Kidney Failure - Kidney Stones linked to Calcium Supplements

Author

Kidney Stones linked to Calcium Supplements

Alf

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

Calcium supplements may not be the way to healthy bones after all
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/healt...16_bones16.html

The study also found no evidence that the supplements prevented colorectal
cancer, and it found an increased risk of kidney stones....

And the results from the new study on calcium and vitamin D, like the others,
confound popular beliefs and raise questions about public health messages that
had been addressed to the entire population....

The new study, she says, shows it can hurt to take the supplements --
among the women taking them there were five additional cases of
kidney stones per 10,000 women per year. ...

"This is a public health intervention," Rosen said. "We've been recommending
it for everyone but it probably doesn't work in the majority of people or the
effect is small. And there is an increase in kidney stones. It is not a benign
intervention."...

Two Seattle-area women who fall into the healthy, 50-to-79 category said
they wanted more information. Barbara Fowler has been taking 1,800
milligrams of calcium a day for 15 to 20 years and has had bone loss and
osteoporosis. She also takes two other drugs to help her assimilate the calcium.
"I've been told by my doctor that calcium intake has nothing to do
with kidney stones," Fowler said. She is going to seek more information....

PeterB

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

The press is already reporting this story in a way that is misleading
and, once again, the actual science is likely to be ignored. When
researchers looked only at women who took their supplements
consistently (at least 80% of the time), the rate of hip fracture was
redued by 29%, which is anything but "slight."
[http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_3513493]

A good expository article (pasted below) on the study results can be
found at:
http://www.nutraingredients.com/new...in-d-calcium...

Calcium, vitamin D supplements good for bones - if you take them
By Stephen Daniells

16/02/2006 - Consumer confusion over vitamin D and calcium seems likely
to grow, following claims from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI)
trial about their effect on bone health that oppose other studies.

The combination of vitamin D and calcium has long been recommended to
reduce the risk of bone fracture for older people, particularly those
at risk of or suffering from osteoporosis, which is estimated to affect
about 75 million people in Europe, the USA and Japan. Use of these
supplements is widely accepted by the general public, with
calcium reported to be the biggest seller in the US supplements
industry, with annual sales of about $993 (=80836) million in 2004,
according to the Nutrition Business Journal.

The new study poses a challenge to this acceptance by concluding that
calcium and vitamin D supplements did not reduce the risk of fractures
in post-menopausal women.

Published in the New England Journal of Medicine (Vol. 354, pp.
669-683), the study followed 36,282 post-menopausal women with an
average age of 62 at the start of the trial. Volunteers were randomly
assigned to receive 1000 mg of elemental calcium in the carbonate form
and 400 IU of vitamin D3 per day, or a placebo.

After an average of seven years of follow-up the scientists reported:
"Among healthy postmenopausal women, calcium with vitamin D
supplementation resulted in a small but significant improvement in hip
bone density, and did not significantly reduce hip fracture."

Such a sweeping generalisation is somewhat misleading however. If one
looks just at the 59 per cent of the participants who actually adhered
to the supplementation programme (assuming 80 per cent or more
compliance with taking the supplements), the data do, in fact,
highlight the benefits of dual vitamin D-calcium supplementation.

The number of fractures in this compliant group was 29 per cent lower
than placebo. This indicates that supplementation with calcium and
vitamin D did significantly reduce the risk of hip fracture, as has
been reported by other studies, but only if taken regularly.

The bone mineral density of the entire intervention group increased by
0=2E86 per cent after six years, and for those followed-up for nine
years, BMD increased by 1.06 per cent.

The strengths of this study lie in the large-scale, randomised,
double-blind, placebo-based design. However the authors recognise that
adherence to an intervention using a free-living population is
difficult.

Indeed, even though the placebo group was not given the supplements by
the researchers, they were free to use supplements on their own.
Sixty-four per cent of the placebo group had a daily calcium intake of
at least 800 mg from diet and supplements, and 42 per cent were
consuming at least 400 IU of vitamin D.

This suggests that the intervention and control groups were very
similar. With both groups consuming calcium and vitamin D, this could
explain why the incidence of overall fractures was less than envisaged
- the actual hip fracture rate was more than half that projected by the
researchers.

"The lower-than-projected hip-fracture rate reduced the power of the
study to approximately 48 per cent," wrote the research team, led by
Rebecca Jackson from Ohio State University.

In an accompanying editorial, Joel Finkelstein from the Massachusetts
General Hospital rightly points out: "There were several aspects of the
study design and characteristics of the study population that may have
reduced the chances of detecting a benefit of calcium and vitamin D."

It should be pointed out that many of the women were involved in the
other arms of the WHI trial, with 69 per cent of the women enrolled on
the Dietary Modification trial, 54 per cent enrolled on the Hormone
Therapy trial, and 14 per cent enrolled on both.

"The use of hormone-replacement therapy (HRT) among post-menopausal
women has declined dramatically [HRT is known to be potent against bone
resorption and weakening and can reduce bone fracture]. Thus, the
widespread use of HRT in the current study limits the ability to
generalise the results," he said.

Another limitation, the dose of vitamin D might have been too small to
initiate a response for all participants. Other studies have reported
no effect with 400 IU, but benefits have been reported for trials using
doses of 600 IU or more.

However, it seems plausible that the dose was not as significant as
adherence to the program. The data clearly show that women who
regularly took the vitamins had a 29 per cent reduction in hip
fractures.

Finkelstein finishes a well-balanced editorial by concluding: "It seems
reasonable that women consume the recommended daily levels of calcium
and vitamin D through diet, supplements, or both. But one message is
clear: calcium with vitamin D supplementation by itself is not enough
to ensure optimal bone health."

This statement was echoed by Roger Francis, Professor of Geriatric
Medicine at the university of Newcastle, who told NutraIngredients.com:
"This study shows that vitamin D and calcium supplementation would not
work as a public health measure, because vitamin D - calcium trials
have notoriously poor adherence."

Professor Francis pointed out however that an earlier French study
(Scand J Rheumatol Suppl. 1996 Vol. 103, pp. 75-78) reported that
calcium and vitamin D supplements given to elderly women significantly
reduced the risk of hip fracture. This sample population was much older
than the WHI population.

The current EU recommended daily intake of calcium is 800 mg, with an
upper safe limit of 2500 mg. Vitamin D has a RDI of 400 IU, although
campaigners are calling for an increase to 1000 IU, half the upper safe
limit recommended by the EU and US.

In the US, the DRI (dietary reference intake) for calcium is 1000mg for
adults aged 19 to 50, and 1200mg from 51 to 70. For vitamin D it is
five micrograms per day, rising to 10 after the age of 50.

According to the International Osteoporosis Foundation, the total
direct cost of osteoporotic fractures is =8031.7 billion ($37.6) in
Europe, and $17.5 (=8014.7) billion in the US (2002 figure).

=A9 2001/2006 - Decision News Media SAS - All Rights Reserved.

PeterB

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

PeterB wrote:
> The press is already reporting this story in a way that is misleading
> and, once again, the actual science is likely to be ignored. When
> researchers looked only at women who took their supplements
> consistently (at least 80% of the time), the rate of hip fracture was
> redued by 29%, which is anything but "slight."
> [http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_3513493]
>
> A good expository article (pasted below) on the study results can be
> found at:
> http://www.nutraingredients.com/new...in-d-calcium...
>
>
> Calcium, vitamin D supplements good for bones - if you take them
> By Stephen Daniells
>
> 16/02/2006 - Consumer confusion over vitamin D and calcium seems likely
> to grow, following claims from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI)
> trial about their effect on bone health that oppose other studies.
>
> The combination of vitamin D and calcium has long been recommended to
> reduce the risk of bone fracture for older people, particularly those
> at risk of or suffering from osteoporosis, which is estimated to affect
> about 75 million people in Europe, the USA and Japan. Use of these
> supplements is widely accepted by the general public, with
> calcium reported to be the biggest seller in the US supplements
> industry, with annual sales of about $993 (=80836) million in 2004,
> according to the Nutrition Business Journal.
>
> The new study poses a challenge to this acceptance by concluding that
> calcium and vitamin D supplements did not reduce the risk of fractures
> in post-menopausal women.
>
> Published in the New England Journal of Medicine (Vol. 354, pp.
> 669-683), the study followed 36,282 post-menopausal women with an
> average age of 62 at the start of the trial. Volunteers were randomly
> assigned to receive 1000 mg of elemental calcium in the carbonate form
> and 400 IU of vitamin D3 per day, or a placebo.
>
> After an average of seven years of follow-up the scientists reported:
> "Among healthy postmenopausal women, calcium with vitamin D
> supplementation resulted in a small but significant improvement in hip
> bone density, and did not significantly reduce hip fracture."
>
> Such a sweeping generalisation is somewhat misleading however. If one
> looks just at the 59 per cent of the participants who actually adhered
> to the supplementation programme (assuming 80 per cent or more
> compliance with taking the supplements), the data do, in fact,
> highlight the benefits of dual vitamin D-calcium supplementation.
>
> The number of fractures in this compliant group was 29 per cent lower
> than placebo. This indicates that supplementation with calcium and
> vitamin D did significantly reduce the risk of hip fracture, as has
> been reported by other studies, but only if taken regularly.
>
> The bone mineral density of the entire intervention group increased by
> 0.86 per cent after six years, and for those followed-up for nine
> years, BMD increased by 1.06 per cent.
>
> The strengths of this study lie in the large-scale, randomised,
> double-blind, placebo-based design. However the authors recognise that
> adherence to an intervention using a free-living population is
> difficult.
>
> Indeed, even though the placebo group was not given the supplements by
> the researchers, they were free to use supplements on their own.
> Sixty-four per cent of the placebo group had a daily calcium intake of
> at least 800 mg from diet and supplements, and 42 per cent were
> consuming at least 400 IU of vitamin D.
>
> This suggests that the intervention and control groups were very
> similar. With both groups consuming calcium and vitamin D, this could
> explain why the incidence of overall fractures was less than envisaged
> - the actual hip fracture rate was more than half that projected by the
> researchers.
>
> "The lower-than-projected hip-fracture rate reduced the power of the
> study to approximately 48 per cent," wrote the research team, led by
> Rebecca Jackson from Ohio State University.
>
> In an accompanying editorial, Joel Finkelstein from the Massachusetts
> General Hospital rightly points out: "There were several aspects of the
> study design and characteristics of the study population that may have
> reduced the chances of detecting a benefit of calcium and vitamin D."
>
> It should be pointed out that many of the women were involved in the
> other arms of the WHI trial, with 69 per cent of the women enrolled on
> the Dietary Modification trial, 54 per cent enrolled on the Hormone
> Therapy trial, and 14 per cent enrolled on both.
>
> "The use of hormone-replacement therapy (HRT) among post-menopausal
> women has declined dramatically [HRT is known to be potent against bone
> resorption and weakening and can reduce bone fracture]. Thus, the
> widespread use of HRT in the current study limits the ability to
> generalise the results," he said.
>
> Another limitation, the dose of vitamin D might have been too small to
> initiate a response for all participants. Other studies have reported
> no effect with 400 IU, but benefits have been reported for trials using
> doses of 600 IU or more.
>
> However, it seems plausible that the dose was not as significant as
> adherence to the program. The data clearly show that women who
> regularly took the vitamins had a 29 per cent reduction in hip
> fractures.
>
> Finkelstein finishes a well-balanced editorial by concluding: "It seems
> reasonable that women consume the recommended daily levels of calcium
> and vitamin D through diet, supplements, or both. But one message is
> clear: calcium with vitamin D supplementation by itself is not enough
> to ensure optimal bone health."
>
> This statement was echoed by Roger Francis, Professor of Geriatric
> Medicine at the university of Newcastle, who told NutraIngredients.com:
> "This study shows that vitamin D and calcium supplementation would not
> work as a public health measure, because vitamin D - calcium trials
> have notoriously poor adherence."
>
> Professor Francis pointed out however that an earlier French study
> (Scand J Rheumatol Suppl. 1996 Vol. 103, pp. 75-78) reported that
> calcium and vitamin D supplements given to elderly women significantly
> reduced the risk of hip fracture. This sample population was much older
> than the WHI population.
>
> The current EU recommended daily intake of calcium is 800 mg, with an
> upper safe limit of 2500 mg. Vitamin D has a RDI of 400 IU, although
> campaigners are calling for an increase to 1000 IU, half the upper safe
> limit recommended by the EU and US.
>
> In the US, the DRI (dietary reference intake) for calcium is 1000mg for
> adults aged 19 to 50, and 1200mg from 51 to 70. For vitamin D it is
> five micrograms per day, rising to 10 after the age of 50.
>
> According to the International Osteoporosis Foundation, the total
> direct cost of osteoporotic fractures is =8031.7 billion ($37.6) in
> Europe, and $17.5 (=8014.7) billion in the US (2002 figure).
>
> =A9 2001/2006 - Decision News Media SAS - All Rights Reserved.

As for the incidence of kidney stones, this wasn't proven to be
associated with calcium supplements. However, there is no evidence that
I've seen demonstrating a need for women (or anyone) to supplement
1,300mg calcium daily. Except in rare cases, we should not supplement
more than 400mg daily, and only then with adequate intake of magnesium
and vitamin D to properly metabolize the calcium. =20

PeterB

Agent_C

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:08:33 -0000, Alf <info@oracle.com> wrote:

>[...] and it found an increased risk of kidney stones....

I find it surprising that this is considered news. My chiropractor
told me this 10 years ago.

A_C

PeterB

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

Agent_C wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:08:33 -0000, Alf <info@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
> I find it surprising that this is considered news. My chiropractor
> told me this 10 years ago.

It's pretty obvious that too much calcium can lead to calcification,
and I'm sure this can happen in people who oversupplement or binge on
dairy. There is no scientific evidence to support anyone consuming
more than 500mg of calcium a day. The Chinese, who don't supplement
appreciably, consume about 300mg of calcium daily and yeet suffer
almost no osteoporosis. I've never seen any good science linking osteo
to calcium deficiency. When the Dairy Association swayed USDA and
others to fall for their "junk science" milk promotion scheme, millions
were suckered. Overconsumption of dairy and calcium supplements is
probably what keeps heart disease rates as high as they are. But the
study noted does demonstrate the benefits of supplementing calcium,
probably in people whose dietary intake was not already adequate.

PeterB

Cubit

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

Some years ago I read that kidney stones are typically made of a combination
of calcium and something else, which I have forgotten. The two substances
had to be in a particular ratio. The article suggested that by having
higher calcium the ratio would be wrong for stone formation.

"Alf" <info@oracle.com> wrote in message
news:11v9jdhmf3cqsc4@corp.supernews.com...
> Calcium supplements may not be the way to healthy bones after all
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/healt...16_bones16.html
>
> The study also found no evidence that the supplements prevented colorectal
> cancer, and it found an increased risk of kidney stones....
>
> And the results from the new study on calcium and vitamin D, like the
others,
> confound popular beliefs and raise questions about public health messages
that
> had been addressed to the entire population....
>
> The new study, she says, shows it can hurt to take the supplements --
> among the women taking them there were five additional cases of
> kidney stones per 10,000 women per year. ...
>
> "This is a public health intervention," Rosen said. "We've been
recommending
> it for everyone but it probably doesn't work in the majority of people or
the
> effect is small. And there is an increase in kidney stones. It is not a
benign
> intervention."...
>
> Two Seattle-area women who fall into the healthy, 50-to-79 category said
> they wanted more information. Barbara Fowler has been taking 1,800
> milligrams of calcium a day for 15 to 20 years and has had bone loss and
> osteoporosis. She also takes two other drugs to help her assimilate the
calcium.
> "I've been told by my doctor that calcium intake has nothing to do
> with kidney stones," Fowler said. She is going to seek more
information....
>
>
>
>

vernon

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

"Alf" <info@oracle.com> wrote in message
news:11v9jdhmf3cqsc4@corp.supernews.com...
> Calcium supplements may not be the way to healthy bones after all
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/healt...16_bones16.html
>
> The study also found no evidence that the supplements prevented colorectal
> cancer, and it found an increased risk of kidney stones....
>
> And the results from the new study on calcium and vitamin D, like the
> others,
> confound popular beliefs and raise questions about public health messages
> that
> had been addressed to the entire population....
>
> The new study, she says, shows it can hurt to take the supplements --
> among the women taking them there were five additional cases of
> kidney stones per 10,000 women per year. ...
>
> "This is a public health intervention," Rosen said. "We've been
> recommending
> it for everyone but it probably doesn't work in the majority of people or
> the
> effect is small. And there is an increase in kidney stones. It is not a
> benign
> intervention."...
>
> Two Seattle-area women who fall into the healthy, 50-to-79 category said
> they wanted more information. Barbara Fowler has been taking 1,800
> milligrams of calcium a day for 15 to 20 years and has had bone loss and
> osteoporosis. She also takes two other drugs to help her assimilate the
> calcium.
> "I've been told by my doctor that calcium intake has nothing to do
> with kidney stones," Fowler said. She is going to seek more
> information....
>

1. Calcium is not a cause of kidney stones.
2. Bone spurs (of calcium) are due to insufficient calcium, not too much.
3. Calcium by itself is not a test. Calcium plus D plus Magnesium plus
Boron. Anyone performing a test would have looked that up and researched
other studies.
4. There is a difference in assimilation into the blood stream for different
people of different forms of calcium.
Calcium carbonate
calcium hydroxyapatite
Coral calcium
Calcium citrate

vernon

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

"Agent_C" <Agent-C-hates-spam@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2gk9v15snc198dkok8aaaov8ru5o6nfp8t@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:08:33 -0000, Alf <info@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
> I find it surprising that this is considered news. My chiropractor
> told me this 10 years ago.
>
> A_C

That's because that is what they thought 15 years ago.

Story Keech

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

"Cubit" wrote:
> Some years ago I read that kidney stones are typically made of a combination
> of calcium and something else, which I have forgotten. The two substances
> had to be in a particular ratio. The article suggested that by having
> higher calcium the ratio would be wrong for stone formation.

Oxylates? Calcium fortified soy milk is probably the worst.
Are kidney stones correlated with appendicitus?

Carole

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

"Alf" <info@oracle.com> wrote in message
news:11v9jdhmf3cqsc4@corp.supernews.com...
> Calcium supplements may not be the way to healthy bones after all
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/healt...16_bones16.html
>
> The study also found no evidence that the supplements prevented colorectal
> cancer, and it found an increased risk of kidney stones....
>
> And the results from the new study on calcium and vitamin D, like the
others,
> confound popular beliefs and raise questions about public health messages
that
> had been addressed to the entire population....
>
> The new study, she says, shows it can hurt to take the supplements --
> among the women taking them there were five additional cases of
> kidney stones per 10,000 women per year. ...

Yes that would be right. Because if a person takes calcium ONLY and not
magnesium, potassium, organic sodium, and other cellsalts, it can lead to an
imbalance, but that doesn't mean they don't need calcium. Rather it means
they need calcium PLUS the other supporting macro minerals or cellsalts.

You would think that conventional medicine would have worked this out a long
time ago.
But they seem intent on keeping people away from nutrients at any cost, and
this is fine from the pharmaceutical viewpoint.

I've been taking massive amounts of calcium for many years and haven't
developed any kidney stones yet to my knowledge and I guess I'd know if I
had them because there'd be symptoms of some sort.
My health is improving in leaps and bounds ... so much for conventional
medicine research with is a load of cods.

This is one of the reasons I wouldn't give any money to medical research
because I don't think they know what the heck they're doing.

Carole
http://www.conspiracee.com
http://www.cellsalts.net

JohnDoe

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

Carole wrote:

> "Alf" <info@oracle.com> wrote in message
> news:11v9jdhmf3cqsc4@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> others,
>
>
> that
>
>
>
> Yes that would be right. Because if a person takes calcium ONLY and not
> magnesium, potassium, organic sodium, and other cellsalts, it can lead to an
> imbalance, but that doesn't mean they don't need calcium. Rather it means
> they need calcium PLUS the other supporting macro minerals or cellsalts.

Yes, they need to buy more from the supplement producers. More, more,
more!! Are you sure you don't have any financial interests in pushing
those wares Carole? Cause you sure sound like you do.

> You would think that conventional medicine would have worked this out a long
> time ago.

Yes, you'd think that, if there were any truth to it.

> But they seem intent on keeping people away from nutrients at any cost, and
> this is fine from the pharmaceutical viewpoint.

You've been told a million times by now, the pharma companies are
happily producing and selling nutrients, and making a profit on them of
course. I think they couldn't care less where their profit comes from.
And, you need supplements everyday of your life, all the time, not only
when you're sick, so the prospects of that market are much better than
that of pharmaceuticals.

> I've been taking massive amounts of calcium for many years and haven't
> developed any kidney stones yet to my knowledge and I guess I'd know if I
> had them because there'd be symptoms of some sort.
> My health is improving in leaps and bounds ... so much for conventional
> medicine research with is a load of cods.

How do you know? Maybe your health would improve at lighting speed with
conventional meds. Could this be the same method by which you just know
what the Codex Alimentarus is all about without actually bothering to
read it?

> This is one of the reasons I wouldn't give any money to medical research
> because I don't think they know what the heck they're doing.
>
> Carole
> http://www.conspiracee.com
> http://www.cellsalts.net

Peter Bowditch

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

"vernon" <here@here.com> wrote:

>4. There is a difference in assimilation into the blood stream for different
>people of different forms of calcium.
>Calcium carbonate
>calcium hydroxyapatite
>Coral calcium

Which is calcium carbonate. Why did you list it twice?

>Calcium citrate
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

vernon

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:tsekv1pv0nhhchjs5amdn34hg66uf63rlu@4ax.com...
> "vernon" <here@here.com> wrote:
>
>
> Which is calcium carbonate. Why did you list it twice?
The junk sold by many, yes.
Plain 'rocks" result in a particular blood level increase per gram.
Coral calcium results in about a five to ten higher blood change per gram.

>
> --
> Peter Bowditch aa #2243
> The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
> Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
> Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
> To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Peter Bowditch

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

"vernon" <here@here.com> wrote:

>
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>news:tsekv1pv0nhhchjs5amdn34hg66uf63rlu@4ax.com...
>The junk sold by many, yes.
>Plain 'rocks" result in a particular blood level increase per gram.
>Coral calcium results in about a five to ten higher blood change per gram.

Nice dodge.

You listed calcium carbonate, not limestone. Coral calcium is calcium carbonate. Do try to
keep up.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

vernon

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:hgskv1lk22d7ka02ll3lg1jdkgos60svnb@4ax.com...
> "vernon" <here@here.com> wrote:
>
>
> Nice dodge.
>
> You listed calcium carbonate, not limestone. Coral calcium is calcium
> carbonate. Do try to
> keep up.
> --

I put down what is listed on bottles.

I'm not into idiotic semantics.
Use the terminology on the bottle. I have dealt with a lot of idiots who
pretend such as you. I fired all of them and very few ever got jobs again
in their field.

You might try to find out what form of calcium carbonate Coral Calcium is
and what else is naturally in it rather than try to be a smart XXX.

Peter Bowditch

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

"vernon" <here@here.com> wrote:

>
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>news:hgskv1lk22d7ka02ll3lg1jdkgos60svnb@4ax.com...
>
>I put down what is listed on bottles.
>
>I'm not into idiotic semantics.

Then why are you trying to split hairs by saying that calcium carbonate and calcium
carbonate are different things because sometimes a different name is used?

>Use the terminology on the bottle. I have dealt with a lot of idiots who
>pretend such as you. I fired all of them and very few ever got jobs again
>in their field.
>
>
>You might try to find out what form of calcium carbonate Coral Calcium is

If it is the skeletons of coral then it is calcium carbonate.

>and what else is naturally in it rather than try to be a smart XXX.
>

What is in calcium carbonate which is not in calcium carbonate? Please tell me. I really
want to know.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Rich

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:vbhlv11oqgfor9g3bvr2flov26cnotaeae@4ax.com...
> "vernon" <here@here.com> wrote:
>
>
> Then why are you trying to split hairs by saying that calcium carbonate
> and calcium
> carbonate are different things because sometimes a different name is used?
>
>
> If it is the skeletons of coral then it is calcium carbonate.
>
>
> What is in calcium carbonate which is not in calcium carbonate? Please
> tell me. I really
> want to know.

Peter, you missed Kevin Trudeau's informercials for Coral Calcium. Had you
the benefit of that enlightenment, you would know that Coral Calcium
contains the precise balance of minerals needed by the body, and thus causes
the residents of some island or other to live nearly forever without
disease. Sheesh. As Vern would say, "Get an education."

;o) Rich

vernon

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:vbhlv11oqgfor9g3bvr2flov26cnotaeae@4ax.com...
> "vernon" <here@here.com> wrote:
>
>
> Then why are you trying to split hairs by saying that calcium carbonate
> and calcium
> carbonate are different things because sometimes a different name is used?
>
>
> If it is the skeletons of coral then it is calcium carbonate.
>
>
> What is in calcium carbonate which is not in calcium carbonate? Please
> tell me. I really
> want to know.
> --

You are WAY too ignorant of the entire subject of alternative OR traditional
heath OR chemistry to have a clue, no matter what is said.
You are very consistent in your ignorance no matter with whom you respond.

You might try "When is salt (sodium chloride) not salt (sodium chloride)
and what is the difference between mined salt (sodium chloride) and sea
salt (sodium chloride) and when is there a difference?"

You might try to find out for your simple little self why coral calcium
(calcium carbonate) is absorbed so much better than oyster shells ( calcium
carbonate)

Peter Bowditch

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

"vernon" <here@here.com> wrote:

>
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>news:vbhlv11oqgfor9g3bvr2flov26cnotaeae@4ax.com...
>
>You are WAY too ignorant of the entire subject of alternative OR traditional
>heath OR chemistry to have a clue, no matter what is said.
>You are very consistent in your ignorance no matter with whom you respond.
>
>You might try "When is salt (sodium chloride) not salt (sodium chloride)
>and what is the difference between mined salt (sodium chloride) and sea
>salt (sodium chloride) and when is there a difference?"
>
>You might try to find out for your simple little self why coral calcium
>(calcium carbonate) is absorbed so much better than oyster shells ( calcium
>carbonate)
>

If you are talking about different things, use different names. If undifferentiated salt
is sodium chloride, as you state above, and "not salt" is sodium chloride, as you state
above, and mined salt is sodium chloride, as you state above, and sea salt is sodium
chloride, as you state above, then what is sodium chloride? They can't all be the same
thing unless they are all the same thing.

If you are talking about different things, use different names. If coral calcium is
calcium carbonate, as you state above, and oyster shells are calcium carbonate, as you
state above, then what is calcium carbonate? they can't be the same thing unless they are
the same thing.

You seem confused. have you thought of asking a chemist what the terms "sodium chloride"
and "calcium carbonate" mean. They are actually quite precise expressions.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

PeterB

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

Peter Bowditch wrote:
> "vernon" <here@here.com> wrote:
>
>
> Then why are you trying to split hairs by saying that calcium carbonate and calcium
> carbonate are different things because sometimes a different name is used?
>
>
> If it is the skeletons of coral then it is calcium carbonate.
>
>
> What is in calcium carbonate which is not in calcium carbonate? Please tell me. I really
> want to know.

Pharmaceutical grade calcium carbonate is not complexed with a variety
of micro minerals (unless formulated to be), and the presence of micro
minerals found naturally in coral are presumed to improve calcium
uptake, but there is no evidence for this (nor is it needed.) This is
similar to the difference between pure sodium chloride (table salt) and
unprocessed (or minimally processed) rock and sea salt. The reason to
prefer sea salt is not to improve uptake of chloride (obviously), but
to introduce additional electrolytes into the diet. Regarding calcium,
all forms absorb about the same, between 30-40%, and the addition of
other micro nutrients in coral calcium aren't going to appreciably
change that. I've seen no science that coral calcium does anything the
drug store brands will not, at 1/10th the cost.

PeterB

vernon

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140531592.878594.156910@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Peter Bowditch wrote:
>
> Pharmaceutical grade calcium carbonate is not complexed with a variety
> of micro minerals (unless formulated to be), and the presence of micro
> minerals found naturally in coral are presumed to improve calcium
> uptake, but there is no evidence for this (nor is it needed.) This is
> similar to the difference between pure sodium chloride (table salt) and
> unprocessed (or minimally processed) rock and sea salt. The reason to
> prefer sea salt is not to improve uptake of chloride (obviously), but
> to introduce additional electrolytes into the diet. Regarding calcium,
> all forms absorb about the same, between 30-40%, and the addition of
> other micro nutrients in coral calcium aren't going to appreciably
> change that. I've seen no science that coral calcium does anything the
> drug store brands will not, at 1/10th the cost.
>
> PeterB
>

You really need to tell that to all the orthopedic doctors who independently
keep track of calcium in the blood while treating. If it works, there is no
need for massive studies.

RE:sea salt, what you say is correct. An additional benefit is that it
takes less sodium to aid the taste buds.

PeterB

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

vernon wrote:
> "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140531592.878594.156910@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> You really need to tell that to all the orthopedic doctors who independently
> keep track of calcium in the blood while treating. If it works, there is no
> need for massive studies.

And we can't imagine why that would be the ca$e, can we Vernon?

> RE:sea salt, what you say is correct. An additional benefit is that it
> takes less sodium to aid the taste buds.

vernon

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140543937.139310.59330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> vernon wrote:
>
> And we can't imagine why that would be the ca$e, can we Vernon?

Not prescription.

Instructions, go to any health food store / vitamin shop get xxx, no brand
name mentioned, just instructions on what to look for.
The typica scenario is "take 1000 to 1500 mg a day split into three doses
and no more than 500 at bed time." tests result in no change (cost) or go
for calcium cittrate, next step Coral calcium , next step hydroapitite.
All cases require magnesium, boron, D.
No Pharms involved.

>
>

PeterB

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

vernon wrote:
> "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140543937.139310.59330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Not prescription.
>
> Instructions, go to any health food store / vitamin shop get xxx, no brand
> name mentioned, just instructions on what to look for.
> The typica scenario is "take 1000 to 1500 mg a day split into three doses
> and no more than 500 at bed time." tests result in no change (cost) or go
> for calcium cittrate, next step Coral calcium , next step hydroapitite.
> All cases require magnesium, boron, D.
> No Pharms involved.

Individual biochemistry allows for some variation in uptake, inversely
affecting serum calcium. But the mechanics of osteoblast formation
using various nutrients (of which calcium is but one), goes far beyond
that (as you seem to acknowledge.) What you read on supplement bottles
is frequently based on a popularized view of nutritional requirements,
not good science. The bioavailability of calcium carbonate from coral
is less than 40%, same as any other form. Don't waste your money.
[vbcol=seagreen]

Doug Freyburger

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

PeterB wrote:
> Peter Bowditch wrote:
>
>

Maybe, maybe not. If the claim is true then it's worth making
a distinction between the mineral from rock sources and the
mineral from animal sources.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>

But that bit is definitely a dodge.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>

A dodge moving into abuse. Interesting.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> Pharmaceutical grade calcium carbonate is not complexed with a variety
> of micro minerals (unless formulated to be), and the presence of micro
> minerals found naturally in coral are presumed to improve calcium
> uptake, but there is no evidence for this (nor is it needed.)

If coral calcium is aborbed better, it doesn't have to be because
of the impurities. For example, it could be more finely powdered.
Finer powder means more surface area means quicker to go into
solution.

> This is
> similar to the difference between pure sodium chloride (table salt) and
> unprocessed (or minimally processed) rock and sea salt. The reason to
> prefer sea salt is not to improve uptake of chloride (obviously), but
> to introduce additional electrolytes into the diet. Regarding calcium,
> all forms absorb about the same, between 30-40%, and the addition of
> other micro nutrients in coral calcium aren't going to appreciably
> change that. I've seen no science that coral calcium does anything the
> drug store brands will not, at 1/10th the cost.

That's the question. Coral calium claims 6 times the uptake.
Are those claims true or false? If true are they because of the
trace minerals or because of something else like my speculation?

vernon

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140549193.150283.62750@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> vernon wrote:
>
> Individual biochemistry allows for some variation in uptake, inversely
> affecting serum calcium. But the mechanics of osteoblast formation
> using various nutrients (of which calcium is but one), goes far beyond
> that (as you seem to acknowledge.) What you read on supplement bottles
> is frequently based on a popularized view of nutritional requirements,
> not good science. The bioavailability of calcium carbonate from coral
> is less than 40%, same as any other form. Don't waste your money.
>

Whatever. I'll go with real experts and I am not destitute and I don't take
calcium separately.
Your little game is cute. Cute doesn't get real results.

vernon

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

"Doug Freyburger" <dfreybur@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140549292.872563.261090@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> PeterB wrote:
>
> Maybe, maybe not. If the claim is true then it's worth making
> a distinction between the mineral from rock sources and the
> mineral from animal sources.
>

The proof is in application. Theory that it doesn't work comes later.

PeterB

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

Doug Freyburger wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> Maybe, maybe not. If the claim is true then it's worth making
> a distinction between the mineral from rock sources and the
> mineral from animal sources.
>
>
> But that bit is definitely a dodge.
>
>
> A dodge moving into abuse. Interesting.
>
>
> If coral calcium is aborbed better, it doesn't have to be because
> of the impurities. For example, it could be more finely powdered.
> Finer powder means more surface area means quicker to go into
> solution.

Micro minerals aren't impurities, however it's important to point out
that some coral calcium has been found to contain lead and aluminum
silicate.

>
> That's the question. Coral calium claims 6 times the uptake.
> Are those claims true or false? If true are they because of the
> trace minerals or because of something else like my speculation?

It's false unless you can figure out a way to get more than 100%
absorption, since carbonate absorbs at about 39%, consequently a 6-fold
increase would put the figure at 234%. The one study performed that
compared absorption of carbonate from coral to pharmaceutical grade
carbonate only evaluated urinary calcium levels -- not cellular uptake
and retention. And it doesn't matter. 39% absorption is more than
enough to calcify yourself into cardiac arrest if you insist on
supplementing at levels recommended by the USDA. Up to 200mg of
supplemental calcium daily is safe and warranted in diet challenged
persons, though food sources are superior.

PeterB

PeterB

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

vernon

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

vernon

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140551791.332465.62120@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> Micro minerals aren't impurities, however it's important to point out
> that some coral calcium has been found to contain lead and aluminum
> silicate.
>
>
> It's false unless you can figure out a way to get more than 100%
> absorption, since carbonate absorbs at about 39%, consequently a 6-fold
> increase would put the figure at 234%. The one study performed that
> compared absorption of carbonate from coral to pharmaceutical grade
> carbonate only evaluated urinary calcium levels -- not cellular uptake
> and retention. And it doesn't matter. 39% absorption is more than
> enough to calcify yourself into cardiac arrest if you insist on
> supplementing at levels recommended by the USDA. Up to 200mg of
> supplemental calcium daily is safe and warranted in diet challenged
> persons.
>
> PeterB

Very true. About one out of five have almost no absorption of vanilla
calcium carbonate. (of course that is often why they have problems. The
most I have heard in those cases is five to one.

No proof has EVER been given for extra calcium intake causing heart
problems. It was common hype about 15 years ago because plaque contains a
lot of calcium. Extra calcium actually HELPED those people. Low Vitamin
D "seems" to be the culprit. The same went for bone spurs attributed to
high calcium when it really was low calcium.

David Wright

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

In article <2HzKf.13507$Ou1.4243@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
Rich <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>news:vbhlv11oqgfor9g3bvr2flov26cnotaeae@4ax.com...
>
>Peter, you missed Kevin Trudeau's informercials for Coral Calcium. Had you
>the benefit of that enlightenment, you would know that Coral Calcium
>contains the precise balance of minerals needed by the body, and thus causes
>the residents of some island or other to live nearly forever without
>disease. Sheesh. As Vern would say, "Get an education."

Unlike your average calcium supplement, Coral Calcium had the
distinction of having too much lead in it to meet health standards in
California.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

Rich

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:29QKf.1893$%m4.120@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <2HzKf.13507$Ou1.4243@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
> Rich <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Unlike your average calcium supplement, Coral Calcium had the
> distinction of having too much lead in it to meet health standards in
> California.
>

Sure, lead is a mineral too!

;o) Rich

vernon

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

PeterB

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

vernon wrote:
> "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140549193.150283.62750@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Whatever. I'll go with real experts and I am not destitute and I don't take
> calcium separately.
> Your little game is cute. Cute doesn't get real results.

It's ok to disagree, maybe I'm wrong. If you benefit from taking coral
calcium, I'm all for it. But many people are calcifying themselves to
death, and that's not a good thing.

PeterB

vernon

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140623358.704300.177770@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> vernon wrote:
>
> It's ok to disagree, maybe I'm wrong. If you benefit from taking coral
> calcium, I'm all for it. But many people are calcifying themselves to
> death, and that's not a good thing.
>
> PeterB

There are NO cases of people calcifying themselves to death as a result of
ingesting calcium in any form. Take your bigotry to Nazis are us (no I am
not implying that you are socialist just that you love being a bigot.

There is NO study of actual people where any negativity can be attributed to
calcium intake.

I don't take extra calcium. I get plenty in my diet and my bone and muscle
mass are great.

PeterB

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

vernon wrote:
> "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140623358.704300.177770@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> There are NO cases of people calcifying themselves to death as a result of
> ingesting calcium in any form. Take your bigotry to Nazis are us (no I am
> not implying that you are socialist just that you love being a bigot.

Are you having a fit?

> There is NO study of actual people where any negativity can be attributed to
> calcium intake.

Sure there is. Women consuming the greatest amounts of calcium from
dairy foods suffered significantly increased risks of hip fractures in
a study reported in the American Journal of Public Health, 1997). We
certainly have good clinical evidence on the ill effects of
hypercalcemia which, in those so predisposed, could well be
exaccerbated by supplemental calcium. Hypercalcemia also points to the
organs and tissues that are damaged by excess calcium. Large
population studies have shown higher rates of heart disease in
populations consuming the most dairy. We already know that an
antagonist relationship exists between calcium and magnesium (and many
other nutrients), which means supplemention can lead to imbalance and
lead to deficiencies that are not dietary. Read Optimal Nutrition for
Optimal Health, by Thomas E. Levy, MD, JD.

> I don't take extra calcium. I get plenty in my diet and my bone and muscle
> mass are great.

vernon

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140642203.026133.41130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> vernon wrote:
>
> Are you having a fit?
>
>
> Sure there is. Women consuming the greatest amounts of calcium from
> dairy foods suffered significantly increased risks of hip fractures in
> a study reported in the American Journal of Public Health, 1997). We
> certainly have good clinical evidence on the ill effects of
> hypercalcemia which, in those so predisposed, could well be
> exaccerbated by supplemental calcium. Hypercalcemia also points to the
> organs and tissues that are damaged by excess calcium. Large
> population studies have shown higher rates of heart disease in
> populations consuming the most dairy. We already know that an
> antagonist relationship exists between calcium and magnesium (and many
> other nutrients), which means supplemention can lead to imbalance and
> lead to deficiencies that are not dietary. Read Optimal Nutrition for
> Optimal Health, by Thomas E. Levy, MD, JD.
>
>

Chuck the hype and one time junk.
Forget anything as old as 1997.
They thought fat intake was bad for you.
Excess milk is not excess calcium
Magnesium is REQUIRED with calcium.
There is NO study of actual people where any negativity can be attributed to
calcium intake.

And don't bother showing stupidity that calcium intake increases kidney
stone, spurs, or plaque. That was disproved long ago. Amateurs hang on.

Mike

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

I have found certain medications you could be taking for another problem
could cause kidney stones. I had all kinds of problems taking statins
(cholesterol drugs) It was about 12 years since my last stone after getting
off the statins strangely enough I had multiple stones. I had back surgery 3
years before and was taking large doses of calcium and nothing came out of
it. Also I have essential tremors and the doctor asked me if I had kidney
stones before? I told him yes this was a week after I had the multiple
stones removed. he was going to prescribe me yet another medication which
somehow was linked to kidney stones. So who really knows?

--
Visit my blog at:
http://360.yahoo.com/mikef1234
"Carole" <hubbca2003@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:43f9c4c8$0$30761$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Alf" <info@oracle.com> wrote in message
> news:11v9jdhmf3cqsc4@corp.supernews.com...
> others,
> that
>
> Yes that would be right. Because if a person takes calcium ONLY and not
> magnesium, potassium, organic sodium, and other cellsalts, it can lead to
> an
> imbalance, but that doesn't mean they don't need calcium. Rather it means
> they need calcium PLUS the other supporting macro minerals or cellsalts.
>
> You would think that conventional medicine would have worked this out a
> long
> time ago.
> But they seem intent on keeping people away from nutrients at any cost,
> and
> this is fine from the pharmaceutical viewpoint.
>
> I've been taking massive amounts of calcium for many years and haven't
> developed any kidney stones yet to my knowledge and I guess I'd know if I
> had them because there'd be symptoms of some sort.
> My health is improving in leaps and bounds ... so much for conventional
> medicine research with is a load of cods.
>
> This is one of the reasons I wouldn't give any money to medical research
> because I don't think they know what the heck they're doing.
>
> Carole
> http://www.conspiracee.com
> http://www.cellsalts.net
>
>
>
>
>

PeterB

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

vernon wrote:
> "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140642203.026133.41130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chuck the hype and one time junk.
> Forget anything as old as 1997.
> They thought fat intake was bad for you.
> Excess milk is not excess calcium
> Magnesium is REQUIRED with calcium.
> There is NO study of actual people where any negativity can be attributed to
> calcium intake.
>
> And don't bother showing stupidity that calcium intake increases kidney
> stone, spurs, or plaque. That was disproved long ago. Amateurs hang on.

Are you ok? First, all science and data are just evidence. Sometimes
the quality of that evidence is good, sometimes it is poor. Good
science can't be stale dated. Unless technology is a determining
factor, the year of publication is meaningless. The fact calcium
supplementation doesn't actually lower the rate of osteoporosis is
telling you what you need to know.

PeterB

PeterB

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

PeterB wrote:
> vernon wrote:
>
> Are you ok? First, all science and data are just evidence. Sometimes
> the quality of that evidence is good, sometimes it is poor. Good
> science can't be stale dated. Unless technology is a determining
> factor, the year of publication is meaningless. The fact calcium
> supplementation doesn't actually lower the rate of osteoporosis is
> telling you what you need to know.
>
> PeterB

Correcting the last statement above: "Calcium supplementation *alone*
does not actually lower the rate of osteoporosis, as other nutrient
syngerists are required. Large intake of calcium will not effectively
treat bone loss without supplemental vitamin D, for example. Magnesium
levels can be depressed in those taking large amounts of calcium, which
may limit utilization of calcium. [Journal of the American Geriatrics
Society (2005;53:1875-80.)] Boron deficiency also negatively impacts
calcium status. Obviously, estrogen levels in perimenopausal and
postmenopausal women impacts calcium status.

PeterB

nobody@junk.min.net

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

In <USjLf.59828$PL5.49351@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, on 02/23/06
at 02:44 PM, "Mike" <mikef1234@ameritech.net> said:

>I have found certain medications you could be taking for another problem
>could cause kidney stones. I had all kinds of problems taking statins
>(cholesterol drugs) It was about 12 years since my last stone after
>getting off the statins strangely enough I had multiple stones. I had
>back surgery 3 years before and was taking large doses of calcium and
>nothing came out of it. Also I have essential tremors and the doctor
>asked me if I had kidney stones before? I told him yes this was a week
>after I had the multiple stones removed. he was going to prescribe me
>yet another medication which somehow was linked to kidney stones. So who
>really knows?

Topamax, which is used for nerve pain as well as seizure control, can
cause kidney stones as a side effect.

Alan

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------
** Please use address alanh77[at]comcast.net to reply via e-mail. **

Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564 and eComStation 1.21

BBS - The Nerve Center Telnet FidoNet 261/1000 tncbbs.no-ip.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

REP

2006-02-25, 9:56 pm

In article <43fe46f7$3$nynaurff$mr2ice@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
nobody@junk.min.net wrote:

> In <USjLf.59828$PL5.49351@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, on 02/23/06
> at 02:44 PM, "Mike" <mikef1234@ameritech.net> said:
>
>
> Topamax, which is used for nerve pain as well as seizure control, can
> cause kidney stones as a side effect.

Oddly enough, my stone production rate has remained the same since
starting Topamax two years ago. I've been in the stone-making business
for nearly 20 years, producing fine wheddellite, whewellite and apatite
specimens in a highly acidic environment!

--
"Did Father shoot him? I will eat Grandfather for dinner."
- Helen Keller, on learning of the death of her grandfather

Carole

2006-02-26, 1:04 am

"JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
news:43f9cb2e$0$2031$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
> Carole wrote:
>
colorectal[vbcol=seagreen]
messages[vbcol=seagreen]
to an[vbcol=seagreen]
means[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Yes, they need to buy more from the supplement producers. More, more,
> more!! Are you sure you don't have any financial interests in pushing
> those wares Carole? Cause you sure sound like you do.

Have you heard that iodine deficiency is becoming epidemic in western
society?
Do you know that most people are calcium deficient?
I am a user of supplements and that is it.

>
long[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Yes, you'd think that, if there were any truth to it.

There are scientific studies to show how nutrient deficiencies can have
adverse effects.
Just get out a book on nutrition.

>
and[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> You've been told a million times by now, the pharma companies are
> happily producing and selling nutrients, and making a profit on them of
> course. I think they couldn't care less where their profit comes from.
> And, you need supplements everyday of your life, all the time, not only
> when you're sick, so the prospects of that market are much better than
> that of pharmaceuticals.

And you need food everyday even if it is white devitalised bread, and lots
of soft drink with white sugar in it.

>
I[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> How do you know? Maybe your health would improve at lighting speed with
> conventional meds. Could this be the same method by which you just know
> what the Codex Alimentarus is all about without actually bothering to
> read it?

No way will I take "conventional meds" or depart from the nutritional
approach to health and wellbeing in favour of expensive designer drugs that
treat and suppress symptoms, rather than cure.

You know all those incurable diseases like asthma, diabetes, cancer and so
on? How cures are always "just around the corner" despite all the big bucks
spent on research? Guess what, they will always remain "around the corner"
because the pharmaceutical business with disease is one of the biggest
rackets on this planet, and the returning patient is their bread and butter.

Carole
http://www.conspiracee.com
http://www.cellsalts.net

Carole

2006-02-26, 1:04 am

"Mike" <mikef1234@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:USjLf.59828$PL5.49351@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> I have found certain medications you could be taking for another problem
> could cause kidney stones. I had all kinds of problems taking statins
> (cholesterol drugs) It was about 12 years since my last stone after
getting
> off the statins strangely enough I had multiple stones. I had back surgery
3
> years before and was taking large doses of calcium and nothing came out of
> it. Also I have essential tremors and the doctor asked me if I had kidney
> stones before? I told him yes this was a week after I had the multiple
> stones removed. he was going to prescribe me yet another medication which
> somehow was linked to kidney stones. So who really knows?

I've never had kidney stones. The only really bad illness I've ever had was
appendicitis.
That was when I decided I'd better start learning about looking after my
health and I got onto the cellsalts.
Been on them ever since.

Carole
http://www.conspiracee.com
http://www.cellsalts.net

Achilles

2006-02-26, 1:04 am

"Carole" <hubbca2003@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:440140f6$0$30886$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

> http://www.conspiracee.com

- does this website come
with the obligitory tin-foil hat ? ? ? ? ?

ACHILLES

Rich

2006-02-26, 10:59 am

"Carole" <hubbca2003@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:44014048$0$30906$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
> news:43f9cb2e$0$2031$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
> colorectal
> messages
> to an
> means
>
> Have you heard that iodine deficiency is becoming epidemic in western
> society?
> Do you know that most people are calcium deficient?
> I am a user of supplements and that is it.
>
> long
>
> There are scientific studies to show how nutrient deficiencies can have
> adverse effects.
> Just get out a book on nutrition.
>
> and
>
> And you need food everyday even if it is white devitalised bread, and lots
> of soft drink with white sugar in it.

Soft drinks, alas, are no longer sweetened with white sugar. They all now
contain "high fructose corn syrup," and don't taste nearly as good as the
sugar-sweetened drinks of my youth.

>
> I
>
> No way will I take "conventional meds" or depart from the nutritional
> approach to health and wellbeing in favour of expensive designer drugs
> that
> treat and suppress symptoms, rather than cure.
>
> You know all those incurable diseases like asthma, diabetes, cancer and so
> on?

When you get one of them, you are probably not going to live long if you
stick to your policy of never taking "conventional meds."

> How cures are always "just around the corner" despite all the big bucks
> spent on research? Guess what, they will always remain "around the corner"
> because the pharmaceutical business with disease is one of the biggest
> rackets on this planet, and the returning patient is their bread and
> butter.

--

--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

Rich

2006-02-26, 10:59 am

"Carole" <hubbca2003@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:440140f6$0$30886$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Mike" <mikef1234@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:USjLf.59828$PL5.49351@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> getting
> 3
>
>
> I've never had kidney stones. The only really bad illness I've ever had
> was
> appendicitis.

Did you refuse the services of the evil "slash and burn" surgeon? Did you
eschew "conventional meds" in the form of antibiotics and turn to
alternative products instead? Obviously not, because you are still alive.

> That was when I decided I'd better start learning about looking after my
> health and I got onto the cellsalts.
> Been on them ever since.

Right. Conventional medicine saved your life, so you embarked on a career of
bad-mouthing them.
--

--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

JohnDoe

2006-02-27, 11:02 am

Carole wrote:

> "JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
> news:43f9cb2e$0$2031$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
>
>
> colorectal
>
>
> messages
>
>
> to an
>
>
> means
>
>
>
> Have you heard that iodine deficiency is becoming epidemic in western
> society?

Yes, I heard that from people like you. I haven't seen any evidence of
it though. When I buy tablesalt I still see they're putting iodine it,
so where would it come from?

> Do you know that most people are calcium deficient?

No, I don't, because most people aren't.

> I am a user of supplements and that is it.

No, you're a plant from the Illuminati spreading disinformation. They
are trying to make the people who uncover their ploys for world
domination so silly that nobody will believe them. That's where you come in.

>
>
> There are scientific studies to show how nutrient deficiencies can have
> adverse effects.

Yes, they're called deficiency diseases. The claim that all disease is
nutrient related or can be cured by supplements is bull.

> Just get out a book on nutrition.

A book? Can you get books on the subject? I thought all that info was
suppressed. Not very effectively those Illuminati.

>
> And you need food everyday even if it is white devitalised bread, and lots
> of soft drink with white sugar in it.

See, there is that disinformation from you. Carole, you've just proven
your a disinformation agent, case closed.
White suger, my *ss.

>
> I had them because there'd be symptoms of some sort.
>
> No way will I take "conventional meds" or depart from the nutritional
> approach to health and wellbeing in favour of expensive designer drugs that
> treat and suppress symptoms, rather than cure.

So you have no experience with conventional meds, no knowledge about
them yet you are sure they don't work. Yup, same attitude as with the
Codex. You don't no dick about it yet you act as though you have an
informed opinion.

> You know all those incurable diseases like asthma, diabetes, cancer and so
> on? How cures are always "just around the corner" despite all the big bucks
> spent on research? Guess what, they will always remain "around the corner"
> because the pharmaceutical business with disease is one of the biggest
> rackets on this planet, and the returning patient is their bread and butter.

People swallowing supplements day in day out is a much better racket
than the occasional sale of anti-biotics. Vaccines are even worse for
business, take 'em once and you never get the disease so you'll never
have to buy any meds. Much better for business to convinve people
vaccines don't work and they need supplements every day as long as they
live.

> Carole
> http://www.conspiracee.com
> http://www.cellsalts.net

Achilles

2006-02-27, 11:02 am

"JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
news:4402fca7$0$2029$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...

< major snip >

No, you're a plant from the Illuminati spreading disinformation. They
> are trying to make the people who uncover their ploys for world
> domination so silly that nobody will believe them. That's where you come
in.

John , this Carole chick sees conspiracies in her sleep .
If she would put on the foil hat she might get some relief
from all the noise in her noggin .

....Carole , please click on the link below and find the
answer you have been looking for .

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

ACHILLES

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

Mark Probert

2006-02-27, 11:02 am

Achilles wrote:
> "JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
> news:4402fca7$0$2029$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
>
> < major snip >
>
>
> No, you're a plant from the Illuminati spreading disinformation. They
> in.
>
> John , this Carole chick sees conspiracies in her sleep .
> If she would put on the foil hat she might get some relief
> from all the noise in her noggin .
>
> ...Carole , please click on the link below and find the
> answer you have been looking for .
>
> http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
>
>
> ACHILLES
>
>
>
> http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
>
>
Nope.

A (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) study by graduate students at MIT
determined that a tin-foil hat either *amplified*, or attenuated,
incoming radiation between 1.2 and 2.6 GHz by as much as 20 dB,
depending on frequency [1]; the effect was observed to be roughly
independent of the relative placement of the wearer and radiation source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinfoil_hat

vernon

2006-02-27, 5:59 pm

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:FqFMf.239$s25.75@fe12.lga...
> Achilles wrote:
> Nope.
>
> A (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) study by graduate students at MIT determined
> that a tin-foil hat either *amplified*, or attenuated, incoming radiation
> between 1.2 and 2.6 GHz by as much as 20 dB, depending on frequency [1];
> the effect was observed to be roughly independent of the relative
> placement of the wearer and radiation source.
>
>

And the finding were fact. What to do with the findings is another study.

Carole

2006-03-03, 10:59 am

"vernon" <here@here.com> wrote in message
news:43fb1af8$0$2955$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
> news:vbhlv11oqgfor9g3bvr2flov26cnotaeae@4ax.com...
used?[vbcol=seagreen]
who[vbcol=seagreen]
again[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> You are WAY too ignorant of the entire subject of alternative OR
traditional
> heath OR chemistry to have a clue, no matter what is said.
> You are very consistent in your ignorance no matter with whom you respond.
>
> You might try "When is salt (sodium chloride) not salt (sodium chloride)
> and what is the difference between mined salt (sodium chloride) and sea
> salt (sodium chloride) and when is there a difference?"

What do you know about sodium chloride?
From my experience common table salt doesn't work as a cellsalts DESPITE the
fact that nat mur is homeopathic sodium chloride which DOES work as a
cellsalts. Therefore table salt must be inorganic or somehow not assimilable
by the human body.

The other essential cellsalts that people need are sodium phosphate and
sodium sulphate which wouldn't be provided by table salt either since it is
sodium chloride.

Yet dieticians say we don't need any more sodium because we get so much in
our diets. So I therefore conclude that dieticians don't know what the heck
they are talking about when it comes to sodium.

>
> You might try to find out for your simple little self why coral calcium
> (calcium carbonate) is absorbed so much better than oyster shells (
calcium
> carbonate)

Oyster shell calcium is rather yucky tasting with a funny smell. I take
calcium carbonate and think it is the most concentrated form of calcium that
I've found - only two tablets = 1 gram of elemental calcium. Whereas with
calcium gluconate I used to take 16 to get a gram.

Carole
http://www.conspiracee.com
http://www.cellsalts.net

>
>

JohnDoe

2006-03-03, 10:59 am

Carole wrote:
> "vernon" <here@here.com> wrote in message
> news:43fb1af8$0$2955$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
>
> used?
>
>
> who
>
>
> again
>
>
> is
>
>
>
> What do you know about sodium chloride?
> From my experience common table salt doesn't work as a cellsalts DESPITE the
> fact that nat mur is homeopathic sodium chloride which DOES work as a
> cellsalts. Therefore table salt must be inorganic or somehow not assimilable
> by the human body.

Teehee! Check this out, and I quote: "Thereofor table salt must be
inorganic...".
It doesn't get much better than this folks!!! Glad I wasn't drinking
anything when I read this or I would have had to clean my keyboard and
monitor. And notice this happens in a post where Vernon and Carole are
accusing eachother of being clueless! Priceless is the word!

> The other essential cellsalts that people need are sodium phosphate and
> sodium sulphate which wouldn't be provided by table salt either since it is
> sodium chloride.
>
> Yet dieticians say we don't need any more sodium because we get so much in
> our diets. So I therefore conclude that dieticians don't know what the heck
> they are talking about when it comes to sodium.
>
>
>
>
> Oyster shell calcium is rather yucky tasting with a funny smell. I take
> calcium carbonate and think it is the most concentrated form of calcium that
> I've found - only two tablets = 1 gram of elemental calcium. Whereas with
> calcium gluconate I used to take 16 to get a gram.
>
> Carole
> http://www.conspiracee.com
> http://www.cellsalts.net

Carole

2006-03-03, 10:59 am

"vernon" <here@here.com> wrote in message
news:43fcac47$0$16253$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>

>
> There are NO cases of people calcifying themselves to death as a result of
> ingesting calcium in any form. Take your bigotry to Nazis are us (no I am
> not implying that you are socialist just that you love being a bigot.
>
> There is NO study of actual people where any negativity can be attributed
to
> calcium intake.
>
> I don't take extra calcium. I get plenty in my diet and my bone and
muscle
> mass are great.
>
>
I take calcium separately in the form of calcium carbonate and it works
great.
One of the reasons calcium doesn't always work well is if people have acid
blood or acidosis, and somehow calcium falls out of solution of the blood
become too acid.
I know there are people here in this ng who say that the blood NEVER gets
acid, that if the pH balance changes by 1 degree a person goes into some
sort of state.

However, there is something about acidity that affects the system. There are
foods that produce an acid residue in the blood and those that produce an
alkaline effect in the blood, and there is such a concept as acidosis.

THE CAUSE OF DEGENERATIVE DISEASE
http://www.euroamericanhealth.com/cause.html
All degenerative disease begins as a relatively acid condition in the
tissues of the body. These tissues become oxidized, diseased and old.

http://www.euroamericanhealth.com/latent.html
Since the internal environment or internal milieu those cells grew up in was
the cause of those particular cells becoming acid, toxic or polluted then,
correcting this cause, the sick internal milieu, can allow the cells to get
better. We do not attack the result (the disease), we attack the causes.

Carole
http://www.cellsalts.net
http://www.conspiracee.com

cathyb

2006-03-03, 10:59 am

Carole wrote:

> "vernon" <here@here.com> wrote in message
> news:43fb1af8$0$2955$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> used?
> who
> again
> is
> traditional
>
> What do you know about sodium chloride?
> From my experience common table salt doesn't work as a cellsalts DESPITE the
> fact that nat mur is homeopathic sodium chloride which DOES work as a
> cellsalts. Therefore table salt must be inorganic or somehow not assimilable
> by the human body.

"Therefore table salt must be inorganic or somehow not assimilable by
the human body."

Carole, you're a doll. I don't think, apart from some of the best by
PeterB, I've ever seen such a stupid statement that isn't one of your
outright lizard fantasies.

Perhaps you should go back to school. You might be surprised to find
just how many inorganic compounds you can, and indeed need to,
assimilate. You may also be surprised to find that sodium chloride is
sodium chloride, regardless of its source.

Oh, except for a homeopathic source, of course, when it's just water

"Therefore table salt must be inorganic"! Splooooooorf!, Really,
Carole? Tell me it's not true!!

>
> The other essential cellsalts that people need are sodium phosphate and
> sodium sulphate which wouldn't be provided by table salt either since it is
> sodium chloride.

Gosh, really?!
Say, Carole. Are you aware that both sodium phosphate and sodium
sulphate are, er, inorganic compounds?

According to your words above, that means they can't possibly work as
cellsalts! You better get on to your supplier straight away, and let
them know about their egregrious error.

Alternatively, you could actually get yourself an education; lots of
older people do it these days. The shame isn't coming to learning late
(I've a hankering to do a history degree when the kids have moved on);
it's refusing to learn and nonetheless blethering on about subjects
upon which you've demonstrated you're not even remotely qualified to
express an opinion.

>
> Yet dieticians say we don't need any more sodium because we get so much in
> our diets. So I therefore conclude that dieticians don't know what the heck
> they are talking about when it comes to sodium.
>
> calcium
>
> Oyster shell calcium is rather yucky tasting with a funny smell. I take
> calcium carbonate

Another inorganic compound

[vbcol=seagreen]
>and think it is the most concentrated form of calcium that
> I've found - only two tablets = 1 gram of elemental calcium. Whereas with
> calcium gluconate I used to take 16 to get a gram.
>
> Carole
> http://www.conspiracee.com
> http://www.cellsalts.net
>
>

Carole

2006-03-03, 10:59 am

"Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:YAiMf.1486$8l2.335@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>

so[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> When you get one of them, you are probably not going to live long if you
> stick to your policy of never taking "conventional meds."

Excuse me? I used to get asthma and house dust allergies quite regularly.
After starting on the cellsalts it took about 5 years before I stopped
getting asthma attacks. They gradually diminished in intensity and became
less frequent and finally disappeared.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
corner"[vbcol=seagreen]

Carole
http://www.conspiracee.com
http://www.cellsalts.net

JohnDoe

2006-03-03, 10:59 am

Carole wrote:

> "vernon" <here@here.com> wrote in message
> news:43fcac47$0$16253$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
>
> to
>
>
> I take calcium separately in the form of calcium carbonate and it works
> great.
> One of the reasons calcium doesn't always work well is if people have acid
> blood or acidosis, and somehow calcium falls out of solution of the blood
> become too acid.

YES! It does get better. "calcium falls out of solution...." Even
gravity is after you! Remember, it ain't paranoia if they're really
after you.

> I know there are people here in this ng who say that the blood NEVER gets
> acid, that if the pH balance changes by 1 degree a person goes into some
> sort of state.

I think that sort of state is called death Carole.
And "changes by one degree"?? What is that all about? One degree
latitude? One degree Kelvin? One degree from a diploma mill?

> However, there is something about acidity that affects the system. There are
> foods that produce an acid residue in the blood and those that produce an
> alkaline effect in the blood, and there is such a concept as acidosis.

Do look up acidosis in an encyclopedia. Oh, I forgot, the Illuminati are
controlling those, so never mind.

> THE CAUSE OF DEGENERATIVE DISEASE
> http://www.euroamericanhealth.com/cause.html
> All degenerative disease begins as a relatively acid condition in the
> tissues of the body. These tissues become oxidized, diseased and old.
>
> http://www.euroamericanhealth.com/latent.html
> Since the internal environment or internal milieu those cells grew up in was
> the cause of those particular cells becoming acid, toxic or polluted then,
> correcting this cause, the sick internal milieu, can allow the cells to get
> better. We do not attack the result (the disease), we attack the causes.
>
> Carole
> http://www.cellsalts.net
> http://www.conspiracee.com
>
>

cathyb

2006-03-03, 10:59 am

Carole wrote:
> "Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:YAiMf.1486$8l2.335@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>
>
> so
>
> Excuse me? I used to get asthma and house dust allergies quite regularly.
> After starting on the cellsalts it took about 5 years before I stopped
> getting asthma attacks. They gradually diminished in intensity and became
> less frequent and finally disappeared.

Gosh, me too, as a child. Salbutamol stopped each attack instantly, and
I mostly grew out of it, as many kids do. And as you appear to have.

Prior to that (I wasn't diagnosed 'til I was about ten), I spent a few
weeks of every year lying on a couch, wheezing. Salbutamol (Ventolin)
was a revelation that changed my life.

>
> corner"
>
> Carole
> http://www.conspiracee.com
> http://www.cellsalts.net

cathyb

2006-03-03, 10:59 am

JohnDoe wrote:
> Carole wrote:
>
> Teehee! Check this out, and I quote: "Thereofor table salt must be
> inorganic...".
> It doesn't get much better than this folks!!! Glad I wasn't drinking
> anything when I read this or I would have had to clean my keyboard and
> monitor. And notice this happens in a post where Vernon and Carole are
> accusing eachother of being clueless! Priceless is the word!

Oh, you spotted it too. I half-expect Carole to do a Vernon and start
wittering on about how "inorganic" is a scale, just like "acidic", and
if something's inorganic, it's still a liitle bit organic, just like
Big Vern said if something's acidic, it can still be alkaline.

But then I remember she clearly doesn't understand the word inorganic
anyway, and wouldn't know where to start.

Cathy
[vbcol=seagreen]
>

vernon

2006-03-03, 10:59 am

"Carole" <hubbca2003@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:44083f3f$0$21849$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:YAiMf.1486$8l2.335@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>
>
> so
>
> Excuse me? I used to get asthma and house dust allergies quite regularly.
> After starting on the cellsalts it took about 5 years before I stopped
> getting asthma attacks. They gradually diminished in intensity and became
> less frequent and finally disappeared.
>

I'm not sure about the cure, but you point out a MAJOR thought. Many
"cures" require you body to re-do certain composites.
A sort of disassociated equivalence. It takes eight years before a broken
bone is totally healed and your body doesn't treat it any more.
There are very few magic bullets.