In the mid 1980s, a Prof. Skornya investigated the use of strontium (Sr) salts for protection of bone density. At that time, BMD testing was not as easy as it is today, but his results did indicate benefits.

I am not referring to radioactive strontium 89 used to treat bone mets (but don’t forget this sentence), nor am I referring to the radioactive Sr 90 formed during early atomic bomb detonations and ultimately found in milk. I am talking about plain ole Strontium 88, which is very similar to Calcium and, not surprisingly, also ends up in bones. One paragraph in the Skornya paper intrigued me: He tried to assess whether strontium (88) salts also had an effect on bone mets but was unable to draw any conclusion.

Fast forward to the current decade. A compound called strontium ranelate is being extensively studied in Europe and is reported to have significant bone density and fracture protection benefits in postmenopausal women. Side effects seem to be very limited. It has one other advantage: it was patentable while other strontium salts are “public domain”.

Papers on strontium ranelate again suggest that strontium affects osteoclasts (bone removal) and osteoblasts (bone building) in a [beneficial] manner similar to bisphosphonates (and Vitamin K2 – see LEF 01/09, p65). When strontium 89 chloride is used for bone metastases (for pain control, I believe), it is also believed to become part of the bone at the met sites.

Putting these ideas together, I decided to try readily available strontium citrate (over the counter!) for bone density–with the remote hope that it might also prevent bone mets. It appears to have worked for my bone density. At this point, without known bone mets, I can’t say if it has done anything in that area.

Few doctors know anything about strontium, even for bone density; their knowledge is limited to awareness of strontium 89 for pain alleviation. Dr. Strum and a few others are now mentioning otc, non-radioactive strontium salts as alternatives for bone density .

I am not recommending this; I am only suggesting you might want to investigate strontium. And, because the data are so limited, I would love to hear anything new you might uncover.

Several months ago I panicked when I had to have a tooth removed and the oral surgeon (MD/DDS) told me that he was scared and that his malpractice provider wanted to make sure my informed consent was more “informed” then normally required for an extraction.

I called Rugerio and two oncologists at Harvard who study BRONJ. They helped me and the dental surgeon relax enough so that I went ahead with the extraction.
So far so good–no jaw problem.

The take away message from all this drama was no one really knows the etiology
of the problem. Therefore it is very difficult to find an answer. It seems to me that if a drug alters the remodeling of the bone the risk of jaw necrosis remains on the table.

RHUP20 may make bisphosphonates more palatable for people who fear esophageal cancer but it will make the drug company and doctors even happier because injections are given in doctor’s offices, pills are taken at home, and infusions are given in hospitals. The docs are being squeezed by HMO and Medicare so they need a way to get people coming into the office. Pills and infusions don’t cut it.

Zometa (about 2 thousand dollars per injection) goes generic fairly soon. Fosamax has received bad press. If I were on the lawyer/marketing team I would want a replacement drug in the pipeline to keep the income flowing.

I don’t think my reasoning is cynical. This is the way we work together to solve problems. Medicine is in the marketplace and it is there to stay. As long as we blindly hope for Dr Welby to start caring for us again we won’t be able to address our broken health care system.