[HN Gopher] Scientists discover a new hormone that can build str...
___________________________________________________________________
Scientists discover a new hormone that can build strong bones
Author : gmays
Score : 265 points
Date : 2024-07-22 16:42 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ucsf.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ucsf.edu)
| jl6 wrote:
| > To test the ability of the hormone to assist in bone healing,
| the researchers created a hydrogel patch that could be applied
| directly to the site of a bone fracture, where it would slowly
| release CCN3 for two weeks. In elderly mice, bone fractures don't
| usually heal well. However, the CCN3 patch spurred the formation
| of new bone at the site of the fracture, contributing to youthful
| healing of the fracture.
|
| So, uh, did this research involve breaking mice bones?
| sva_ wrote:
| You know when they kill a mouse in the lab they call it a
| 'sarcrifice'. There's some harrowing stuff and I personally
| would probably not be able to do it.
|
| I think most ppl who do it just happened to find themselves in
| a part of their academic career where they have little choice
| if they want to proceed.
| Thorrez wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument_to_the_laboratory_mou.
| ..
| amelius wrote:
| Where is the monument to the Beef Cow?
| snakeyjake wrote:
| Kansas City, MO, USA
|
| https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1003469,-94.5952033,3a,56
| .6y...
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| What is the backstory to that monument?
|
| Here is another:
|
| https://chicagostudies.uchicago.edu/back-yards/back-
| yards-un...
| pvaldes wrote:
| > Where is the monument to the Beef Cow?
|
| With or without monument, It always will have a very
| special place on my stomach.
| krisoft wrote:
| Everywhere. Cattle is a very popular topic of sculptures.
| Just to mention two from the top of my head:
|
| This one is in Oxford: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki
| /File:Bull_statue,_outside...
|
| This one is in Budapest:
| https://www.kozterkep.hu/1005/boci-szobor
|
| And of course there is that swiss artist who creates
| parades of cows around cities:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CowParade
| saintfire wrote:
| Basically the entire United States.
| sleepydog wrote:
| I knew someone who had to conduct dozens of these
| "sacrifices" as part of her neuroscience PhD. She used a
| mouse-sized guillotine like this one:
|
| https://www.wpiinc.com/var-2645-rodent-guillotine.html
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Naw, they found mice that tripped while running, it's that
| simple man.
| jaggs wrote:
| Oh thank you, thank you...
| greenchair wrote:
| key word elderly provides an alibi.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| Absolutely, there is probably some jig to hold the mouse and do
| the break reliably in the same way each time. I knew a
| researcher that did research that involved killing newborn baby
| rabbits and he said that he hated that part of the job but kept
| reminding himself that he is working on a cure for very sick
| human children that currently had no hope of treatment. It was
| exploratory research so there was only a small chance of
| success and many years later there was success in a unrelated
| field so in the end his work was redundant - but he couldn't
| have known that at the time.
|
| By my morals it's ok to kill animals for the benefit of humans,
| animals kill animals for sustenance and for now we are still a
| part of nature. In the future perhaps we won't need to and I'll
| happily support that. For now in order to get to that future we
| must do the unpleasant thing with an understanding that it
| should be not be done egregiously, gratuitously, or needlessly.
| Not for the sake of the animals, although that is a given, but
| for the sake of the humans involved in harming those animals as
| I think doing such things does take it's toll.
| amelius wrote:
| But, were the animals at least unconscious when the
| experiments (and preparations thereof) took place?
|
| Anyway, if you've ever seen a cat play with a half-dead mouse
| you might change your previous opinion on these experiments.
|
| On the other hand, this research might lead to people putting
| patches on their jaws to stop the cosmetic effects of ageing.
|
| Ethics is a difficult discipline ...
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| Unfortunately they were conscious, they were painful deaths
| and it was the experiment that killed them. They were not
| euthanized after the experiment which is more the norm. I
| was told there was no viable alternative to obtaining the
| data. I only found out because I was helping process the
| data and I asked where the data was from.
|
| What I don't like is that the inefficiencies in science
| means that many, and perhaps most, of the experiments that
| are being done are probably unnecessary and only being done
| due to bureaucratic inertia. I lament the horrible state of
| science and the needless suffering that causes both humans
| and animals.
|
| So on one hand I think it's possible to justify the what is
| in effect torture of animals if a case can be made that the
| science obtained from it could be worth it. On the other
| hand I don't think it's normally the case that this is true
| and science should do a better job in justifying this
| torture. If unable to then it should stop.
| cheeseomlit wrote:
| Stories of mice being used in gruesome experiments always give
| me a bit of moral outrage, but when there's one in my house I
| have no qualms about killing it with extreme prejudice. So,
| they should just round up all the home-invader mice for
| experimentation- my conscious would rest easier knowing they're
| all just repaying their debt to society
| themaninthedark wrote:
| My recollection is that laboratory mice are a very tight
| family line with very well understood DNA (and behavior?
| maybe), so you would gain a lot of variability and thus lose
| scientific rigor and may need longer, more complicated tests.
| pvaldes wrote:
| Probably. And then giving the mice the superpowers of
| wolverine.
|
| Everybody loves this when it happens to a human in a film, no
| matter how much radioactive spiders will be crushed. If this
| makes you feel better while watching your plaster dry, I would
| bet my money on that sedation was applied and, if that old mice
| is still alive, it feels now like a two months old heartthrob.
| bregma wrote:
| Tell me about the rabbits again George.
| bulbosaur123 wrote:
| The billion dollar question: can this somehow help develop
| treatment for making bones longer?
| isoprophlex wrote:
| I'm missing something, what good are long bones, specifically?
| Seems to me strength is the most important parameter,
| especially in aging populations..?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Height, dating marketplace. Status in general.
|
| https://english.elpais.com/culture/2022-07-19/dating-apps-
| an...
|
| https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/miriamfauzia/height-
| dat...
|
| https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/only-15-women-
| interest-58-...
|
| https://theblog.okcupid.com/the-big-lies-people-tell-in-
| onli...
| isoprophlex wrote:
| Okay wow that's immediately obvious. Thanks... My mind got
| stuck at octogenarians growing absurdly long bones in the
| autumn of their lives
| hooverd wrote:
| Online dating seems miserable! Although the misery makes
| sense to me. It's a highly competitive arena with very low
| friction. It reminds me of using Facebook Marketplace vs
| Craigslist. FBM is full of the worst, flakiest people to
| coordinate a transaction with. The added friction from CL
| cuts down of the number of drive-bys and lowballers
| somewhat.
|
| * I met my first real partner online- but that was on
| MySpace pre-appification of everything. I haven't dated
| anyone I met online since, so maybe I'm just talking out of
| my ass here.
| Wohlf wrote:
| If everyone is 6 foot no one is. 7 foot would just become
| the new baseline.
| gffrd wrote:
| Reminds me of this article from a few years ago about guys
| getting leg-lengthening surgery: https://www.gq-
| magazine.co.uk/lifestyle/article/leg-lengthen...
| rideontime wrote:
| This is getting downvoted, but they only need to find one
| short, insecure billionaire to make this comment come true.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Bezos and Zuckerberg are both 5' 7" (170cm), interestingly
| enough.
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| Tom Cruise, too (or shorter... allegedly)
| shermantanktop wrote:
| Unfortunately (or fortunately?) the track record of
| billionaires throwing money at problems unrelated to how they
| made their billions is not great. Yachts are easy to buy,
| cancer cures and life extension technologies are not so easy
| to buy.
| YurgenJurgensen wrote:
| This becoming viable would do to high-status men what white
| lead makeup did to high status women in the 19th century.
| Being tall isn't as important as being taller than average,
| so you'd create an arms race among those who could afford the
| treatment. Which itself would strengthen the association
| between being short and being poor. And we all know how this
| ends, with a 7 foot tall millionaires dying of heart attacks
| as their circulatory system doesn't naturally scale with
| their height.
| AprilArcus wrote:
| No, once the epiphyseal plates close further growth of long
| bones is impossible. Only intervention during puberty can
| influence final adult height.
| rjurney wrote:
| So feed it to kids!
| moffkalast wrote:
| Smh, these slenderman cosplayers are really going too far.
| bregma wrote:
| According to the unsolicited email I regularly receive, there
| are already products on the market for making bones longer. And
| lasting all night, which would I guess make it significantly
| easier to get out of bed in the morning.
| hzay wrote:
| This is great. My mother had osteoporosis and I hope they come up
| with a therapy she can use!
|
| However as a currently breastfeeding mother, I'm asked by doctors
| to take calcium supplements every day (I only remember it once a
| week or so), and they threaten me with future osteoporosis if I
| don't take it. But these researchers are saying that
| breastfeeding mothers' bones aren't affected despite calcium
| depletion?
|
| Fwiw I've also read research that the bones are indeed affected
| (as measured by density) but they rebound after you stop
| breastfeeding. I remember that the most depletion happened in the
| lumbar region, and that the rebound didn't happen fully if there
| was "parity" (multiple kids).
|
| So idk. I hope their premise is correct.
| everybodyknows wrote:
| > (I only remember it once a week or so)
|
| Yikes. How about one of those 7-compartment SMTWTFS pill boxes?
| Store it alongside your morning coffee supply.
| zdragnar wrote:
| The conventional wisdom and common recommendation is to
| supplement with calcium, but I saw at least one study stating
| that it is not necessary:
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9584497/
|
| I rather suspect that if you are already eating a diet
| deficient in calcium, breastfeeding may exacerbate the issue,
| and since the supplements tend to have a poor bioavailability,
| taking them even if you don't need to isn't going to be
| harmful. Eat a healthy balance of foods and you are probably
| fine.
|
| I may have a nurse for a mother, but I am very much not a
| doctor.
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| Meat is a great source of bioavailable calcium.
| jnathsf wrote:
| is this true? Outside of seafood that's not what I'm
| seeing. Mostly dairy and plant-based foods have the most
| calcium [1]
|
| [1] https://www.bonehealthandosteoporosis.org/patients/trea
| tment...
| jijijijij wrote:
| > taking them even if you don't need to isn't going to be
| harmful
|
| I think, the transporter for calcium is the same used for
| some other minerals. So, if you're not mindful (about
| timing), you may be competitively blocking the absorption of
| e.g. zinc, which is much more precious nutritionally - zinc
| is very important for immune function and healing, while
| deficiency is common.
|
| Calcium supplements can cause constipation, which may be not
| very fun after giving birth... Not to mention the
| implications of (lack of) quality control in the supplement
| market, by proxy, for a rapidly developing human being. Which
| substances are part of the formulation, other than calcium
| salts? Does the adult portion of copper or X accumulate in a
| mother's milk?
|
| Not saying, you shouldn't take calcium supplements. But
| really, _any_ supplement can be harmful, if consumed without
| need or consideration. (Fun fact: Vitamin A supplementation
| increases lung cancer risk!)
| DidYaWipe wrote:
| You still need to provide calcium to the body to deploy to
| one's own bones. This hormone apparently directs that process.
| It can't do that in the absence of sufficient calcium, of
| course, so supplements still seem like a good idea.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| My water supply appears to be flush with calcium - I have to
| poke my shower head's holes out every few months. I wonder if
| it's good for me or if it's in too large of excess. Would
| probably help if I remembered the vitamin D more often, since
| you need that to absorb the calcium.
| ck2 wrote:
| This will incidentally be helpful to space travel to Mars and
| living there.
|
| Among the dozen other serious health problems with zero/low
| gravity like oh serious eye problems, humans sadly aren't going
| to Mars anytime soon.
|
| Then again this would need to be tested on the moon or in orbit
| first, might not make a difference even with the hormone.
|
| (vitamin K2 might help too)
| cactusfrog wrote:
| Bone density loss in space is estimated at a loss of 1-2% of
| total bone density per month of microgravity exposure. The
| worst cases of terrestrial bone loss are around 5% of total
| bone mineral density per year.
| DennisP wrote:
| We know microgravity is terrible for us but we don't have data
| on 1/3 gravity. We might be fine. Or maybe we'd be fine if we
| took this drug, did some weight training, and added twenty
| minutes of centrifuge every day.
|
| For the trip, there are several ways we could set up spin
| gravity.
| Terr_ wrote:
| For more on this "we don't really have the data for anything"
| problem, a humorously approachable read is "A City On Mars"
| [0]. Also the "nobody knows how laws would work" and other
| interesting complications.
|
| [0] https://www.acityonmars.com/
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| One step closer to being able to make Belters.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| If you lose 10 per cent of your bone density on the way to
| Mars, but then live in the conditions of 0.33 G, doesn't it
| cancel out?
|
| The real nasty problem would be getting back to Earth.
| jijijijij wrote:
| I just wanted to say, I really appreciate your tangent here.
| Space travel didn't come to my mind at all and your comment
| made me feel the tiny things contributing to larger stories,
| for a moment. Caught me weirdly off-guard.
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| By all accounts seems like this is a cure to age related bone
| loss. Almost everyone suffers from age related bone loss of some
| degree. Would like love to hear news about commercialisation of
| this.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| In my 20 mins of searching; it looks like it's CCN3 is produced
| by humans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOV_(gene)) and
| presumably humans have the receptors for it as well - though
| I'm uncertain if the same effect in mice will translate to
| humans. Since naturally occurring genes and genetic sequences
| are not patentable even if they don't commercialize you could
| probably get a 3rd party to make it reasonably cheaply. So if
| it is found to work I wouldn't even worry about
| commercialization.
| rjurney wrote:
| So long as its safe. Almost always, these things don't pan
| out... or at least the first molecular iteration. That's the
| primary reason medicine is so expensive.
| nextos wrote:
| Yes, the trick will be to prevent too much growth and
| therefore the appearance of rogue mutants that may lead to
| e.g. osteosarcoma.
|
| Lots of organs in the body lack regeneration capabilities
| once you age as an evolutionary mechanism to avoid tumors.
|
| Uri Alon's book _Systems Medicine_ has lots of models to
| explain those differences depending on e.g. organ size.
| Qem wrote:
| I was wondering just about this, if hormone replacement
| therapy is really that safe, as one can imagine the natural
| drop in its levels with age may not necessarily be
| pathological itself, but a protection mechanism. Like the
| ageing body were an old boiler you can't just do a
| overhaul, so as the pipes rust, you turn the pressure down,
| to keep it operating it within a safe envelope. HRT then
| would be like an unwitting intern trying to improve the
| system by cranking the settings up back to the level of a
| brand new one.
| kridsdale1 wrote:
| Evolution doesn't work this way. Everything that happens
| to an organism past the standard age range of
| reproduction has 0 effect on natural selection. There is
| no system affecting "graceful decline" of body systems in
| some protective way for things that happen past 35 in
| women and maybe 45 in men.
|
| But yes, as a HRT user myself (age 38), I do see it as
| replacing the fluids in my car to make it operate like
| when it was peak tuned at age 22.
| fuzztester wrote:
| >Lots of organs in the body lack regeneration capabilities
| once you age as an evolutionary mechanism to avoid tumors.
|
| why is this so?
| nextos wrote:
| Simplifying a lot, once you age, your cells have
| accumulated lots of genetic and epigenetic defects, so
| they are more likely to become cancerous if you let them
| divide quickly.
|
| Besides, you have less lymphocytes looking for
| carcinogenic cells, as your immune system is older.
| smolder wrote:
| > That's the primary reason medicine is so expensive.
|
| My aim isn't to make a long thread out of the topic but:
| while I'd agree it's one reason, I'd dispute it's primary.
| Demand for medicine is pretty inelastic, meaning there is
| generally a lot of power on the supply side to set high
| prices. Then you have the dynamics between health insurers
| and providers, the burdens of regulation and liability for
| adverse effects, the tendency to focus research and marketing
| on novel [patentable] remedies over potentially cheaper ones,
| and the tendency to focus on remedy over prevention. It's
| fairly difficult to pick a primary reason.
| rjurney wrote:
| The reason they have so much power on the supply side is
| that what they do is incredibly painstaking and expensive.
| I agree the system sucks.
|
| Sublingual Toradol is available from pharmacies in Mexico.
| I fly to San Diego every five years, take the tram to the
| border and walk across to Tijuana to stock up. Toradol is
| an NSAID they give you via injection in the emergency room
| for chronic pain and headaches. By mouth it tends to cause
| GI bleeding worse than any other NSAID. A number of people
| died before they restricted the pill to five days
| consecutive use. Dissolving Toradol under your tongue
| bypasses the GI tract, making sublingual Toradol much
| safer. I carry a pill pack of four pills in my wallet, and
| having a pain medication as effective as morphine without
| sedation in my pocket at all times seriously improves my
| quality of life. There is something I can DO when my
| chronic pain flares up enough that it starts to get to me.
|
| In the US the Sprix nasal inhaler is the functional
| equivalent of sublingual Toradol. I've read the research
| papers on both medications and I compared the charts for
| pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics and... the curves are
| virtually identical. They have the same impact on the body,
| both delivery mechanisms are equally effective in safety
| terms.
|
| Sublingual Toradol is generic - the original papers on it
| are from the 80s. The Sprix is a patented delivery
| mechanism... wait for it...
|
| * A dose of subligual Toradol in a Tijuana pharmacy: $0.25
|
| * A single dose Sprix nasal inhaler from a US pharmacy: $25
| last I checked. Only indicated for severe migraines.
|
| That's a price multiple of 100x, as in one hundred times
| for a functionally equivalent medication. Last time I went
| to Tijuana the murder rate had multiplied by 10x since the
| last time I was there, so I went to the pharmacy right at
| the border. The price per dose was $0.50 there, but its
| cheaper if you go downtown. It isn't a counterfeited
| medication, so you don't have to worry about that. I wish
| more pain patients had access to sublingual Toradol. If a
| drug company wanted to improve chronic pain care, they
| could fund clinical trials in the US and get the medication
| approved. It will never happen in the states. Pure greed is
| the ONLY reason.
|
| Actually, there's a lot more research on sublingual Toradol
| since I last checked: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term
| =%22sublingual+toradol%... See the sublingual film work? No
| reason for that instead of a pill except you can patent it.
| BOOM. BURN IT ALL DOWN.
| lacrosse_tannin wrote:
| Does it do anything for connective tissue?
| MrDrMcCoy wrote:
| According to the article, that's the next thing they're going
| to test for.
| Brechreiz wrote:
| It's ok if you drink plenty of malk.
| qwertox wrote:
| Never heard of malk. Googling it just yields a brand.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| A little of the Moloko Plus
|
| "The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or
| synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking."
| aspenmayer wrote:
| https://simpsonswiki.com/wiki/Malk
|
| https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/Malk
|
| https://frinkiac.com/caption/S06E21/319051
| pixl97 wrote:
| It's got vitamin R
| tbirdny wrote:
| This is great. But, the root of the problem for most
| postmenopausal women is simply the lack of estrogen. You need
| estrogen to make bone. Men and women do. Men are mostly protected
| from osteoporosis because they convert testosterone to estrogen.
| Elderly men have more estrogen than postmenopausal women. Their
| levels go to near zero. It's a tragedy that more doctors don't
| recommend HRT for older women, at least some level of
| replacement, maybe not up to peak levels when they were younger.
| The lack of estrogen causes a lot of suffering.
| a2tech wrote:
| I sit in a lot of doctor training sessions and the feelings on
| hrt have changed a lot in the last 5-10 years. It's now well
| thought of and an acceptable risk. Apparently the quality of
| life improvement is huge compared to the relatively minor risk
| adamc wrote:
| Although I knew a woman who had breast cancer and a
| consequence was taking her off HRT. Which she was dreading.
| mrmuagi wrote:
| I saw this recent video on a similar topic (prostate cancer
| and testerone/TRT considerations) [1], and bookmarked it
| for later. Not knowledgeable to speak further on it though.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiVCsm4dNh0
| ravenstine wrote:
| Men are also more likely to do strength training, which also
| helps build bone density. Women are also more likely to
| regularly perform cardio/aerobic exercises, which can reduce
| bone density when done in excess and without adequate
| nutrition. Lack of estrogen is of course the root, but I think
| we can't dismiss behavior differences contributing to the
| effect. In my experience, many women do minimal to no strength
| training because they're worried that muscle tone will make
| them look masculine. Maybe this is a really bad idea to live
| by.
| amelius wrote:
| > Women are also more likely to regularly perform
| cardio/aerobic exercises, which can reduce bone density when
| done in excess and without adequate nutrition.
|
| What is the biological mechanism behind this statement?
| ravenstine wrote:
| Elevated cortisol (in response to the stress of running or
| whatever) increases bone resorption and inhibits bone
| growth. This isn't necessarily an issue for anyone doing
| lots of cardio, but it's an increase in risk. It also
| reduces protein synthesis, which is important for both
| muscle and bone (it isn't just calcium).
| magicalist wrote:
| > _Elevated cortisol (in response to the stress of
| running or whatever) increases bone resorption and
| inhibits bone growth_
|
| Cortisol is also released during strength training,
| though.
|
| Seems like a real issue is _low impact_ cardio, which isn
| 't negative for bone density (as far as I can tell) but
| does have a theoretical opportunity cost when you could
| be doing weight-bearing cardio, which does improve bone
| density.
|
| Agreed with littlestymaar's comment higher up, though,
| that exercise rates being what they are, the theoretical
| opportunity cost may be quite theoretical.
| ben_w wrote:
| > Elevated cortisol ... increases bone resorption and
| inhibits bone growth
|
| Would that also be true for caffeine consumption? IIRC it
| increases cortisol levels, but I don't really know much
| about what else it does, I've only read the Wikipedia
| page and gone "Wow, I'm _really_ glad I 've already cut
| back".
| littlestymaar wrote:
| This may be true, but it's not really relevant. Most people
| don't do training at all, especially past 50 yo, where bone
| density declines in women.
|
| (And that's a significant issue in itself)
| piombisallow wrote:
| Estrogen replacement increases the risk of cancer in women.
| kridsdale1 wrote:
| This is not accurate and is the result of a
| misinterpretation of the Women's Health study of the 2000s.
| It's much more complicated. The specific type of molecule
| matters.
| bsder wrote:
| Citation.
|
| Breast cancer dropped with a _step function_ when HRT was
| stopped in general for meopausal women.
|
| I haven't seen any studies to the contrary.
| kingkawn wrote:
| Triggering Paget's disease in 3, 2,...
| hooverd wrote:
| Ah, bone healing juice.
| manav wrote:
| Is there a good HN equivalent specifically for science/med/bio
| news? I do find interesting papers here on the topic although
| it's not the core focus.
| pps wrote:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/science/ - you can filter it by field
| rednerrus wrote:
| If this sub is the state of modern science, we are in a lot
| of trouble.
| hypeatei wrote:
| Reddit isn't the state of anything in the real world, it's
| a bubble.
| 3abiton wrote:
| Wait till the bots "fully" take over.
| Sparkyte wrote:
| Can't wait for breaking a hip at 80 to be a thing of the past.
| Bone health is also a contributor in life expectancy and health
| of a person altogether. I read a study if you can assure your
| bones are healthy you can assure your health longterm.
| masfuerte wrote:
| Is bone health like grip strength? Grip strength correlates
| with life expectancy because it is a good proxy for overall
| health, but if you just work on your grip strength you won't
| get much healthier.
| ilc wrote:
| No, because if you break a hip, you lose a ton of mobility,
| which will cause an avalanche of problems.
| samatman wrote:
| Not entirely, for a pretty obvious reason: breaking a bone at
| an advanced age is not infrequently the beginning of the end.
| Not enough to make it primary (in other words, your point
| about bone density as a correlate rather than a determinate
| is basically correct), but enough that improving just bone
| health on a widespread basis should help with life expectancy
| as well.
| manmal wrote:
| Wasn't the best contributor to life expectancy vascular &
| endothelial health?
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| Wonder if it would help teeth as well?
| danvoell wrote:
| Amazing! Can anyone hypothesize whether it could have adverse
| effect towards cancer cells? Im dealing with someone who has
| osteoporosis due to cancer treatment.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-22 23:01 UTC)