supposed to have. But Savers already know that Big Pharma isn’t really interested in our health. They’re chasing the billions of dollars, and they’ll do anything for that.
How are we supposed to figure out how to take the best care of ourselves when giant corporations are spending millions of dollars to thwart us? That’s one of the questions I set out to answer when I received my osteoporosis diagnosis. And the pursuit of those answers lead me to creating The Osteoporosis Reversal Program.
Stop Worrying About Your Bone Loss
Join thousands of Savers from around the world who have reversed or prevented their bone loss naturally and scientifically with the Osteoporosis Reversal Program.
I wanted to look at our whole selves to figure out how to naturally build stronger, younger bones to improve our lives and prevent painful fractures. So, that’s what I did. I invite you to join me on this journey of learning, growing and uncovering the truth about a healthier you!
Till next time,
1 Steven Reinberg. More Research Cites Salt’s Potential Health Risks. US News and Reports. Web: http://health.usnews.com/health-care/articles/2016-10-03/more-research-cites-salts-potential-health-risks
2 Nancy Cook, Cc.D, Samantah Heller, M.S., R.D., Journal of the American College of Cadiology. Oct. 3 2016.
3 Cristin E. Kearns, DDS, MBA; Laura A. Schmidt, PhD, MSW, MPH; Stanton A. Glantz, PhD. Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease ResearchA Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(11):1680-1685. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5394. Web: http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2548255
4 Marion Nestle, PhD, MPH. Food Industry Funding of Nutrition ResearchThe Relevance of History for Current Debates. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(11):1685-1686. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5400. Web: http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2548251
5 Alizé Pharma III presents preclinical results from its I-HBD1 program at the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. Category: Proteins and Peptides. 13 September 2016. Web: http://pipelinereview.com/index.php/2016091362281/Proteins-and-Peptides/Alize-Pharma-III-presents-preclinical-results-from-its-I-HBD1-program-at-the-Annual-Meeting-of-the-American-Society-for-Bone-and-Mineral-Research.html