<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>>

Thank you to all who responded; many suggesting they would not take it.
I've definitely decided to stop taking Fosamax as I believe after all my
research that there are far better ways of building up bones naturally.

I found a great discussion of Fosamax at www.healthboards.com, under the
board for Thyroid Disorders.  If you do a search at the site on Fosamax,
someone asked the question, "New Dr. Says Fosamax Not Calcium?", and if you
read further someone wrote in detail about Fosamax.  Of course, each of us
have to make decisions (along with our physicians) based on our own
personal situations.

Another member of our Celiac community, sent me the following article that
I hope is ok to insert here.  I feel that it is very informative and may be
of help to others....


This is an article that appeared in the NY Times a  few weeks back:

"July 5, 2005
Plotting to Save the Structure of Those Aging Bones
By JANE E. BRODY

Osteoporosis is a serious and costly disease. Nearly 30 million women and
14 million men in the United States already have it or are heading toward
it. The numbers continue to rise as the population ages, especially now
that far fewer women are taking estrogen, which protects against
postmenopausal bone loss.

Osteoporosis is also a silent disease, silent, that is, until a bone
breaks in response to a relatively minor stress, like tripping on a step.

Several drugs in the bisphosphonate class - Fosamax and Actonel taken
weekly and Boniva taken monthly - have been shown to stem further bone
loss, increase bone density and cut fracture rates in half in women with
established osteoporosis. The same effect has been seen in women with
somewhat less bo
ne loss who, for other reasons, are at high risk for a
fracture.

But what about the many postmenopausal women with a lesser degree of bone
loss called osteopenia? Should they, too, take a bisphosphonate to protect
their bones after menopause? Is this cost-effective, and is it likely to
help the women more than it harms them?

Specialists across the country are divided in their answers. Nearly all
the experts, pro and con, act as consultants or receive research grants
from the companies that make the bone-protecting drugs.

Weighing the Risks

Most experts say the inevitable loss of bone after menopause and the
proven ability of these drugs to prevent fractures clearly outweigh the
risks stemming from a slowdown in bone renewal. But others fear that
long-term use of bisphosphonates can render bones more brittle and more
likely to break, even as they increase bone density.

Dr. Susan M. Ott
, a bone expert at the University of Washington, said
studies suggested that old bone that was not renewed lost its elasticity.
She likened it to the effects of a very strong wind on a young tree versus
a thicker old one. Young tree bend under the stress without breaking;
older ones, though denser, are more likely to snap in two.

Fracture risk, said Dr. Michael R. McClung of the Oregon Osteoporosis
Center in Portland, is complex, and the diagnosis of osteopenia and
treatment with bisphosphonates should not be based on bone mineral density
(B.M.D.) tests alone. It is clear, Dr. McClung wrote in May in Annals of
Internal Medicine in response to a report on cost effectiveness, "that
pharmacologic therapy is not cost-effective in women selected solely on
the B.M.D. diagnosis of osteopenia."

What follows should not scare women away from bone-sparing drugs if they
are at high risk for fractures because of thinni
ng bones. But before every
woman found to be osteopenic on a density test is advised to take a
bisphosphonate, it may be wise to consider some early warning signs of
possible harm to the architecture of bones after many years on such drugs.

Though bones appear to be solid, they are fluid structures that are
continually remodeled - broken down by cells called osteoclasts and
rebuilt by cells called osteoblasts. When a bone is injured - and injuries
called microcracks occur all the time from ordinary stress -
bone-resorbing osteoclasts have to remove the damage so that the
bone-building osteoblasts can fix it.

Bisphosphonates increase bone density by adding minerals to bones. But
they are potent inhibitors of bone resorption, drastically slowing bone
remodeling. In The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism last
March, Dr. Ott noted that "after prolonged severe suppression of bone
formation, bone could become
 too brittle and/or accumulate microdamage,"
which has been shown to occur in animals given high doses of
bisphosphonates. Such damage "could eventually weaken the bone" and result
in fractures after minor stresses.

A report in the same journal described nine patients on Fosamax with
osteoporosis or osteopenia who had nontraumatic fractures.

Six patients continuing the drug experienced delayed or no healing of
broken bones. The authors said that Fosamax might impair bone healing and
that the drug-induced increase in bone minerals could make bones more
brittle.

Breaking Bones Too Easily

The published cases mimic that of a healthy active woman, 59, who after
six years on Fosamax for osteopenia in her spine was jolted on a subway
and broke her thigh bone. The injury took two years to heal, and the
healing occurred only after she had stopped taking Fosamax. A year later,
she resumed the drug, onl
y to suffer a nontraumatic fracture in her foot.

Dr. Joseph M. Lane, an orthopedic surgeon in New York, described eight
other patients who had fractures of the femur, many of them described as
hard to heal. All the patients had been on Fosamax for more than five
years.

While it's not possible to know in any of these cases whether the unusual
fractures and delayed healing resulted from Fosamax or patients' existing
bone disease, the researchers noted that bone biopsies disclosed "marked
suppression of bone turnover," which can render bones more brittle and
delay repairs.

On the other hand, Dr. Lane noted, the drugs clearly preserve the
microarchitecture of bones that is otherwise lost in the first few years
after menopause, and a long-term Canadian study found a lower than
expected rate of hip fractures among women on the drugs.

Further, Dr. Robert Recker, an endocrinologist at Creighton Un
iversity in
Omaha, said his bone biopsy studies showed that osteoporotic women taking
Fosamax remodeled bone at rates comparable to those of healthy
premenopausal women. This finding left him unconcerned about the
suppression of bone turnover on Fosamax because premenopausal women rarely
suffer nontraumatic fractures.

Without the drug, he said, the bone-remodeling rates after menopause rise
and reach maximum levels in women with osteoporosis.

Dr. Ethel S. Siris, director of the osteoporosis center at
NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, said that bone biopsies of women taking
Fosamax for 10 years "did not show oversuppression of bone turnover" and
that in her experience patients who did break bones while on the drug
healed normally while continuing to take it.

Dr. Siris and Dr. Recker, among others, agree that women with minimal
osteopenia (T-score on the density test of minus 1.5 or better) and no
oth
er risk factors like smoking, thinness or a previous nontraumatic
fracture should not be placed on a drug. They should protect their bones
by doing weight-bearing exercise and taking calcium supplements with
vitamin D3 (check the label carefully) and have their bone densities
rechecked a year later.

For those with more advanced osteopenia - a T-score of minus 2, or a score
of minus 1.5 plus a risk factor - "medication is not unreasonable to
reduce fracture risk," Dr. Siris said. Because bisphosphonates stay in
bones indefinitely, their benefits are not lost on brief "vacations" from
the drugs. So Dr. Siris stops the drug after five years for a one-year
holiday and has patients resume it."  END OF ARTICLE

* Send administrative questions to [log in to unmask] *