While I know the value of using drugs to save lives, I am nonetheless amazed at the mindset we have in health care that we head for a drug or vaccine every time a chronic disease problem arises. In the case of osteoporosis, there needs to be some common sense. If you look at the literature even a little, you will see that women probably reduce their risk of bone fractures (which is really what matters – though many studies focus just on bone density) by taking enough vitamin D (especially D3), vitamin K2 (perhaps especially MK-7 form), and strontium supplements.
Are these perfect? Are they free of risks? No to both questions. But, so far, it appears that the risks from these nutritional supplements are considerably lower than from the typical bone density-focused drugs like the bisphosphonates (common drugs for reducing loss of bone mass). Why are we not hearing more about the vitamins here, especially when it makes sense that the source of a health problem could come from how we live more than from a lack of bisphosphonates in our bodies…
Another clue – do we start hearing that a vitamin we associate with one particular benefit turns up with another benefit (hint: unlike drugs, nutrients like vitamins have multiple “intended” roles in the body). So, lately we hear about vitamin D reducing flu risk and perhaps cardiovascular risk. Vitamin K is now emerging in epidemiological studies as a possible way to lower cardiovascular risk as well ( Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2009 Sep;19(7):504-10).