Gut flora

On 10/1/10 6:37 AM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 9:48 PM, carole wrote:




WHO FOOD ADDITIVES SERIES NO. 5
http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm

This reference says that silicon has no known physiological function.

The Importance of Silicon
http://www.ultimatesg.com/22mayjarrowsilicon.html
"Silicon is a trace mineral required for the formation of healthy
connective tissue, bone, skin, hair and nails. Silicon is essential for
collagen formation, healthy arteries and regulates calcium deposition in
bones.* BioSil's active silicon is an essential partner of calcium for
bones, glucosamine for joints

Absorption is Key. Dietary sources of silicon such as those found in
food, horsetail and colloidal gel (silica) products are very poorly
absorbed because of their insoluble, polymerized forms. For absorption
to occur, dietary silicon must be first converted to Orthosilicic Acid
(monomeric silicic acid), the bioavailable form found in BioSil™.

Why is BioSil™ Different? BioSil™ (Si[OH]4) is 20,000 times more soluble
than silica(SiO2 — found in horsetail and colloidal gels) and 2.5 times
more bioavailable than other forms of silicon!

The superiority of silicon as concentrated, choline-stabilized
orthosilicic acid from BioSil™ has been proven in a peer reviewed
scientific study comparing three different forms of
silicon. The results of the comparative, cross-over, double-blind
clinical trial demonstrated that the stabilized monomeric form of
silicon (stabilized orthosilicic acid – as found in BioSil™) is far
superior to colloidal silica and horsetail extract. In fact, of the
three experimental groups, only BioSil™ offered a bioavailable source of
silicon; the other forms of silicon (horsetail and colloidal gel) were
no better than placebo1.

Scientific References
1. Arch Dermatol Res. 2005 Oct;297(4):147-53. Epub 2005 Oct 26. Effect
of oral intake of choline-stabilized orthosilicic acid on skin, nails
and hair in women with photodamaged skin. Barel A et al.

2. Calcif Tissue Int. 2006 Apr;78(4):227-32. Epub 2006 Apr 13. Partial
prevention of long-term femoral bone loss in aged ovariectomized rats
supplemented with choline-stabilized orthosilicic acid. Calomme M et al."

This is from the sellers of silicon. The so-called scientific references
were for either two small groups or rats. The one with small groups found
a small decrease in the roughness of skin. So this is the best you can do.
How sad.

Jeff

Well this is an improvement.
Dr Jeff goes from the stand that silica isn't necesary, to now saying the
study is inadequate.

No, I never said that. Silica isn't necessary and there are no good
studies or any good evidence that shows that it is necessary.

There are plenty of sources that say silica is an essential mineral.

But when you remove all the ones that are poor sources of information or
people who have a vested interest in selling silica, you have no
evidence that silica is an essential mineral.

Just because your dumbed-down education didn't teach you about nutrition no
need to get all testy and defensive.

Gee, I am not getting testy or defensive. The fact is that there is no
good evidence that silica is necessary or even helpful for health.
People with vested interests in selling silica are not good sources of
information.

If I was to rely on allopathic medicine I too wouldn't have learnt about the
importance of silica.

That is actually a really good reason to rely on allopathic medicine.
Everything in allopathic medicine has been backed by science and
evidence. This is not true for conjecture-based (con-med or alternative
medicine).

Jeff

"dr_jeff" wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 10:26 PM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 7:51 PM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 6:50 PM, carole wrote:
"Bob wrote in message

...


Really? The pharmaceutical industry does not determine which journal
articles are published. Further, with the internet, they can't
surpress
anything.

don't kid yourself, the mass media, the medical journals, and school
textbooks are tightly controlled.

The conspiracy theory rears its ugly head.

Rather, modern medicine and science require that hypotheses and
theories
be supported with evidence.

And for that very reason, they derail alternative therapies on cooked
up
reasons before they get the chance to do any studies.

There's NCCAM - National Center for Complementary and Alternative
Medicine, part of the National Institutes of Medicine. Though they spent
about $1 billion in research on conjecture-based medicine (alternative
medicine), they have yet to find any evidence that any alternative
medicine works better than placebo.

Apparently the NCCAM is in charge of the NCCAM, which is like putting the
fox in charge of the chicken coup.
There is no independence.

That there is no independence can be said of your thoughts. This is
directly from an advertisement for a book that is very out of date. OAM
hasn't existed for 11 years.

The reason why research on alternative therapies are derailed is that
there is no scientific reason to believe that they work and no evidence
to
support them.

Don't you know how old man rockefeller gave massive donations to medical
schools in exchange for them teaching pharmaceutical medicine?


You know about the four humours? That is what today's allopathic
medicine
will look like in 100 years.

There is a great book called, "Doctors" by Sherwin Nuland. He talks
about
the origins of the four humours.

The four humours are a classic example of ignorance of how the body
works.
That you support this ancient and disproven idea says volumes about
your
inability to understand science and medicine.

Go back and read for comprehension dr jeff.

I have. I suggest you do the same. The conjecture of the humours (I say
conjecture, because there is no evidence for them) is utter rubbish. It
may have made sense based on what was known about the body in the 1500s,
but based on what we know now, it is rubbish.

As I said, in 100 years your allopathic medicine will look as stupid as
the
four humours looks now.

Gee, I hope so. The reason why is medicine and science continue to learn
and evolve. While chemotherapy and other cancer therapy saves thousands of
lives every year, including over half of all people who get cancer, I hope
that it will look primative as the four humors does now in 100 years.

Medicine and science continue to learn yet they still can't find the cures
to so many chronic diseases.
Even when alternative methods cure things that allopathy can't they can't
even acknowledge it despite the fact "they don't know everything".


Enough said. You're ideas are not worth my time.

You obviously can't handle the truth.
Last thing we need in mha is another pharmaceutical stooge.

No, what you have is someone who can think independently.

Who, me?

--
carole
www.conspiracee.com
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the
argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806)

On 10/1/10 6:44 AM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 10:26 PM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 7:51 PM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 6:50 PM, carole wrote:
"Bob wrote in message

...


Really? The pharmaceutical industry does not determine which journal
articles are published. Further, with the internet, they can't
surpress
anything.

don't kid yourself, the mass media, the medical journals, and school
textbooks are tightly controlled.

The conspiracy theory rears its ugly head.

Rather, modern medicine and science require that hypotheses and
theories
be supported with evidence.

And for that very reason, they derail alternative therapies on cooked
up
reasons before they get the chance to do any studies.

There's NCCAM - National Center for Complementary and Alternative
Medicine, part of the National Institutes of Medicine. Though they spent
about $1 billion in research on conjecture-based medicine (alternative
medicine), they have yet to find any evidence that any alternative
medicine works better than placebo.

Apparently the NCCAM is in charge of the NCCAM, which is like putting the
fox in charge of the chicken coup.
There is no independence.

That there is no independence can be said of your thoughts. This is
directly from an advertisement for a book that is very out of date. OAM
hasn't existed for 11 years.

The reason why research on alternative therapies are derailed is that
there is no scientific reason to believe that they work and no evidence
to
support them.

Don't you know how old man rockefeller gave massive donations to medical
schools in exchange for them teaching pharmaceutical medicine?


You know about the four humours? That is what today's allopathic
medicine
will look like in 100 years.

There is a great book called, "Doctors" by Sherwin Nuland. He talks
about
the origins of the four humours.

The four humours are a classic example of ignorance of how the body
works.
That you support this ancient and disproven idea says volumes about
your
inability to understand science and medicine.

Go back and read for comprehension dr jeff.

I have. I suggest you do the same. The conjecture of the humours (I say
conjecture, because there is no evidence for them) is utter rubbish. It
may have made sense based on what was known about the body in the 1500s,
but based on what we know now, it is rubbish.

As I said, in 100 years your allopathic medicine will look as stupid as
the
four humours looks now.

Gee, I hope so. The reason why is medicine and science continue to learn
and evolve. While chemotherapy and other cancer therapy saves thousands of
lives every year, including over half of all people who get cancer, I hope
that it will look primative as the four humors does now in 100 years.

Medicine and science continue to learn yet they still can't find the cures
to so many chronic diseases.
Even when alternative methods cure things that allopathy can't they can't
even acknowledge it despite the fact "they don't know everything".


Enough said. You're ideas are not worth my time.

You obviously can't handle the truth.
Last thing we need in mha is another pharmaceutical stooge.

No, what you have is someone who can think independently.

Who, me?

Yeah, right. You haven't shown any evidence that you can think think
independently. The best you can do is provide poor-quality studies that
don't come to the conclusions that you think they do or provide ads from
companies selling unneeded supplements.

Jeff

"dr_jeff" wrote in message
...
On 9/29/10 12:53 AM, carole wrote:

reason to believe that they work and no evidence to
support them.


The Government Is Lying to You about Alternative Cancer Treatments
http://www.burtongoldberg.com/page43.html
"Like many American taxpayers, until recently I believed that the Office
of
Alternative Medicine (OAM), within the National Institutes of Health in
Washington, D.C., was there to provide citizens with information about
alternatives in disease treatment.

When I recently inquired what OAM had on alternative cancer treatments, I
was shocked to discover that all they offer is party-line conventional
methods courtesy of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) which seems to
exist
solely to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on unproductive research and
the suppression of effective alternatives.

Until earlier this year, OAM sent out a free copy of the "Cancer" chapter
from our Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide to those who needed
information on alternative cancer treatments. This has stopped abruptly.
Now
OAM sends out a 3-page statement that dismisses "unconventional"
treatments
as being essentially worthless and unproven. Here's what their "Cancer
Facts" sheet says: [see website] ........

The OAM was set up a few years ago at the instigation of a few
well-intentioned members of Congress. Granted, they gave OAM only a few
million dollars to work with to investigate the claims and successes of a
burgeoning medical field, but the project was launched with a good
measure
of enthusiasm, integrity, and promise.

However, the fatal mistake was placing OAM within the NIH. This is like
asking the fox to guard the chicken coop. How can NIH, dedicated to
conventional methods, objectively oversee the investigation of
alternatives?
What NIH can oversee quite skillfully is the adulteration, perversion,
and
ruin of a publicly-funded office that was supposed to fairly inform the
taxpayer about new and alternative treatments for disease.

From what I've heard through the Washington grapevine, the OAM has been
sanitized and made submissive by NIH, so that it is now an obedient and
unproductive bureaucracy. People who know about alternative medicine are
being forced out while people who are indifferent to it or lack any
working
knowledge of it are pushed to the forefront. Projects are being derailed,
funds are wasted, and public information activities are staffed by people
unsympathetic to alternative medicine."


ie the fox watching the hen house.

This is from an advertisement for a book. A real out of date book. OAM was
replaced by NCCAM 12 years ago. You fall for advertising hook, line and
sinker.

Jeff


Ok, thanks. However -

Testimony of Burton Goldberg
http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/04-11-13.htm

"The NCCAM is presently just a poor cousin in NIH. It needs to be run not by
doctors from or beholden to the NIH, but by physicians who are experienced
in and advocates of alternative methods.

Not only can our doctors show you the multiple causes that lead to cancer,
they offer steps that lead to the removal of these causes. Alternative
medicine does not offer a simplistic "cookbook" solution to cancer
treatment. Rather, it emphasizes the unique individuality of each case, with
certain consistent elements in its approach: mobilize the lymphatic and
excretory systems and then detoxify the body of its many cumulative poisons;
fortify the body with nutrients; do everything possible to strengthen the
immune system; stress the importance of early detection and preventive
strategies; and honor the Hippocratic Oath--first, do no harm.

Conventional cancer doctors today cannot uphold this vow. Chemotherapy and
radiation are toxic and often do as much damage to the body as the cancer
itself. Even though conventional medicine presents and often forces these
treatments (along with surgery) as the only options in existence for cancer,
this is simply and unequivocally not true. There are many successful
alternatives to conventional care that can remove the root causes of cancer
and restore you to health without further poisoning or damaging your body. "


--
carole
www.conspiracee.com
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the
argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt (1759-1806)

On 10/1/10 6:56 AM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/29/10 12:53 AM, carole wrote:

reason to believe that they work and no evidence to
support them.


The Government Is Lying to You about Alternative Cancer Treatments
http://www.burtongoldberg.com/page43.html
"Like many American taxpayers, until recently I believed that the Office
of
Alternative Medicine (OAM), within the National Institutes of Health in
Washington, D.C., was there to provide citizens with information about
alternatives in disease treatment.

When I recently inquired what OAM had on alternative cancer treatments, I
was shocked to discover that all they offer is party-line conventional
methods courtesy of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) which seems to
exist
solely to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on unproductive research and
the suppression of effective alternatives.

Until earlier this year, OAM sent out a free copy of the "Cancer" chapter
from our Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide to those who needed
information on alternative cancer treatments. This has stopped abruptly.
Now
OAM sends out a 3-page statement that dismisses "unconventional"
treatments
as being essentially worthless and unproven. Here's what their "Cancer
Facts" sheet says: [see website] ........

The OAM was set up a few years ago at the instigation of a few
well-intentioned members of Congress. Granted, they gave OAM only a few
million dollars to work with to investigate the claims and successes of a
burgeoning medical field, but the project was launched with a good
measure
of enthusiasm, integrity, and promise.

However, the fatal mistake was placing OAM within the NIH. This is like
asking the fox to guard the chicken coop. How can NIH, dedicated to
conventional methods, objectively oversee the investigation of
alternatives?
What NIH can oversee quite skillfully is the adulteration, perversion,
and
ruin of a publicly-funded office that was supposed to fairly inform the
taxpayer about new and alternative treatments for disease.

From what I've heard through the Washington grapevine, the OAM has been
sanitized and made submissive by NIH, so that it is now an obedient and
unproductive bureaucracy. People who know about alternative medicine are
being forced out while people who are indifferent to it or lack any
working
knowledge of it are pushed to the forefront. Projects are being derailed,
funds are wasted, and public information activities are staffed by people
unsympathetic to alternative medicine."


ie the fox watching the hen house.

This is from an advertisement for a book. A real out of date book. OAM was
replaced by NCCAM 12 years ago. You fall for advertising hook, line and
sinker.

Jeff


Ok, thanks. However -

Testimony of Burton Goldberg
http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/04-11-13.htm

"The NCCAM is presently just a poor cousin in NIH. It needs to be run not by
doctors from or beholden to the NIH, but by physicians who are experienced
in and advocates of alternative methods.

No, it needs to be run by medical scientists who can determine if
so-called alternative medicines work. So far, after $1 billion has been
spent, not one alternative medicine has been shown to actually work
better than placebo.

Not only can our doctors show you the multiple causes that lead to cancer,
they offer steps that lead to the removal of these causes. Alternative
medicine does not offer a simplistic "cookbook" solution to cancer
treatment. Rather, it emphasizes the unique individuality of each case, with
certain consistent elements in its approach: mobilize the lymphatic and
excretory systems and then detoxify the body of its many cumulative poisons;
fortify the body with nutrients; do everything possible to strengthen the
immune system; stress the importance of early detection and preventive
strategies; and honor the Hippocratic Oath--first, do no harm.

That's what allopathic doctors do.

Conventional cancer doctors today cannot uphold this vow. Chemotherapy and
radiation are toxic and often do as much damage to the body as the cancer
itself. Even though conventional medicine presents and often forces these
treatments (along with surgery) as the only options in existence for cancer,
this is simply and unequivocally not true. There are many successful
alternatives to conventional care that can remove the root causes of cancer
and restore you to health without further poisoning or damaging your body. "

It's true radiation and chemotherapy are toxic - but 50% of all cancer
patients are cured. Show us the evidence that there are successful
alternatives to conventional care. Real evidence. Not just anecdotes.

Jeff

"Bob Officer" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 20:18:19 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
"carole" wrote:

"Bob Officer" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:05:07 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
"carole" wrote:


"dr_jeff" wrote in message
...
On 9/29/10 2:18 AM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 9:48 PM, carole wrote:




Silica, silicon, silicon dioxide, siliclic acid - any of these
ring
a bell?


Silica is also beneficial for bone growth and arterial
health,
amongst
other
things.

Silica is harmful and can cause inflamation if inside the
body. It
is
not
absorbed by the body.

Get a clue errol. Studies have shown that silica is a vital
nutrient, go
do
some homework in pubmed or one of your research books.

I did. It is a toxin. That's about it.

How about silicon dioxide?

Bottom line is that silicon is not a nutrient for humans. If I
am
incorrect, show me *good* evidence.

WHO FOOD ADDITIVES SERIES NO. 5
http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm

From that report: Very small amounts of silica are normally present
in
all body tissues but there is no evidence that they play any
physiological
role.

Are you stupid, or maybe you just can't read?
Note - silica, silicon, and sililic acid are interchangeable.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm


From this reference: "The available data on orally administered silica
and
silicates, including flumed silicon dioxide, appear to substantiate the
biological inertness of these compounds."

Chicken

"Day-old deutectomized cockerels were kept in a trace element
controlled
environment and fed a synthetic low silicon diet. The diet of the test
groups was supplemented with sodium metasilicate (Na2SiO3½9H2O) at a
level
of 100 mg/kg. 114 chickens were in the control groups and 114 chickens
in
the test groups. Growth rates and the appearance of the animals were
evaluated at two- to three- day intervals. The animals were killed at
the
end of a 25- to 35- day period. Gross pathology and histological
examinations were carried out on the organs of each chick. Differences
between the chicks on the basal and silicon-supplemented diets were
noted
after one to two weeks.

At the twenty-third day of the study the average weight for the low
silicon
group was 76 g compared to a weight of 116 g for the supplemented group
(p
0.02). The average daily weight gain for the control groups was 2.57 g
and
that of the test groups reached 3.85 g (p 0.01).

The animals on the basal diet were smaller and all their organs
appeared
relatively atrophied as compared to the test chickens. The leg bones of
the
deficient birds were shorter, of smaller circumference and thinner
cortex.
The metatarsal bones were relatively flexible and the femur and tibia
fractured more easily under pressure than those of the supplemented
group.
Thus the effect of silicon on skeletal development indicates that it
plays
an important role in an early stage of bone formation (Carlisle,
1972)."

From a 40-year old study. Big deal.


So if this information has been known for 40 how do you explain the lag in
having it known to the medical establishment?

Carole it was an artificial environment. They artificially deprived
the chickens of all silicon compounds normally available in the
natural diet.

The other Chickens were feed an enriched diet supplemented with
Additional Silicates.

The Test does not say what you think it says.

I suggest you re-read:
Cite Comment
"Day-old deutectomized cockerels were kept|Describes test subjects
in a trace element controlled environment |They were deprived of
|natural trace element
and fed a synthetic low silicon diet. |Note" the word synthetic
The diet of the test groups |Which of the two groups
|was target
was supplemented |Do you see that word
with sodium metasilicate (Na2SiO3½9H2O) |That is not silica or even
|silicon dioxide
at a level of 100 mg/kg. |that is about 10-15x the
|normal level found in
|natural diets
/cite |/comments

What the study doesn't say plainly is the artificial control
environment allowed them to deprive the "control group" of any foods
containing "Silica" or any other "trace minerals", and then "test
Group" was given suppliments at least 10 to 15 times the level of
Silica compounds (Sodium Silicate) found non-artifical non-enriched
diets.

In other words they created a false or artificial group as a control.
and then Created a second set of groups with outlandish Suppliments.

So you can understand a "dumbed down" version just for Carole. They
Starved one group and over fed the Second Group and then remarked
about the disparity between the two groups.

Not really much a study, is it Carole? Do See why you have to read
critically?

If I were you I would have start to doubt the validity of the so
called "Briggs-Myers Type Test" you claimed to have taken. It is
plain to just about everyone else but you, that you are not a master
mind or able to see any sort of a big picture.

The test showed that chickens deprived of silica developed abnormalities.
That's the bottom line.

Beats head on desk...

No, Carole, that is not what the test proved. You get a zero for
yesterday's reading and comprehension score. Try once more reread it
and see what the what the study actually showed.



http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm
"At the twenty-third day of the study the average weight for the low silicon group was 76 g compared to a weight of 116 g for the
supplemented group (p 0.02). The average daily weight gain for the control groups was 2.57 g and that of the test groups reached
3.85 g (p 0.01). "

IOW the low silicon group were underweight.

Obviously, you're the one with the comprehension problems.


--
carole
www.conspiracee.com
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William
Pitt (1759-1806)

"dr_jeff" wrote in message ...
On 10/1/10 6:37 AM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 9:48 PM, carole wrote:




WHO FOOD ADDITIVES SERIES NO. 5
http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm

This reference says that silicon has no known physiological function.

The Importance of Silicon
http://www.ultimatesg.com/22mayjarrowsilicon.html
"Silicon is a trace mineral required for the formation of healthy
connective tissue, bone, skin, hair and nails. Silicon is essential for
collagen formation, healthy arteries and regulates calcium deposition in
bones.* BioSil's active silicon is an essential partner of calcium for
bones, glucosamine for joints

Absorption is Key. Dietary sources of silicon such as those found in
food, horsetail and colloidal gel (silica) products are very poorly
absorbed because of their insoluble, polymerized forms. For absorption
to occur, dietary silicon must be first converted to Orthosilicic Acid
(monomeric silicic acid), the bioavailable form found in BioSil™.

Why is BioSil™ Different? BioSil™ (Si[OH]4) is 20,000 times more soluble
than silica(SiO2 — found in horsetail and colloidal gels) and 2.5 times
more bioavailable than other forms of silicon!

The superiority of silicon as concentrated, choline-stabilized
orthosilicic acid from BioSil™ has been proven in a peer reviewed
scientific study comparing three different forms of
silicon. The results of the comparative, cross-over, double-blind
clinical trial demonstrated that the stabilized monomeric form of
silicon (stabilized orthosilicic acid – as found in BioSil™) is far
superior to colloidal silica and horsetail extract. In fact, of the
three experimental groups, only BioSil™ offered a bioavailable source of
silicon; the other forms of silicon (horsetail and colloidal gel) were
no better than placebo1.

Scientific References
1. Arch Dermatol Res. 2005 Oct;297(4):147-53. Epub 2005 Oct 26. Effect
of oral intake of choline-stabilized orthosilicic acid on skin, nails
and hair in women with photodamaged skin. Barel A et al.

2. Calcif Tissue Int. 2006 Apr;78(4):227-32. Epub 2006 Apr 13. Partial
prevention of long-term femoral bone loss in aged ovariectomized rats
supplemented with choline-stabilized orthosilicic acid. Calomme M et al."

This is from the sellers of silicon. The so-called scientific references
were for either two small groups or rats. The one with small groups found
a small decrease in the roughness of skin. So this is the best you can do.
How sad.

Jeff

Well this is an improvement.
Dr Jeff goes from the stand that silica isn't necesary, to now saying the
study is inadequate.

No, I never said that. Silica isn't necessary and there are no good studies or any good evidence that shows that it is necessary.

Well it is necessary and there are studies.
But that wouldn't have been emphasised in your pharmaceutical oriented education.


WHO FOOD ADDITIVES SERIES NO. 5
http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm



There are plenty of sources that say silica is an essential mineral.

But when you remove all the ones that are poor sources of information or people who have a vested interest in selling silica, you
have no evidence that silica is an essential mineral.

Silica is one of the 12 essential cellsalts and is one of the minerals to help break down arthritic spurs, build bones, skin, hair
and nails, amongst other things.


Just because your dumbed-down education didn't teach you about nutrition no
need to get all testy and defensive.

Gee, I am not getting testy or defensive. The fact is that there is no good evidence that silica is necessary or even helpful for
health. People with vested interests in selling silica are not good sources of information.

The cellsalt theory was invented in the mid 1800s by schuessler and is used by all naturapaths in combination with other remedies.
Silica, silicon, silicon dioxide, silicic acid (all different words for the same thing) is one of the 12 essential cellsalts.
Just because there aren't many scientific studies shows more about the inadequacy of science than about the need for silica.


If I was to rely on allopathic medicine I too wouldn't have learnt about the
importance of silica.

That is actually a really good reason to rely on allopathic medicine. Everything in allopathic medicine has been backed by science
and evidence. This is not true for conjecture-based (con-med or alternative medicine).

Sorry dr jeff, I go by what works, not what science tells me should work.
This is the difference between empirical and rationalist science that operates mainly on theories.


--
carole
www.conspiracee.com
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." —William
Pitt (1759-1806)







Jeff

"Bob Officer" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 06:49:55 -0400, in misc.health.alternative,
dr_jeff wrote:




Enough said. You're ideas are not worth my time.

You obviously can't handle the truth.
Last thing we need in mha is another pharmaceutical stooge.

No, what you have is someone who can think independently.

Who, me?

Yeah, right. You haven't shown any evidence that you can think think
independently. The best you can do is provide poor-quality studies that
don't come to the conclusions that you think they do or provide ads from
companies selling unneeded supplements.

That's the point, Jeff.

Jan actually pointed me to a study of water supplies in the world.
every one of the was fully saturated with Silicic Acid. The amount of
Silicic acid required is exactly that which is found in Water.

The best case Carole has is a study of chickens where the Deprived
their "Control subjects" of **all** trace elements. The Test subjects
were given a diet with Supplemented trace elements. The Comparison
between the "so called Control" and the Test subjects is what she is
basing her conclusion upon. It was not a good study and was a poorly
designed study.

You're an idiot and have shown it once again.


A good comparison study would have been the control, feed a "normal"
diet, with the test subjects feed a supplemented diet.

Carole is so dense even when the test was translated into Dumbed-Down
Terms, she couldn't or wouldn't understand it.

You're the dumbed down moron.


When you starve an animal it will do poorly when compared to an
animal feed a diet of supplemented amounts of trace elements.

You need to re-read the test ...nowhere does it mention starving an animal, nowhere does it mention cutting out all trace elements.


--
carole
www.conspiracee.com
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William
Pitt (1759-1806)

"dr_jeff" wrote in message ...
On 10/1/10 6:56 AM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/29/10 12:53 AM, carole wrote:





Ok, thanks. However -

Testimony of Burton Goldberg
http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/04-11-13.htm

"The NCCAM is presently just a poor cousin in NIH. It needs to be run not by
doctors from or beholden to the NIH, but by physicians who are experienced
in and advocates of alternative methods.

No, it needs to be run by medical scientists who can determine if so-called alternative medicines work. So far, after $1 billion
has been spent, not one alternative medicine has been shown to actually work better than placebo.

The bureacracy at NIH is full of people who serve the interests of the pharmaceutical business with disease which doesn't want the
situation changed. It is making far too much money to let any alternative remedies through.


The FDA Exposed: An Interview With Dr. David Graham, the Vioxx Whistleblower
Tuesday, August 30, 2005 by: Manette Loudon, citizen journalist

http://www.naturalnews.com/011401_Dr...m_the_FDA.html
" The FDA has a very peculiar culture. It runs like the army so it's very hierarchal. You have to go through the chain of command
and if somebody up above you says that they want things done in a particular way well, they want it done in a particular way. The
culture also views industry as the client.
They're serving industry rather than the public. In fact, when a former office director for the Office of Drug Safety criticized me
and tried to get me to change a report I'd written on another drug - Arava - he said to me and to a colleague who was a coauthor on
this report that "industry is our client." "


Not only can our doctors show you the multiple causes that lead to cancer,
they offer steps that lead to the removal of these causes. Alternative
medicine does not offer a simplistic "cookbook" solution to cancer
treatment. Rather, it emphasizes the unique individuality of each case, with
certain consistent elements in its approach: mobilize the lymphatic and
excretory systems and then detoxify the body of its many cumulative poisons;
fortify the body with nutrients; do everything possible to strengthen the
immune system; stress the importance of early detection and preventive
strategies; and honor the Hippocratic Oath--first, do no harm.

That's what allopathic doctors do.

Allopathic doctors prescribe drugs, that's what they're trained to do.


Conventional cancer doctors today cannot uphold this vow. Chemotherapy and
radiation are toxic and often do as much damage to the body as the cancer
itself. Even though conventional medicine presents and often forces these
treatments (along with surgery) as the only options in existence for cancer,
this is simply and unequivocally not true. There are many successful
alternatives to conventional care that can remove the root causes of cancer
and restore you to health without further poisoning or damaging your body. "

It's true radiation and chemotherapy are toxic - but 50% of all cancer patients are cured. Show us the evidence that there are
successful alternatives to conventional care. Real evidence. Not just anecdotes.

hydrazine sulfate
http://www.safe2use.com/ca-ipm/04-11-13.htm
"Preliminary animal studies supported his concept and by 1973 about 1,000 cancer patients were using hydrazine sulfate. The FDA
issued a few Investigational New Drug permits and Dr. Gold organized the Syracuse Cancer Research Center to develop the drug and its
protocols. In clinical trials in the United States, the compound significantly improved the nutritional status and survival of lung
cancer patients. In a study of 740 patients with various types of cancer, 51% of patients reported tumor stabilization or
regression. Almost half the patients also reported subjective improvement, notably decreased pain and better appetite. Further, and
this is crucial, similar studies were performed in Russia with almost identical results. Dean Burk, M.D., at that time the head of
cell chemistry research at NCI, called hydrazine sulfate the "most remarkable anticancer agent I have come across in my 45 years of
experience with cancer."

* * *
"Many books have been written that document the persecution of alternative cancer doctors who cured too many of their patients with
inexpensive natural products. Of course, most people have never heard of these books because the media does not give them the free
publicity they give their favored books."

--
carole
www.conspiracee.com
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William
Pitt (1759-1806)

On 10/3/10 10:52 AM, carole wrote:
"Bob wrote in message ...
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 20:18:19 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
wrote:

"Bob wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:05:07 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On 9/29/10 2:18 AM, carole wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 9/28/10 9:48 PM, carole wrote:




Silica, silicon, silicon dioxide, siliclic acid - any of these
ring
a bell?


Silica is also beneficial for bone growth and arterial
health,
amongst
other
things.

Silica is harmful and can cause inflamation if inside the
body. It
is
not
absorbed by the body.

Get a clue errol. Studies have shown that silica is a vital
nutrient, go
do
some homework in pubmed or one of your research books.

I did. It is a toxin. That's about it.

How about silicon dioxide?

Bottom line is that silicon is not a nutrient for humans. If I
am
incorrect, show me *good* evidence.

WHO FOOD ADDITIVES SERIES NO. 5
http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm

From that report: Very small amounts of silica are normally present
in
all body tissues but there is no evidence that they play any
physiological
role.

Are you stupid, or maybe you just can't read?
Note - silica, silicon, and sililic acid are interchangeable.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm


From this reference: "The available data on orally administered silica
and
silicates, including flumed silicon dioxide, appear to substantiate the
biological inertness of these compounds."

Chicken

"Day-old deutectomized cockerels were kept in a trace element
controlled
environment and fed a synthetic low silicon diet. The diet of the test
groups was supplemented with sodium metasilicate (Na2SiO3½9H2O) at a
level
of 100 mg/kg. 114 chickens were in the control groups and 114 chickens
in
the test groups. Growth rates and the appearance of the animals were
evaluated at two- to three- day intervals. The animals were killed at
the
end of a 25- to 35- day period. Gross pathology and histological
examinations were carried out on the organs of each chick. Differences
between the chicks on the basal and silicon-supplemented diets were
noted
after one to two weeks.

At the twenty-third day of the study the average weight for the low
silicon
group was 76 g compared to a weight of 116 g for the supplemented group
(p
0.02). The average daily weight gain for the control groups was 2.57 g
and
that of the test groups reached 3.85 g (p 0.01).

The animals on the basal diet were smaller and all their organs
appeared
relatively atrophied as compared to the test chickens. The leg bones of
the
deficient birds were shorter, of smaller circumference and thinner
cortex.
The metatarsal bones were relatively flexible and the femur and tibia
fractured more easily under pressure than those of the supplemented
group.
Thus the effect of silicon on skeletal development indicates that it
plays
an important role in an early stage of bone formation (Carlisle,
1972)."

From a 40-year old study. Big deal.


So if this information has been known for 40 how do you explain the lag in
having it known to the medical establishment?

Carole it was an artificial environment. They artificially deprived
the chickens of all silicon compounds normally available in the
natural diet.

The other Chickens were feed an enriched diet supplemented with
Additional Silicates.

The Test does not say what you think it says.

I suggest you re-read:
Cite Comment
"Day-old deutectomized cockerels were kept|Describes test subjects
in a trace element controlled environment |They were deprived of
|natural trace element
and fed a synthetic low silicon diet. |Note" the word synthetic
The diet of the test groups |Which of the two groups
|was target
was supplemented |Do you see that word
with sodium metasilicate (Na2SiO3½9H2O) |That is not silica or even
|silicon dioxide
at a level of 100 mg/kg. |that is about 10-15x the
|normal level found in
|natural diets
/cite |/comments

What the study doesn't say plainly is the artificial control
environment allowed them to deprive the "control group" of any foods
containing "Silica" or any other "trace minerals", and then "test
Group" was given suppliments at least 10 to 15 times the level of
Silica compounds (Sodium Silicate) found non-artifical non-enriched
diets.

In other words they created a false or artificial group as a control.
and then Created a second set of groups with outlandish Suppliments.

So you can understand a "dumbed down" version just for Carole. They
Starved one group and over fed the Second Group and then remarked
about the disparity between the two groups.

Not really much a study, is it Carole? Do See why you have to read
critically?

If I were you I would have start to doubt the validity of the so
called "Briggs-Myers Type Test" you claimed to have taken. It is
plain to just about everyone else but you, that you are not a master
mind or able to see any sort of a big picture.

The test showed that chickens deprived of silica developed abnormalities.
That's the bottom line.

Beats head on desk...

No, Carole, that is not what the test proved. You get a zero for
yesterday's reading and comprehension score. Try once more reread it
and see what the what the study actually showed.



http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecf...no/v05je04.htm
"At the twenty-third day of the study the average weight for the low silicon group was 76 g compared to a weight of 116 g for the
supplemented group (p0.02). The average daily weight gain for the control groups was 2.57 g and that of the test groups reached
3.85 g (p 0.01). "

IOW the low silicon group were underweight.

Obviously, you're the one with the comprehension problems.

Wrong. The low-silicon group was a group with low supplements across the
board. When they made the diet for the group with the low silicon, they
removed other minerals, too.

So, low-silicon is really low mineral.

Jeff