Re: EDIT - Lead...

While some of it rings true, other parts do not to me... or at the very least, they controversial to me.

I think the following paragraph;

"At the same time, we know that excess of calcium is responsible for arteriosclerosis, (or hardening of the arteries), also for scleroma (or sclerosis of tissue, liver, skin, eyes and so forth). In fact, we know that old age itself is brought about by a gradual hardening of the whole structural system through deposition of calcium compounds that are insoluble and inorganic."

is a gross misunderstanding based on a protective response to an acidic condition. Do I think that too much calcium can become problematic? Absolutely, just as too much of anything else can, but not in the way presented here...

Regulation of mineral absorption is determined by the glands in the body... if calcium is needed a signal is sent to manufacture calcium grabbing enzymes/proteins in the intestines... if it is not needed, this enzyme is turned off... in a properly functioning system.

this may be one of the reasons we see people having good success with enzymes; their glandular feedback mechanism is not functioning properly and enzymes may help... the goal would be to get these feedback mechanisms and glands working properly... here is where Cayce stated that Iodine is the oil...

So a disease, associated with too much calcium, if indeed that is what we are looking at, is more likely a malfunction of the glandular, signaling/regulatory system and not the calcium itself.

So what is needed to fix this signaling/regulation system? Various minerals/elements and associated cofactors of enzymes, vitamins, and most likely bacteria too.

I would also submit, that this signaling/regulatory system becomes increasingly dysfunctional with age... and that this is exacerbated by the use of tobacco, alcohol, etc. AND, that we may actually need more calcium as we age than is indicated or implied in this article.

I do not agree with this next part either;

"The calcium that does the trouble is the inorganic type. Of course, inorganic calcium cannot be used in the life process of the cell, but forms instead the greatest number of obstructions to the normal life processes of the human organism."

Yes, the "inorganic" form cannot be used in the life processes of the cell, however, I believe the body, with a good balanced gut, including enzymes and bacteria, can use and convert the inorganic type and make it "live" just as bacteria and enzymes in live soil can do this for the root... but then most everyone is incapable of this due to gross enzyme, bacterial, yeast, and mineral/element imbalances.

I agree 100%, in an ideal world with the best foods, that all calcium should be consumed from high quality food sources only; do they exist today?

Understand that all of man's history, he has been fraught with malnutrition and all kinds of disease... this struggle is nothing new. A select few may have broken the code and extended their lives some... if the Bible, along with other ancient religious texts are to be believed, some actually seemed to hit the fountain of youth.

Here is a very incomplete list of various toxins that disrupt calcium uptake and metabolism in plants (among other minerals), in part, causing the decline of calcium content in leafy vegetables;

1. pesticides
2. herbicides
3. fertilizers
4. air pollution
5. water pollution

e.g. heavy metals

Fluoride is a huge issue when it comes to calcium and magnesium metabolism. Fluoride is known to leach/eliminate magnesium and calcium from the body. The plant, as does our body, uses both magnesium and calcium to chelate excess fluoride. Fluoride being the greater thereat, the body sacrifices magnesium and/or calcium for its health.

Over exposure to fluoride causes both magnesium (first) and then calcium deficiencies in the host organism.

This is probably the primary reason that magnesium is suggested in the Iodine protocol. The magnesium rids the body of the fluoride, not the iodine, just as the salt (sodium chloride) rids the body of the bromide, not the iodine.

Smoking shows a loss of bone calcium to increase circulating calcium in the blood makes sense as the body will struggle to maintain the blood pH in the absence of adequate circulating oxygen to keep the pH in check...

The mineral balance between phosphorus and calcium is interesting, but not a be-all-end-all... this is a problem each one of us faces in the interpretation of data from such reports as the co-factors involved in calcium uptake and metabolism are much more complex than this one-on-one association, and includes many other things such as magnesium, vitamin D, etc. And like plants, our calcium (mineral) metabolism is compromised by environmental toxins of all kinds, including excess bromide, fluoride, excess supplementation use, and drug side effects. This would mean by default that these influences also have an effect on the metabolism of calcium's co-factors... all of them to one degree or another.

I think this following statement is erroneous;

"The inorganic minerals are accumulative, lie in deposits in weakened or injured parts of the body, to later give side effects or after effects."


http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=69739


There are other numerous, too numerous to post, stories of animals and people eating dirt, clay, mud balls etc., at times for whole seasons in the absence of adequate food, or for nothing more than mineral supplementation...


http://www.vagabondish.com/rising-food-prices-force-haitians-to-eat-mud-cookies/


Do not be fooled by the "hype" of the headline... yes, more are eating the "mud cookies", however this practice has gone on, especially among pregnant women in most corners of the world since the beginning of time.

Unfortunately, the body must be able to have a way to use this "rock food" (read co-factors) and if it does not, it cannot, and it just passes through. The earth does not take a freeway to the knee and freeze it with calcification... that some believe this, is just plain silly.

The body will not absorb the "inorganic rock" if it cannot be made into an "organic" form or used for the creation of energy in some way, through the gut... of course this would require cofactors etc.

If it does, for some reason absorb too much, the problem lies with a faulty feedback mechanism and not the nutrition ingested, organic or not.

It should ALWAYS go without saying, that plant, and then animal (if you chose to eat animal products) based nutrition is going to be best assimilated with the least amount of work\effort by the body. The simpler and better the food, the better the assimilation, IF needed and taken up by the body. This is most likely why juicing\blending of high quality fruits and vegetables is so very good for us... the juicing and blending has done the work of chewing for us.

Dr. C's or Mrs Barefoot's Calcium formula is only as good as the herbs that go into them... if the herbs are grown in poor conditions, on poor earth and are deficient in calcium, so is the product.

What do you think?

grz-

Tweet