Question re Calcium

Quoted message said:

Subject: Question re Calcium
From: "Karen Lynn" [email hidden]
Date: 5/26/04 9:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

My question is about calcium and the term 'chelate'. My doc says I need to
take calcium to prevent osteoporosis.

You do need calcium, but it will not prevent osteoporosis, and your doc has no
data to refute my statement.

Quoted message said:

He says I need 1200mg per day

Nada.

Ask him or her about magnesium and phosphorus, which are also needed to build
and maintain bones.

Quoted message said:

1200mg per day in a
vitamin called "Hi Potency Multi'' that contains, it says on the label,
Calcium (HVP Chelate) 125mg.

Well, dividing 1200 by 125, you would need at least 10 of the pills daily. At
10% absorption, you would need to swallow 100 of the pills daily to meet your
needs.

Is something wrong here????

Quoted message said:

How can I translate this to determine if I'm
getting the correct amount?

You are being conned.

DrC PhD

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Question re Calcium
From: [email hidden] (DRCEEPHD)
Date: 5/29/2004 6:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ask him or her about magnesium and phosphorus, which are also needed to build
and maintain bones.

women over about age 30 do NOT build bones...

calcium..magnesium and vit D ARE needed to prevent osteoporosis.....

and 1200 mgm of elemental calcium is about right..

don't pay attention to not a doc CEE....

calcium carbonate is the cheapest form....but do include Vit D

Quoted message said:

Well, dividing 1200 by 125, you would need at least 10 of the pills daily.
At
10% absorption, you would ne

Quoted message said:

need to swallow 100 of the pills daily to meet your
needs.

not true...the 1200 mgm takes into account the absorption..

hawki.....

Quoted message said:

calcium carbonate is the cheapest form

Tums?

"Hawki63" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Question re Calcium
From: [email hidden] (DRCEEPHD)
Date: 5/29/2004 6:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ask him or her about magnesium and phosphorus, which are also needed to

build

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and maintain bones.

women over about age 30 do NOT build bones...

calcium..magnesium and vit D ARE needed to prevent osteoporosis.....

and 1200 mgm of elemental calcium is about right..

don't pay attention to not a doc CEE....

calcium carbonate is the cheapest form....but do include Vit D

Quoted message said:

Well, dividing 1200 by 125, you would need at least 10 of the pills

daily.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At
10% absorption, you would ne

Quoted message said:

need to swallow 100 of the pills daily to meet your
needs.

not true...the 1200 mgm takes into account the absorption..

hawki.....

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Question re Calcium
From: "Janna" [email hidden]
Date: 5/29/2004 9:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

calcium carbonate is the cheapest form

Tums?

yes....Tums are fine..tho I get generic Tums at Costco..much cheaper..

then add a multivit that includes the Vt D plus the other stuff...

hawki.....

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Question re Calcium
From: "Janna" [email hidden]
Date: 5/30/04 12:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

calcium carbonate is the cheapest form

Tums?

Limestone, CaCO3, is very cheap, one could say "dirt cheap." Perhaps we should
walk around chewing on a piece of limestone all day to get our Calcium like a
cow chewing its cud.

DrC PhD

Pehaps magnesium supplementation would allow these buffoons to utilize some
of their already overloaded calcium intake.

"DRCEEPHD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Question re Calcium
From: "Janna" [email hidden]
Date: 5/30/04 12:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

calcium carbonate is the cheapest form

Tums?

Limestone, CaCO3, is very cheap, one could say "dirt cheap." Perhaps we

should

Quoted message said:

walk around chewing on a piece of limestone all day to get our Calcium

like a

Quoted message said:

cow chewing its cud.

DrC PhD

Hi
Have you got any information on the Somatoscope or the Rife scope
(diagrams/schematics/links?)
The net sucks - it's filled with articles how great this mysterious cure
was, and no hard design data.
I'm interested in exploring this..
Anth

"DRCEEPHD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Question re Calcium
From: "Anth" llsa_is_a_warthog@acupuncture_for_idiots.com
Date: 5/30/04 10:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Hi
Have you got any information on the Somatoscope or the Rife scope
(diagrams/schematics/links?)
The net sucks - it's filled with articles how great this mysterious cure
was, and no hard design data.
I'm interested in exploring this..
Anth

Sorry Anth, I cannot help you with the mechanics of these microscopes.

What I am hopeful of doing, is to repeat the work of Bechamp to show that his
work is repeatable and go on from there to Enderlein, Rife, and Nassenes.

Good luck.

DrC PhD

I think you could do a simple experiment on this - basically shred up some
diseases tissue, grow it in asparagus medium then filter through a fine
porcelain filter.
You could then transfer some of this filtrate onto a sterile agar plate and
incubate and view the culture under a microscope (if any culture formed)
If you get consistently get visible bacteria then you have ample proof of
pleomorphic organisms.
Of course you would have to do controls and such to minimise error. I think
this is pretty much what Antoine Bechamp did.
This would be cheap enough to do - cheap microscope few petri's Bunsen
burner agar and filter and other misc equipment (I got a cheap microscope on
eBay)
Anth

"DRCEEPHD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Question re Calcium
From: "Anth" llsa_is_a_warthog@acupuncture_for_idiots.com
Date: 5/30/04 10:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Hi
Have you got any information on the Somatoscope or the Rife scope
(diagrams/schematics/links?)
The net sucks - it's filled with articles how great this mysterious cure
was, and no hard design data.
I'm interested in exploring this..
Anth

Sorry Anth, I cannot help you with the mechanics of these microscopes.

What I am hopeful of doing, is to repeat the work of Bechamp to show that

his

Quoted message said:

work is repeatable and go on from there to Enderlein, Rife, and Nassenes.

Good luck.

DrC PhD

http://www.uq.edu.au/nanoworld/uwins.html
Anth

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Question re Calcium
From: "Anth" llsa_is_a_warthog@acupuncture_for_idiots.com
Date: 6/1/04 12:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I think
this is pretty much what Antoine Bechamp did.

Anth, please order and read "Bechamp or Pasteur" by E. Hume ( as I recall ).
It is a biography of Bechamp's life and work showing quite clearly what his
discoveries were and that proving Pasteur was a liar, a con artist, and a great
destroyer of animal and human health.

Once you have mastered that, you need to read Bechamp's book "The blood and its
third anatomical element."

Once you have done those two things, you can then go to Comp Rendus and read
more about Bechamp's research and published articles.

Rosenow, in 1914, published the scientific work that destroyed the monomorphic
theory of disease and Pasteur's theory of the germ causation of disease. So
did the Medical Society of Toronto in 1911 to 1918. The society funded a 9
year study to explain the role of bacteria in disease. They concluded that
bacteria do not cause disease but are passive bystanders in disease.

What I would like to know is exactly what type of lenses did Bechamp use, their
optical properties, and what was his illumination source?

DrC PhD

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Question re Calcium
From: "Anth" llsa_is_a_warthog@acupuncture_for_idiots.com
Date: 6/1/04 12:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

http://www.uq.edu.au/nanoworld/uwins.html
Anth

This all seems well and good, but....they are still viewing dead specimens and
not studying live, living specimens as Bechamp and his students did. One must
view the living world to understand the living world.

DrC PhD

Dearest Chuck:

I believe a few weeks ago you "challenged" Dave W. to get you
information on the whereabouts of the maybe/maybe not 7?8? year study by
the "Toronto Medical Society" on bacteria & its role in disease.
Perhaps I can help you out, though my "detective work" does not indicate
any such study took place, but I'll leave some "butt work" to you.

First of all, at the time of the beginning of the alleged study, the TMS
(founded around 1894) had long since changed its name to "The Academy of
Medicine, Toronto". In 1921, they loosely affiliated themselves with
the Ontario Medical Society, but kept their old records, kept their name
& maintained a separate office until closing it in 1991. At that time,
they donated all their papers & other materials to The University of
Toronto Thomas Fisher Rare Books Library, where the complete collection
resides today. Maybe you'd like to take a trip?

[email hidden] (DRCEEPHD) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Question re Calcium
From: "Janna" [email hidden]
Date: 5/30/04 12:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

calcium carbonate is the cheapest form

Tums?

Limestone, CaCO3, is very cheap, one could say "dirt cheap." Perhaps we should
walk around chewing on a piece of limestone all day to get our Calcium like a
cow chewing its cud.

DrC PhD

I take calcium carbonate tablets and find them the cheapest, most
effective calcium form. Each tablet contains 500 mg of elemental
calcium and I take toughly 2-4 grams a day i.e., 4-8 tablets. I
disagree that calcium carbonate is an ineffective form of calcium.
I've tried different forms and cc definitely works the best.

Getting back to the organic vs inorganic theory, have you seen the
following theory -

http://www.angelfire.com/bc2/OrgChem/

"The History of Organic Chemistry
The name organic chemistry came from the word organism. Prior to 1828,
all organic compounds had been obtained from organisms or their
remains. The scientific philosophy back then was that the synthesis of
organic compounds could only be produced within living matter while
inorganic compounds were synthesized from non-living matter. A theory
known as "Vitalism" stated that a "vital force" from living organisms
was necessary to make an organic compound. 1828, a German chemist
Friedrich Wöhler (1800-1882) amazed the science community by using the
inorganic compound ammonium cyanate, NH4OCN to synthesize urea,
H2NCONH2, an organic substance found in the urine of many animals.
This led to the disappearance of the "Vitalism" theory.

Carole
http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/cellsalts.htm

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Question re Calcium
From: [email hidden] (Carole)
Date: 6/4/04 6:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Getting back to the organic vs inorganic theory, have you seen the
following theory -

http://www.angelfire.com/bc2/OrgChem/

I was educated as an "organic" chemist to the PhD level. I am very aware of
the theory and the history.

Organic chemistry today is mainly carbon chemistry in all its various forms.
If a compound contains carbon and comes from a natural souce, it is organic.

The human body expires CO2, which, in water, forms CO3, and is called carbonic
acid, an "inorganic" compound. This acid can leach Calcium from the soil and
form CaCO3, the source of our limestone and the cave stalagtites and
stalamites. But, that is the way it is.

What I fear is that inorganic calcium cannot be properly utilized by the human
body. If the body is forced to absorb it, it may form stone (aka stalagmites,
or calcium deposits in the body ) rather than true bone which is an organic
material.

Milk has its cacium tied up in a protein called casein. Heat the milk (
pasteurization e.g. ) and you destroy this compound. You now have converted
the organic form of calcium into the inorganic form. Even calves, fed heated
milk, develop to about 300 lb, then sicken and die....from calcium deficiency!

I am sorry, but I have never seen data to support the theory that the human
body has the enzymes and capacity to convert inorganic calcium into viable
organic calcium which the body must have for many, many systems in the body,
not just the bone structure.

DrC PhD

[email hidden] (DRCEEPHD) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Question re Calcium
From: [email hidden] (Carole)
Date: 6/4/04 6:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Getting back to the organic vs inorganic theory, have you seen the
following theory -

http://www.angelfire.com/bc2/OrgChem/

I was educated as an "organic" chemist to the PhD level. I am very aware of
the theory and the history.

Organic chemistry today is mainly carbon chemistry in all its various forms.
If a compound contains carbon and comes from a natural souce, it is organic.

The human body expires CO2, which, in water, forms CO3, and is called carbonic
acid, an "inorganic" compound. This acid can leach Calcium from the soil and
form CaCO3, the source of our limestone and the cave stalagtites and
stalamites. But, that is the way it is.

What I fear is that inorganic calcium cannot be properly utilized by the human
body. If the body is forced to absorb it, it may form stone (aka stalagmites,
or calcium deposits in the body ) rather than true bone which is an organic
material.

Milk has its cacium tied up in a protein called casein. Heat the milk (
pasteurization e.g. ) and you destroy this compound. You now have converted
the organic form of calcium into the inorganic form. Even calves, fed heated
milk, develop to about 300 lb, then sicken and die....from calcium deficiency!

I am sorry, but I have never seen data to support the theory that the human
body has the enzymes and capacity to convert inorganic calcium into viable
organic calcium which the body must have for many, many systems in the body,
not just the bone structure.

DrC PhD

Hmm, definitely something to think about.
Calcium carbonate works well for me, and I've been taking it for a
long time without noticeable side effects - although from what you
point out, it may be leaving some residue behind because of the
carbonic acid.

However, because I take the whole range of cell salts including the
ones which neutralise body acids (sodium phosphate and sulphate,
silica), this may not be a concern. There are a lot of acids in the
body which are formed as a result of body processes of activity and
digestion. They all have a detrimental effect.

See info on body acids at The development of latent "acidosis"
http://www.euroamericanhealth.com/how.html
"Strong Acids, Weak Acids and Protein
The strong acids in our bodies are those that are formed by the
degradation of protein. These are sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid and
nitric acid. These are strong, like the battery acid in your car.
Strong acids are strong in contradistinction to weak acids such as
vinegar and citrus juices. Weak acids do not ionize (break apart
completely) when in solution whereas strong acids do. This is why
vinegar does not burn holes in your clothes, or dissolve your bones;
it does not break apart completely into an acid and a base part, it
remains partly a salt. A salt is formed when an acid and a base
combine and neutralized each other."

and
"Sulfuric acid or any of the strong acids are excreted mainly as the
salts of sodium, potassium, magnesium or calcium as these are the main
basic minerals of the body, the ones that are the most plentiful. The
sulfur in sulfuric acid can and does combine with the calcium in your
bones for one and is excreted as the corresponding salt which is
called calcium sulfate. This salt does not harm the kidneys on its way
through them but it does rob the body of the needed basic calcium."

But I guess the ultimate test to discover if calcium carbonate was an
inferior source of calcium, would be to switch to the more expensive
calcium citrate for a month or two and see if there was any
difference.

Carole
http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/acidity.htm

In article <[email hidden]>,

Carole said:

[email hidden] (DRCEEPHD) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Question re Calcium
From: "Janna" [email hidden]
Date: 5/30/04 12:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

> calcium carbonate is the cheapest form

Tums?

Limestone, CaCO3, is very cheap, one could say "dirt cheap." Perhaps

we should

Quoted message said:

walk around chewing on a piece of limestone all day to get our Calcium like a
cow chewing its cud.

DrC PhD

I take calcium carbonate tablets and find them the cheapest, most
effective calcium form. Each tablet contains 500 mg of elemental
calcium and I take toughly 2-4 grams a day i.e., 4-8 tablets. I
disagree that calcium carbonate is an ineffective form of calcium.
I've tried different forms and cc definitely works the best.

Although I think you're convincing yourself, I second the idea of
calcium carbonate tablets, which are generally a cheap way to get
your calcium. I get mine largely from dairy products, but that's
not an option for some people.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)