After Seppuku - View Single Post

**Nightmare** · 05-27-2006, 09:10 AM

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
National Research Council
The controversy primarily involves the second column - trace minerals.
Of the 14 trace minerals listed above, three or four may not have
universal agreement as essential, but a majority of creditable sources
admit that most of them are essential. Deficiency amounts have never
been determined for most trace minerals, although several diseases have
been linked with deficiencies of certain ones. Conclusive evidence has
not been found regarding the exact daily intake amounts necessary, since
some of the actual requirements may be too small to measure; hence the
name "trace." Other trace minerals which are still being studied as
possibly essential or possibly contaminant include arsenic (true!),
boron, cadmium, lithium, strontium, aluminum, barium, and beryllium.
After this, the marketplace takes over and science bows out. People are
out there talking about glacial milk, 88-mineral toddies, minerals from
ancient lakes, iceberg moss, longevity of 150 years, calcium from
pasteurized milk, "normal" doses of lead, eye of newt, etc., making
unproven claims about this or that combination, trumpeting anecdotal
cures for everything from cancer to hangnails. The purpose of this
chapter will be to try to sift through the debris and leave behind only
the fundamental information which can be verified.
In the past few years, even mainstream medicine is beginning to
acknowledge the incontrovertible importance of mineral supplementation.
In an article appearing in JAMA, the top American medical journal, 24
Dec 1996, a controlled study of selenium use for cancer patients was
written up. Selenium as you remember, effects powerful antioxidant
activity, neutralizing free radicals, which are rampant in the presence
of cancer. In this study, 1312 subjects were divided into groups. Some
were given selenium; others the placebo. Soon it was noticed that there
was a decrease of 63% with prostate cancer, and 46% with lung cancer in
the selenium group. The results were so blatant that the designers
actually terminated the study early so that everyone could begin to
benefit from selenium. This is just one example of the research that is
currently being done on mineral supplementation. The problem is, if the
results of studies economically threaten a current drug protocol, like
chemotherapy, it is unlikely that an inexpensive natural supplement like
selenium would be promoted by oncologists as a replacement any time
soon.

05-27-2006, 09:10 AM	#2 (permalink)
Nightmare Golden Poster ++ Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: The deep south Nightmare is a glorious beacon of light!! My Mood:	Minerals( continued 1) U.S. Dept. of Agriculture National Research Council The controversy primarily involves the second column - trace minerals. Of the 14 trace minerals listed above, three or four may not have universal agreement as essential, but a majority of creditable sources admit that most of them are essential. Deficiency amounts have never been determined for most trace minerals, although several diseases have been linked with deficiencies of certain ones. Conclusive evidence has not been found regarding the exact daily intake amounts necessary, since some of the actual requirements may be too small to measure; hence the name "trace." Other trace minerals which are still being studied as possibly essential or possibly contaminant include arsenic (true!), boron, cadmium, lithium, strontium, aluminum, barium, and beryllium. After this, the marketplace takes over and science bows out. People are out there talking about glacial milk, 88-mineral toddies, minerals from ancient lakes, iceberg moss, longevity of 150 years, calcium from pasteurized milk, "normal" doses of lead, eye of newt, etc., making unproven claims about this or that combination, trumpeting anecdotal cures for everything from cancer to hangnails. The purpose of this chapter will be to try to sift through the debris and leave behind only the fundamental information which can be verified. In the past few years, even mainstream medicine is beginning to acknowledge the incontrovertible importance of mineral supplementation. In an article appearing in JAMA, the top American medical journal, 24 Dec 1996, a controlled study of selenium use for cancer patients was written up. Selenium as you remember, effects powerful antioxidant activity, neutralizing free radicals, which are rampant in the presence of cancer. In this study, 1312 subjects were divided into groups. Some were given selenium; others the placebo. Soon it was noticed that there was a decrease of 63% with prostate cancer, and 46% with lung cancer in the selenium group. The results were so blatant that the designers actually terminated the study early so that everyone could begin to benefit from selenium. This is just one example of the research that is currently being done on mineral supplementation. The problem is, if the results of studies economically threaten a current drug protocol, like chemotherapy, it is unlikely that an inexpensive natural supplement like selenium would be promoted by oncologists as a replacement any time soon.