If you already have osteoporosis, this article is your roadmap out of the maze. If you don’t have it, this will serve as an explanation of how not to get it. A scientific understanding of bone health will enable everyone to avoid osteoporosis, whether they have it or not.

For osteoporosis to come to an end, the first thing we need to understand is that the definition of the word is not entirely accurate:

os·te·o·po·ro·sis: ästēōpəˈrōsəs/
noun: a medical condition in which the bones become brittle and fragile from loss of tissue, typically as a result of hormonal changes, or deficiency of calcium or vitamin D.

If we accept that hormones, calcium or vitamin D deficiency cause osteoporosis, we’re stuck in a maze with no exit. Here’s what a maze with no exit looks like and this is exactly how the world currently sees osteoporosis:

An unknowable morass of indeterminate hormone, vitamin and mineral deficiencies that inexorably descends upon all people past a certain age for which there are only minimally effective medications, and those need to be consumed for life because the body has somehow lost it’s ability to mineralize its own skeletal tissue. It’s a no-win scenario.

The four misconceptions that block an accurate understanding of osteoporosis are:

1. Hormones cause osteoporosis
2. Calcium (or vitamin D) deficiency causes osteoporosis
3. Bone mineral loss causes osteoporosis
4. Whatever the cause, osteoporosis is irreversible

We must let go of these misconceptions to realize that there actually is a way out of the maze.

A Way Out of the Maze

To understand osteoporosis, think of your bones as a glass of milk. A full glass of milk is like a healthy bone that is full of the minerals it needs.

A half-full glass of milk is like an osteoporotic bone, which is only half-full of the minerals it needs. The emptier the glass, the fewer minerals the bone has.

I reference milk because it is easily recognizable but the misconception that milk will help with osteoporosis is actually one of the main problems: osteoporotics almost never actually need milk…

The way out of the maze is to realize that bones usually only need one of three minerals, but which one you will need has to be customized to your genetics. In a clinical setting, I’ve conducted a few hundred muscle testing bone screens and found that all cases seem to fit into one of three categories. Further, I’ve noticed an obvious pattern in these categories:

Patterns in Osteoporosis

Among osteoporotic women, 90% seem to be deficient in silicon, whereas only 10% seem to be deficient in calcium. Less than 1% seems to need strontium.

Among osteoporotic men, 90% seem to be deficient in strontium, whereas only 10% seem to be deficient in calcium. Less than 1% seems to need silicon.

An overall summary then is that 45% of people (usually women) need silicon in their bones, 45% of people (usually men) need strontium and that 10% (usually evenly distributed between women and men) do in fact need calcium.

This explains why calcium supplementation sometimes works, but not always and not often. However, if merely switching supplementation from calcium to silicon (for women) or to strontium (for men) was the solution in most cases, I think someone before me would have figured this out already.

The problem with the methodology of supplementation alone is that it relies on one major assumption that turns out not to be true: that when you’re deficient in a mineral, supplementation helps. Supplementation alone doesn’t help for the same reason that you don’t absorb the nutritional form of that mineral from your diet: over time, some bones become clogged and can’t absorb the minerals they need.

The Maze Redefined

The misconception is that an osteoporotic bone has pores or holes in it due to mineral loss. This is reinforced by the name of the condition: osteoporosis.

In fact, the “porosis” in osteoporosis is a misconception. The word “porous” is in itself misleading because the bone isn’t porous, it is in fact completely clogged, like a drain clogged with grease. The problem is that on a medical bone scan, the bone appears porous because what the bone is clogged with is less dense than the minerals it should be full of. That the science of bone analysis has been mislead by a visual misinterpretation of bone scans underscores the fact that the 20th century trend of bringing a visual bias to medicine needs to come to an end very soon if we are move fully into the electric age where bioelectric field analysis (spearheaded by muscle testing but not restricted to muscle testing) provides much more comprehensive and accurate information.

When a bone is clogged, the good minerals (silicon, strontium and calcium) can’t soak in so there’s no point in supplementing with them.

To cure osteoporosis we need to understand what bones get clogged with, and this is where the complexity lies because bones can become clogged by several things: tin, lead, silicon, arsenic, silver, gold, mercury or aluminum, to name a few. Technically any element is a possible clogging agent but in a clinic setting I’ve only ever noticed about 10 in total; which element you personally absorb depends on what your autonomic nervous system has a genetic predisposition to uptake.

Here’s an illustration of what a bone looks like when it is porous from being clogged with various metal toxicities. All of these would show up looking the same on a traditional medical bone scan: porous, or osteoporotic. The distinction “osteoporotic” is functionally useless because it doesn’t entail an effective resolution but only outlines the problem in general terms.

This raises the question of whether there is some method of using modern medical techniques to quantify which element toxicity the bones have absorbed. That would fall under the purview of metal toxicity analysis.

Medical Metal Toxicity Analysis

There are several traditional methods used to identify metal toxicity and none of them is as accurate as a muscle testing metal screen.

1. Hair Analysis: only shows the heavy metals you’ve been exposed to in the timeframe your hair has grown. Since metal toxicity can stay with you for decades, the hair isn’t an accurate indicator. More importantly, it only reveals which elements are in the hair, not anywhere else so a hair analysis isn’t directly relevant to a bone scan.
2. Urine analysis: only shows the metals you’ve been exposed to in the last week or so, which is perhaps why it is predominantly used to screen for narcotics or steroids, where recent use is the only concern.
3. Blood analysis: only shows the metals that are currently circulating in your blood, not those that have been stored in the fatty tissue of the organs (heart, lungs, etc) or in the bones (osteopor…clogging).
4. Bone scans themselves are largely useless because all they show are shadows that the doctor, usually a rheumatologist, has to interpret with their eyes. That’s about as effective as finding parasites with the human eye.
5. An EDTA or DMSA-provoked metal analysis is problematic for two reasons:
   A: EDTA and DMSA only bind to about a third of the periodic table (and different thirds, at that). Thus they are not complete indicators of element toxicity, and
   B: When they do draw metals out of the fatty and organ tissue, there is no means of identifying which organ, gland, etc the metal was drawn from, so its not location-specific enough for a bone screen.

A Muscle Testing Bone Screen

Muscle testing provides the most advanced and accurate method of evaluating skeletal integrity and identifying the root causes where degeneration has set it. Here’s how to perform such a screen:

1. Perform a muscle testing baseline.

2. Introduce a slight bend of one of the bones (e.g. Produce torsional stress), usually the tibia, humerus or radius and ulna, then redo the muscle testing baseline.
If that produces a weak muscle testing response:

3. Find out which element toxicities (out of 74) the person has, and
There is a separate protocol for this, not outlined here.

4. Find out which element toxicity from their profile is in the bones.
There is also a separate protocol for this, not outlined here either.

Assuming you have identified an element toxicity in the bones:
5A: Get it out by introducing element chelation protocol.
(This will vary from one practitioner to another, and the effectiveness varies correspondingly. To keep you and your practitioner accountable, it should take no more than 60 days in total.)
5B: Avoid retoxification.
(Getting the element out will only work if the source of that element is avoided, and this can be quite complex as a single element can originate in dozens of consumer products, none of which are required to be listed on the labels. Missing a toxicity source will elongate the detox process accordingly.)

But when that’s all done, finally:

6. Muscle test the bone to see which nutritional mineral it is deficient in, and introduce supplementation.
(Recommendations may vary from one practitioner to another, but for effectiveness, they should conform to the nutritional guidelines listed above: 45% of people will need silicon, 45% will need strontium and 10% will need pure calcium. Supplementation time to remineralize the bones post-element toxicity should not take longer than 2-4 months).

From start to finish the whole process should about 6 months, although I’ve seen it happen in 2 months with children because their nervous systems are more responsive and they absorb nutrients better. In general, the relatively long timeframe is because of the slowness with which bones detox elements and reabsorb minerals. This is in accord with the timeframe a broken bone takes to heal relative to a cut in the skin.

Technically, a bone biopsy would reveal the same information as a muscle testing bone screen but enough of your bone tissue to need to be extracted to allow for a large enough sample size to test it for toxicity in each of the 74 potentially toxic elements. Removing that amount of bone tissue would be prohibitive. It’s a barbaric thought, but exactly the sort of blind alley you would come up against if you didn’t understand how to use muscle testing for the purposes of bioelectric field analysis.

The Cure for Osteoporosis

So the cure to osteoporosis is three-part.

Part 1: Identify which element the bones are clogged with and de-clog them (so far from a range of 10 potential element toxicities there has always only been one single element toxicity in any one person’s bones).

Part 2: Once the bone is cleansed, identify which mineral the bone is deficient in and remineralize it through targeted supplementation (so far there have been no cases of someone’s bones needing to reabsorb more than one good mineral post-bad-element detox).

Part 3: Be the change you want to see in the world: enjoy what it feels like to have fully remineralized bones, and tell your friends that osteoporosis is curable. At first, enjoying being cured may not seem like a necessary step until you realize that believing there was no cure has for the preceding hundreds of years been the primary impediment to the research necessary to finding one.

A cautionary note is that bones can become re-clogged by the same process they were clogged in the first place: exposure to whatever element you’re genetically sensitive to. At this stage, while osteoporosis seems to be curable, the genetic predisposition to absorb one or another of the elements on the periodic table does not seem to be curable.

In this matter, hope for the future lies in genetic research.

Genetics

The bad news is there are 74 element possibilities and they’re everywhere (if we discount compounds, gases and radioactive elements).

The good news is that each person’s bones have so far only been sensitive to one element, and in many cases not even one, so from a proactive standpoint, to maintain healthy bones you simply need to find out what element toxicity your bones are susceptible to, find out where exposure is likely to come from, and then proactively avoid that source.

This is the Holy Grail geneticists are looking for: which element(s) each person’s body is genetically sensitive to, and how to shut that sensitivity off. However, I’m not sure if the field of genetics has become so advanced yet (or adequately simple?) that geneticists know they need to be looking for the genes to turn off absorption of the various elements. I think many of them are still looking for a gene to turn off “osteoporosis”, and in the absence of understanding it is caused by element toxicity, they may be lost in the same maze Western Medicine has been, so we may need to wait a while for progress in this area. If you’re reading this, and are a geneticist, I’d be happy to outline the search parameters for you, feel free to contact me and we can discuss collaborating.

The Future of Bone Care

It would be nice if one day this material was required learning for kids in elementary school health class. It would be nice if we could all live in a world where a problem like bone clogging wasn’t allowed to develop into such a chronic, debilitating syndrome.

The solution to an osteoporotic condition is not simple, it’s complex. There are 74 potential element toxicities that could clog the bones and then there are 3 different mineral combinations needed to heal the porous tissue.

What I’m proposing is that we start focusing on the right area of complexity, and stop wasting time on hormones, vitamin D and calcium-rich foods, which let’s face it, haven’t helped very much thus far. Have you ever heard of a single person being cured from osteoporosis? Unless they had exactly followed the protocols I have outlined above, I don’t see any other way a cure would be possible

Ultimately this is a problem of medical philosophy. Seen from the perspective of the 20th century medical system of diagnosis (educated guessing based on inadequate testing methodology) osteoporosis is just one more condition that has no cure.

Seen from the more advanced paradigm of bioelectric field analysis (e.g. the scientific muscle testing analysis of parasites and element toxicities) osteoporosis has a complex but manageable cure and a prognosis of complete recovery.

It is not intellectually or financially practical for the current diagnostic healthcare system to arrive at these conclusions because there is too much of a vested interest in osteoporosis remaining an insoluble problem. The cost and health risks alone of screening bone tissue for 74 elements would be insurmountable. Further, there would be layers of legality to wade through when attempting to cure patients of any condition where malpractice insurance policies have clearly delineated treatment guidelines within which a doctor must remain to be able to demonstrate their pursuit of due diligence (simply put, if they don’t prescribe the same medicine everyone else is prescribing, they can be sued for not doing their job).

This is an example of where there is an opportunity for muscle testing practitioners to offer a valuable service with a relatively short turn around time and complete recovery. It would enhance credibility for the field of muscle testing, build in significant value for the patient and in fact ease the financial burden that osteoporosis lays on the traditional medical system, as well as save doctors from getting sued for not prescribing the medications that they (as well as anyone) know aren’t solving the root problem.

I see this as win-win-win (alternative practitioner-patient-medical doctor). Everybody wins. Everybody gets out of the maze in one piece. After a while, we realize the maze was just a hallway with three doors at one end. There were no turns at all, just misconceptions that had to be let go of.