Labour's broken osteoporosis promise

[lcakethereforeIam]

I've this happen to previously active and independent women

https://archive.ph/H02kz

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/22/thousands-women-die-labour-osteoporosis-failure/

It's something that frightens me, but I had no idea this was supposed to be a thing.

I would be interested in seeing some of the research on that (risks and side effects etc.) as I hadn't considered that, and you seem very knowledgeable and like you might have those to hand?

I think not having any kind of guarantees is no excuse for doing nothing. There are no guarantees in life, but there sure are a lot of medical treatments! They might not work for all women, but they will for some, and I think that's worth pursuing, don't you?

This thread is an ugly read. Why was Iwanttoretire pushed out of the conversation when their point about hip fractures was perfectly pertinent? I came to learn about bone health but that sort of behaviour is distracting

This not an "ugly" thread, which you would know if you had read all of it. IWTR was complaining that the article was about osteoporosis clinics and treatments rather than hip fractures. And clearly wanted the article to be about hip fractures.

Unfortunately there was nothing we could do to rectify the situation because we didn't write the article.

IWTR was invited to stay on the thread to discuss osteoporosis, but IWTR didn't. Not our fault or our problem.

IWTR has a habit of trying to "police " threads and (strangely) berating other posters for not discussing exactly IWTR wants. Which you would know if you had spent just a little bit of time reading some of IWTR's posts.

You are welcome to stay and join the discussion, or have you just dropped by to tell us how nasty we are? Perhaps you have name-changed...?

Indeed. Because hip fractures lead to death in the elderly and hip fractures are more likely if you have osteoporosis.

I think you both have misunderstood the impetus for this thread. The OP posted an article because she wanted to talk about osteoporosis. The article is about poor rollout of osteoporosis screening clinics. IWTR not only thought the article should have been about hip fractures instead, but then started arguing about what the title of the article should have been.

I don't have enough time in the day to try to explain how many times IWTR has argued that the sky is green because we all know it's blue, or that the world is flat because we all know it's round. Honestly, it's argument for argument's sake, and there's no need for it.

We're just trying to have a discussion about osteoporosis. Please read the entire thread and you'll get a better understanding of what I am talking about, and please do contribute to the discussion if you have anything relevant to say.

''This sort of behaviour is distracting', so here's some more of it!' 😃

Actually, I think IWTR starts interesting threads, often about things i'd have missed otherwise. I'm not against derailing either, they're often hilarious (intentionally and otherwise). I don't like being told off as pp put for something that is outside the control of the thread. I'm not surprised it gets people's backs up.

I think the article is a perfect example of how low a priority women's health and well being is. At best we can expect, in the words of the great Mary (Poppins or Berry, I forget) piecrust promises; easily made, easily broken.

Sorry I'll bow out, I've never come across a thread with strict rules about what is allowed to be said and who is allowed to contribute. I thought I'd made a few useful, relevant posts about osteoporosis since I have personal experience and knowledge of the diagnosis, treatment and where to find help. Also some hindsight about what I would do differently.

I disagree. The article was indeed about hip fractures (which can be as a result of osteoporosis, among other things) and it stated a statistic, namely that 25% of all people who suffer from a hip fracture will die within a year. It claimed that if liaison services were available, people over 50 who have a fracture (of any bone) could be scanned for osteoporosis - and if osteoporosis is deemed to be present, they could be offered drugs to reduce the risk of further fractures.

What it didn't clarify is that the 25% who sadly die following a hip fracture are the frail elderly, who often have multiple comorbidities. A hip fracture in a frail 90-year-old is much more likely to finish them off than if they were 20 years younger. Not only that, but the fracture itself is much more likely to occur in someone of that age, due to failing eyesight, balance problems, weak muscles and so on.

The presence of osteoporosis is definitely a risk factor for hip fractures, of course. But the picture is more complicated than that, as there are many other factors at play. Some people who have "severe osteoporosis" (as measured by a scan) may never fracture, whereas others whose bones are deemed (by a scan) not to have osteoporosis may nonetheless suffer multiple fragility fractures and have a miserable time trying to manage not only chronic pain but physical changes, such as loss of height, bent posture, digestive issues (due to internal organs having less space from the loss of vertebral height) and reduced mobility.

The article mentioned fractures as a symptom of the problem and another reason why we should be rolling out comprehensive osteoporosis screening clinics. The article itself is mainly about osteoporosis, which is the root cause of a lot of these fractures.

I'd still be interested in some of the research that the statistics you mentioned are based on. Any information that helps us have greater knowledge is welcome!

The point of the rolling out of clinics is, I assume, to test for possible osteoporosis and then to "treat", presumably with drugs. The drugs are not a miracle cure, far from it in fact.

By far the best way to deal with osteoporosis is to prevent it from happening in the first place, but that requires education and significant lifestyle changes for many.

If possible, people should aim to "bank" as much bone mass as possible before they reach the age when bone mass reaches its peak (usually in the mid to late twenties). If we start from a good, strong standpoint, then there is greater resilience to the losses of bone density that naturally occur with advancing age. If we enter our 30s with a deficit, we're more vulnerable further down the line and will likely develop osteoporosis earlier than our stronger peers.

Basically, eating a good and varied diet and getting plenty of weight-bearing exercise are key factors for bone health. However, osteoporosis can be caused by factors outside our control (such as malabsorption diseases, parathyroid malfunction).

The information that I've acquired about osteoporosis, its causes, its progression and the ways in which we can help ourselves to combat it are what I have absorbed during my own "osteoporosis journey" and come from multiple sources. I could search for them again, but don't really want to spend another hour or more doing so.

I would suggest you type some questions into Google AI. My suggestions for you to begin with:
"What is the average age of people who have a hip fracture in the UK"
"Do people with osteoporosis suffer more fractures than those with osteopenia or normal bones"
"Can bisphosonates actually make bones weaker"
"What are the side effects of bisphosonates"
"What are the side effects of denosumab"
"What is the Liftmor study"
"What are the limitations of dexa scans"

You might also want to check out the following people: Margaret Martin; Dr Doug; Nick Birch; Clinton Rubin; Bob and Brad. And also the Marodyne LiV vibration machine.

The Royal Osteoporosis Society's website is also a source of information about the condition and the available drug "treatments".

Right, now I really must put this phone down and do something useful (as I said on another thread about half an hour ago!).

I hope the above answers your question.