--"is a gross misunderstanding based on a protective response to an acidic condition."

I agree with the excess calcium charge because I think it is referring to synthetic types and the current day obsession with dead milk, calcium-enriched foods/juices, osteoporosis, etc, etc. It may not be 100% accurate to what is going on with all people but that doesn't make it a gross misunderstanding. In fact, I tend to think its more right than wrong in the general pop.

I guess for me, I go by my own observations and experience. Take my grandmother for instance; she has all the problems of calcium deficiency and all the problems of too much calcium. How? She does not suffer from an acidic condition and eats tons of fresh fruit. She does, however, drink hard water, calcium-enriched foods, and her doctors make her take excess calcium supplements.

She does not have fluorinated water and lives on the coast (literally) so gets lots of Iodine in her diet and air. If inorganic calcium had any merit, wouldn't some of her problems be at least mitigated? She's pretty much made of fixed glass (fragile and arthritically crippled), and I attribute that to inorganic calcium. Why? Her sister who lives next door (and lives nearly identically except the rock calcium) can do splits.

--"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"

Maybe and maybe not. If you believe in the notion that mineral metabolism is solely determined by glandular reaction (I personally don't), then you may have something there. To me, significant glandular responses are immunological responses, thus perhaps a clue that whatever you ingested was wrong in the first place. Additionally, if such defense actions degrade with age, then all the more reason to consume more ideal forms of nutrients because this (I believe) is one possible penalty associated with not eating what your body was best suited for.

--"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."

You're partially right here. The body will do what it has to do (what it is forced to do to survive), but at what cost? Perhaps glandular dysfunction is one cost? This is exactly the philosophical disagreements I have with the iodiners and other synthetic supplementation advocates. Just because the body can be forced to do something (and some will study these processes and wrongly conclude because it "occurs" its "normal") doesn't mean that was the intended design.

Comparing plant root existence to a mobile animal is a poor comparison because stationary creatures MUST deal with their surroundings. They don't have choice or mobility of habitat. So it makes sense they are better suited for this form of metabolism. In my opinion, forced metabolism of substances the human body does not recognize will sacrifice longevity and long-term health unless there's significant adaptation (which we spoke about). Even adaptation is less than ideal unless it has run a course of many, many generations (strengthening gene pool, etc).

I don't think the old woman in China who eats rocks or those that have survived on clay balls disproves the "inorganic accumulation" theory. The body can adapt to anything and "survive". But is survival the only goal? Keep in mind too; she also lives a more simple "village life," further strengthening her resiliency by being outdoors and living more naturally. Try this in a Manhattan apt dwelling and my guess is she dies before 65. She is an explainable exception because her body has learned from an early age to excrete these rocks to some extent, thus warding off potential problems longer than most. Just because she eats rocks and has gotten away with it, doesn't mean its OK or that she won't pay a price for such proclivities at some point.

I think a lot of what you share has merit and is very interesting, but I also think you are somewhat caught up in the "micro" analysis of things. Much of today's Science and study is micro-blind, and I think this is potentially bad from a philosophical standpoint. If you are so focused on what is occurring at the 1ft level you fail to see what's going on at 1000ft, and thus a lot of potential misunderstanding and false assumptions can prevail by over-complication -- proving and disproving things at such a micro level you fail to see a simpler macro view.

Although I enjoy your posts immensely, you over-complicate things a bit for me at times. I understand this is probably your thirst for truth and I applaud that quest. I do agree with you that some minerals interact and conflict with others causing deficiencies and surpluses, etc. This is all probably very true, but this is exactly why the body requires balanced whole sources that are ideal to the organism, and perhaps some intelligent compensation (more of one source over the other) is needed to counter the damaging effects of a polluted habitat. Without whole forms, you lose balance and sacrifice bodily functions to maintain equilibrium. This "burns out" the organism much faster than need be.
Tweet