Re: Re: back to square one/

[Guest guest]

s syndrome (if there is such a thing) strikes disproportionally among

those of American Indian/Irish descent. Which is what I am. If it is genetic

it seems the geneticist is the way to go to try to manipulate my genes and turn

off some switches. My cortisol is high so not sure how adding more would help

me. I'm determined to work out the T4/T3 conversion at the very least in the

next few months.

Even fish oil affects genetic expression. I think she'll know about iodine.

Those in the field of nutrigenomics may be high-tech but know the cures require

giving you a sugar derived from sugar beets called TMG, and methyl-donors like

b-12, folate and SAM-E and essential fatty acids NOT drugs. Its a very exciting

field of study.

________________________________

From: Gracia <circe@...>

hypothyroidism

Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 8:02:29 AM

Subject: Re: Re: back to square one/

your adrenals need support just like your thyroid gland does. 5mg 4X a day is

no big deal, except for becoming healthy again. OMG good luck with the genetics

doc. I don't think he will know that iodine affects genetic expression.

Gracia

I take very low dose cytomel only when I feel I need it. When I take it on a

regular basis I look sickly, bloated and pale.

Armour stresses my adrenal system from what I can tell. Everyone says to take

even another hormone called cortef/cortisol to be able to tolerate it. That is

not something I want to do. If my adrenals are in such poor shape at my age I

want to know why... NOT cover it up. I have virtually no stress in my life so I

am baffled.

In the mean time I am looking for reasons for the health issues by testing and

curing nutritional deficiencies. Not as easy as it sounds. It takes months to

cure certain deficiencies. I did also find a parasite in my gut and am working

to rid myself of it. Next week I am going to a doctor who specializes in

epigenetics and we are going to do some DNA testing and try gene silencing to

mute the hashimoto's gene that is causing all of this.

____________ _________ _________ __

From: amygreen53 <amygreen53 (DOT) com>

hypothyroidism

Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 8:58:10 AM

Subject: Re: back to square one/

>

> I can feel cytomel in minutes. It dissipates in hours. Theoretically Armour

could be felt in under 20 minutes because of the T3. Armour however makes me

feel like hell.

>

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> -- In what way does it make you feel like hell? It does that to me too --

at any dose -- but I figured it was the T3 that was making me feel bad. I guess

that's not it if you feel ok on cytomel. Amy

[Guest guest]

wow, very interesting, Irish/Indian combo! do you have a bit of a temper?

LOL

I am Irish/Hispanic.

Gracia

s syndrome (if there is such a thing) strikes disproportionally among

those of American Indian/Irish descent. Which is what I am. If it is genetic it

seems the geneticist is the way to go to try to manipulate my genes and turn off

some switches. My cortisol is high so not sure how adding more would help me.

I'm determined to work out the T4/T3 conversion at the very least in the next

few months.

Even fish oil affects genetic expression. I think she'll know about iodine.

Those in the field of nutrigenomics may be high-tech but know the cures require

giving you a sugar derived from sugar beets called TMG, and methyl-donors like

b-12, folate and SAM-E and essential fatty acids NOT drugs. Its a very exciting

field of study.

________________________________

From

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.13/2001 - Release Date: 03/14/09

06:54:00

[Guest guest]

I always read that calcium and magnesium should be a 1:1 ratio.

why not try Natural Calm cal/mag or just mag alone. I use a magnesium spray

http://www.magnesiumforlife.com

Gracia

Hi,

I have had similar experiences for years! I was recently told to take

magnesium and calcium for high blood pressure, and noticed these type of

symptoms got partially better also.

I read that if I am deficient in magnesium, then calcium can't be absorbed

properly either, so that is low, and that also means potassium is low, and

therefore all the electrolytes are out of balance.

With all this, I am trying to figure out what I need to take. According to

that site, I got symptoms of severe mag deficiency, and other sites show low

calcium. How much of each can be taken at a time for best absorption and

less side effects? Are calcium and potassium needed? It seems the more I

take of these, the more off balance I feel and the more I need. Is that a

deficiency using it up, or just creating an imbalance?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.15/2004 - Release Date: 03/16/09

07:04:00

[Guest guest]

I've seen this gross error in recommendation propagated all over the

internet, especially on web site that never seem to know how to check

their facts.

http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/21/372/0.pdf

The daily recommend allowances of Calcium are about three times the

recommend allowances of Magnesium but that is NOT the whole story. Most

Americans get more than enough Calcium every day but are deficient in

Magnesium intake. In other words, don't take calcium supplements

(unless you particularly like heart disease) BUT DO TAKE Magnesium

supplements.

Steve

Gracia wrote:

> I always read that calcium and magnesium should be a 1:1 ratio.

> why not try Natural Calm cal/mag or just mag alone. I use a magnesium

spray http://www.magnesiumforlife.com

> Gracia

wrote:

> Hi,

> I have had similar experiences for years! I was recently told to take

> magnesium and calcium for high blood pressure, and noticed these type of

> symptoms got partially better also.

Magnesium can help but that's only a small part of the picture.

> I read that if I am deficient in magnesium, then calcium can't be absorbed

> properly either, so that is low, and that also means potassium is low, and

> therefore all the electrolytes are out of balance.

I wouldn't say that at all. It takes stomach acid to absorb calcium.

Most Americans get enough Calcium. Most Americans don't get enough of

either Magnesium or Potassium. Most Americans get too much Sodium and

the balance of Sodium and Potassium is important so one may have to take

additional Potassium to keep that balance.

> With all this, I am trying to figure out what I need to take. According to

> that site, I got symptoms of severe mag deficiency, and other sites show low

> calcium. How much of each can be taken at a time for best absorption and

> less side effects? Are calcium and potassium needed? It seems the more I

> take of these, the more off balance I feel and the more I need. Is that a

> deficiency using it up, or just creating an imbalance?

>

>

It will get more complex the more your learn. I don't think it's

possible to keep it all strait as one expands their knowledge of

interactions, deficiencies, drugs, supplements, etc. Here is what I

call the " catch-all " way to get it all sorted out, EAT RIGHT and

EXERCISE. What I mean by eating right is to eat the kind of diet that

your personal ancestors would have eaten 10,000 years ago before the

introduction agriculture. This can be called the cave man diet, paleo

diet, and a dozen other things. If you eat it, you will get lots of

good fats and protein, plenty of minerals with way more potassium that

you get now, less sodium, 2-5+ times more of most vitamins than your are

getting now, all from natural sources.

The Paleo Diet includes meats like fowl, fish, seafood, veggies, lots of

young greens, fruit in season, berries and nuts. Basically, anything

your ancestors could have killed with a stick or have eaten raw or with

minimal cooking. This will balance out your system.

The Paleo Diet does NOT include sugars, fruit out of season, grains of

any kind - none - artificial fats & flavors etc., pastries, pasta,

dairy, legumes, etc.

Exercise should be regular with some sprinting/vigorous cardio a couple

times a week (simulates chasing food or fleeing a predator).

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

[Guest guest]

Even the american dairy council has hidden in their website that 2500mg of

calcium is reaching toxicity levels. I know so many people that are blindly

supplementing 1000-1500 mg of additional calcium never bothering to add up what

dietary calcium they are eating.

One cup of yogurt is 40% of the RDA! They're killing themselves.

________________________________

From: Steve <dudescholar4@...>

hypothyroidism

Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 3:05:52 PM

Subject: Re: Re: back to square one/

I've seen this gross error in recommendation propagated all over the

internet, especially on web site that never seem to know how to check

their facts.

http://www.iom. edu/Object. File/Master/ 21/372/0. pdf

The daily recommend allowances of Calcium are about three times the

recommend allowances of Magnesium but that is NOT the whole story. Most

Americans get more than enough Calcium every day but are deficient in

Magnesium intake. In other words, don't take calcium supplements

(unless you particularly like heart disease) BUT DO TAKE Magnesium

supplements.

Steve

Gracia wrote:

> I always read that calcium and magnesium should be a 1:1 ratio.

> why not try Natural Calm cal/mag or just mag alone. I use a magnesium

spray http://www.magnesiu mforlife. com

> Gracia

wrote:

> Hi,

> I have had similar experiences for years! I was recently told to take

> magnesium and calcium for high blood pressure, and noticed these type of

> symptoms got partially better also.

Magnesium can help but that's only a small part of the picture.

> I read that if I am deficient in magnesium, then calcium can't be absorbed

> properly either, so that is low, and that also means potassium is low, and

> therefore all the electrolytes are out of balance.

I wouldn't say that at all. It takes stomach acid to absorb calcium.

Most Americans get enough Calcium. Most Americans don't get enough of

either Magnesium or Potassium. Most Americans get too much Sodium and

the balance of Sodium and Potassium is important so one may have to take

additional Potassium to keep that balance.

> With all this, I am trying to figure out what I need to take. According to

> that site, I got symptoms of severe mag deficiency, and other sites show low

> calcium. How much of each can be taken at a time for best absorption and

> less side effects? Are calcium and potassium needed? It seems the more I

> take of these, the more off balance I feel and the more I need. Is that a

> deficiency using it up, or just creating an imbalance?

>

>

It will get more complex the more your learn. I don't think it's

possible to keep it all strait as one expands their knowledge of

interactions, deficiencies, drugs, supplements, etc. Here is what I

call the " catch-all " way to get it all sorted out, EAT RIGHT and

EXERCISE. What I mean by eating right is to eat the kind of diet that

your personal ancestors would have eaten 10,000 years ago before the

introduction agriculture. This can be called the cave man diet, paleo

diet, and a dozen other things. If you eat it, you will get lots of

good fats and protein, plenty of minerals with way more potassium that

you get now, less sodium, 2-5+ times more of most vitamins than your are

getting now, all from natural sources.

The Paleo Diet includes meats like fowl, fish, seafood, veggies, lots of

young greens, fruit in season, berries and nuts. Basically, anything

your ancestors could have killed with a stick or have eaten raw or with

minimal cooking. This will balance out your system.

The Paleo Diet does NOT include sugars, fruit out of season, grains of

any kind - none - artificial fats & flavors etc., pastries, pasta,

dairy, legumes, etc.

Exercise should be regular with some sprinting/vigorous cardio a couple

times a week (simulates chasing food or fleeing a predator).

--

Steve - dudescholar4@ basicmail. net

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvoc ates.org/ quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

[Guest guest]

I take a 600mg calcium pill plus whatever other calcium I get. Is that good, bad

or

indifferent would you say?

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

>   Hi,

>   I have had similar experiences for years! I was recently told to take

>   magnesium and calcium for high blood pressure, and noticed these type of

>   symptoms got partially better also.

Magnesium can help but that's only a small part of the picture.

>   I read that if I am deficient in magnesium, then calcium can't be absorbed

>   properly either, so that is low, and that also means potassium is low, and

>   therefore all the electrolytes are out of balance.

I wouldn't say that at all.  It takes stomach acid to absorb calcium.

Most Americans get enough Calcium.  Most Americans don't get enough of

either Magnesium or Potassium.  Most Americans get too much Sodium and

the balance of Sodium and Potassium is important so one may have to take

additional Potassium to keep that balance.

>   With all this, I am trying to figure out what I need to take. According to

>   that site, I got symptoms of severe mag deficiency, and other sites show low

>   calcium. How much of each can be taken at a time for best absorption and

>   less side effects? Are calcium and potassium needed? It seems the more I

>   take of these, the more off balance I feel and the more I need. Is that a

>   deficiency using it up, or just creating an imbalance?

>

>   

It will get more complex the more your learn.  I don't think it's

possible to keep it all strait as one expands their knowledge of

interactions, deficiencies, drugs, supplements, etc.  Here is what I

call the " catch-all " way to get it all sorted out, EAT RIGHT and

EXERCISE.  What I mean by eating right is to eat the kind of diet that

your personal ancestors would have eaten 10,000 years ago before the

introduction agriculture.  This can be called the cave man diet, paleo

diet, and a dozen other things.  If you eat it, you will get lots of

good fats and protein, plenty of minerals with way more potassium that

you get now, less sodium, 2-5+ times more of most vitamins than your are

getting now, all from natural sources.

The Paleo Diet includes meats like fowl, fish, seafood, veggies, lots of

young greens, fruit in season, berries and nuts.  Basically, anything

your ancestors could have killed with a stick or have eaten raw or with

minimal cooking.  This will balance out your system.

The Paleo Diet does NOT include sugars, fruit out of season, grains of

any kind - none - artificial fats & flavors etc., pastries, pasta,

dairy, legumes, etc.

Exercise should be regular with some sprinting/vigorous cardio a couple

times a week (simulates chasing food or fleeing a predator).

--

Steve - dudescholar4@ basicmail. net

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvoc ates.org/ quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

     

[Guest guest]

Well you've been diagnosed with magnesium deficiency. To get serum testing to

show that you are deficient in magnesium is pretty difficult unless you are

depleted at the cellular level... since the body would just pull mag out of your

tissues. You have the A-fib and say that even a low quality magnesium (oxide)

has helped. Not sure if you said you ordered a better quality or not. I would

put that issue on the front burner since your heart is involved. Epsom salt

bath would help quite a bit.

You may need the calcium too... you just need to add up what your calcium intake

is on a given day... excessive calcium depletes magnesium. I was able to stop

the calcium channel blocker for my heart issues with the supplementing of

magnesium glycinate.

" Magnesium is also nature's " calcium channel blocker " , preventing the entry of

excessive calcium in to the cell that causes contractions "

http://www.drlam.com/articles/magnesium_and_osteoporosis.asp

http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Biotech-Business-Week/2004-12-27/1227200433347\

5BB.html

________________________________

From: Roni Molin <matchermaam@...>

hypothyroidism

Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 6:59:03 PM

Subject: Re: Re: back to square one/

I take a 600mg calcium pill plus whatever other calcium I get. Is that good, bad

or

indifferent would you say?

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

> Hi,

> I have had similar experiences for years! I was recently told to take

> magnesium and calcium for high blood pressure, and noticed these type of

> symptoms got partially better also.

Magnesium can help but that's only a small part of the picture.

> I read that if I am deficient in magnesium, then calcium can't be absorbed

> properly either, so that is low, and that also means potassium is low, and

> therefore all the electrolytes are out of balance.

I wouldn't say that at all. It takes stomach acid to absorb calcium.

Most Americans get enough Calcium. Most Americans don't get enough of

either Magnesium or Potassium. Most Americans get too much Sodium and

the balance of Sodium and Potassium is important so one may have to take

additional Potassium to keep that balance.

> With all this, I am trying to figure out what I need to take. According to

> that site, I got symptoms of severe mag deficiency, and other sites show low

> calcium. How much of each can be taken at a time for best absorption and

> less side effects? Are calcium and potassium needed? It seems the more I

> take of these, the more off balance I feel and the more I need. Is that a

> deficiency using it up, or just creating an imbalance?

>

>

It will get more complex the more your learn. I don't think it's

possible to keep it all strait as one expands their knowledge of

interactions, deficiencies, drugs, supplements, etc. Here is what I

call the " catch-all " way to get it all sorted out, EAT RIGHT and

EXERCISE. What I mean by eating right is to eat the kind of diet that

your personal ancestors would have eaten 10,000 years ago before the

introduction agriculture. This can be called the cave man diet, paleo

diet, and a dozen other things. If you eat it, you will get lots of

good fats and protein, plenty of minerals with way more potassium that

you get now, less sodium, 2-5+ times more of most vitamins than your are

getting now, all from natural sources.

The Paleo Diet includes meats like fowl, fish, seafood, veggies, lots of

young greens, fruit in season, berries and nuts. Basically, anything

your ancestors could have killed with a stick or have eaten raw or with

minimal cooking. This will balance out your system.

The Paleo Diet does NOT include sugars, fruit out of season, grains of

any kind - none - artificial fats & flavors etc., pastries, pasta,

dairy, legumes, etc.

Exercise should be regular with some sprinting/vigorous cardio a couple

times a week (simulates chasing food or fleeing a predator).

--

Steve - dudescholar4@ basicmail. net

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvoc ates.org/ quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

[Guest guest]

Roni Molin wrote:

> I take a 600mg calcium pill plus whatever other calcium I get. Is that good,

bad or

> indifferent would you say?

Whatever you do, I would take the following recent study into account

and a post I made on the subject elsewhere:

--

Calcium supplementation increases heart attacks and strokes in large

controlled study.

Here is the URL for the full New Zealand study, not just

the abstract, as published in the British Medical Journal. It was a

study that included n=1471 participants randomized into two groups, a

larger n than many studies. Given the advice on taking calcium AND the

lack of medical research to support it's alleged cardiovascular

benefits, this study adds to the body of knowledge.

Vascular events in healthy older women receiving calcium

supplementation: randomised controlled trial

<http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj.39440.525752.BEv1>

Here is the results paragraph, notice that not only are cardiovascular

events dramatically increased with calcium supplementation, but

strokes increased significantly as well. Also, if you read farther into

the study, you will see a review of available literature and recent

research and might identify with the speculation that taking a LESS

bio-available form of calcium likely results in fewer but still

significants increases in death rates:

" Results Myocardial infarction was more commonly reported in the calcium

group than in the placebo group (45 events in 31 women v 19 events in 14

women, P=0.01). The composite end point of myocardial infarction,

stroke, or sudden death was also more common in the calcium group (101

events in 69 women v 54 events in 42 women, P=0.008). After adjudication

myocardial infarction remained more common in the calcium group (24

events in 21 women v 10 events in 10 women, relative risk 2.12, 95%

confidence interval 1.01 to 4.47). For the composite end point 61 events

were verified in 51 women in the calcium group and 36 events in 35 women

in the placebo group (relative risk 1.47, 0.97 to 2.23). When unreported

events were added from the national database of hospital admissions in

New Zealand the relative risk of myocardial infarction was 1.49 (0.86 to

2.57) and that of the composite end point was 1.21 (0.84 to 1.74). The

respective rate ratios were 1.67 (95% confidence intervals 0.98 to 2.87)

and 1.43 (1.01 to 2.04); event rates: placebo 16.3/1000 person years,

calcium 23.3/1000 person years. For stroke (including unreported events)

the relative risk was 1.37 (0.83 to 2.28) and the rate ratio was 1.45

(0.88 to 2.49). "

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

[Guest guest]

Well, isn't that a nice kettle of fish. The old story fo damned if you do and

damned if you don't is still alive and well. I kow I have some spinal problems,

and this is another pita that I'll have to look into. I never get rid of one

search when another one rears it's ugly head. My son is prone to kidney stones,

so I sent him this article. I hope he reads it.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

> I take a 600mg calcium pill plus whatever other calcium I get. Is that good,

bad or

> indifferent would you say?

Whatever you do, I would take the following recent study into account

and a post I made on the subject elsewhere:

--

Calcium supplementation increases heart attacks and strokes in large

controlled study.

Here is the URL for the full New Zealand study, not just

the abstract, as published in the British Medical Journal. It was a

study that included n=1471 participants randomized into two groups, a

larger n than many studies. Given the advice on taking calcium AND the

lack of medical research to support it's alleged cardiovascular

benefits, this study adds to the body of knowledge.

Vascular events in healthy older women receiving calcium

supplementation: randomised controlled trial

<http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj.39440.525752.BEv1>

Here is the results paragraph, notice that not only are cardiovascular

events dramatically increased with calcium supplementation, but

strokes increased significantly as well. Also, if you read farther into

the study, you will see a review of available literature and recent

research and might identify with the speculation that taking a LESS

bio-available form of calcium likely results in fewer but still

significants increases in death rates:

" Results Myocardial infarction was more commonly reported in the calcium

group than in the placebo group (45 events in 31 women v 19 events in 14

women, P=0.01). The composite end point of myocardial infarction,

stroke, or sudden death was also more common in the calcium group (101

events in 69 women v 54 events in 42 women, P=0.008). After adjudication

myocardial infarction remained more common in the calcium group (24

events in 21 women v 10 events in 10 women, relative risk 2.12, 95%

confidence interval 1.01 to 4.47). For the composite end point 61 events

were verified in 51 women in the calcium group and 36 events in 35 women

in the placebo group (relative risk 1.47, 0.97 to 2.23). When unreported

events were added from the national database of hospital admissions in

New Zealand the relative risk of myocardial infarction was 1.49 (0.86 to

2.57) and that of the composite end point was 1.21 (0.84 to 1.74). The

respective rate ratios were 1.67 (95% confidence intervals 0.98 to 2.87)

and 1.43 (1.01 to 2.04); event rates: placebo 16.3/1000 person years,

calcium 23.3/1000 person years. For stroke (including unreported events)

the relative risk was 1.37 (0.83 to 2.28) and the rate ratio was 1.45

(0.88 to 2.49). "

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

" Magnesium, the vital mineral in this partnership that is proving so effective

in preventing the formation of kidney stones, is indispensable for a proper

regulation of calcium metabolism. When animals deficient in vitamin B6 were

given high levels of magnesium, they continued to show oxalic acid in the urine

but they no longer converted this acid into kidney stones. Magnesium, then, by

improving the body's utilization of calcium, has the effect of a

solvent-preventing the caking and crusting, like lime in your teakettle, of

unassimilated calcium. "

http://www.mgwater.com/rod16.shtml

________________________________

From: Roni Molin <matchermaam@...>

hypothyroidism

Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 11:22:47 PM

Subject: Re: Re: back to square one/

Well, isn't that a nice kettle of fish. The old story fo damned if you do and

damned if you don't is still alive and well. I kow I have some spinal problems,

and this is another pita that I'll have to look into. I never get rid of one

search when another one rears it's ugly head. My son is prone to kidney stones,

so I sent him this article. I hope he reads it.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

> I take a 600mg calcium pill plus whatever other calcium I get. Is that good,

bad or

> indifferent would you say?

Whatever you do, I would take the following recent study into account

and a post I made on the subject elsewhere:

--

Calcium supplementation increases heart attacks and strokes in large

controlled study.

Here is the URL for the full New Zealand study, not just

the abstract, as published in the British Medical Journal. It was a

study that included n=1471 participants randomized into two groups, a

larger n than many studies. Given the advice on taking calcium AND the

lack of medical research to support it's alleged cardiovascular

benefits, this study adds to the body of knowledge.

Vascular events in healthy older women receiving calcium

supplementation: randomised controlled trial

<http://www.bmj. com/cgi/content/ full/bmj. 39440.525752. BEv1>

Here is the results paragraph, notice that not only are cardiovascular

events dramatically increased with calcium supplementation, but

strokes increased significantly as well. Also, if you read farther into

the study, you will see a review of available literature and recent

research and might identify with the speculation that taking a LESS

bio-available form of calcium likely results in fewer but still

significants increases in death rates:

" Results Myocardial infarction was more commonly reported in the calcium

group than in the placebo group (45 events in 31 women v 19 events in 14

women, P=0.01). The composite end point of myocardial infarction,

stroke, or sudden death was also more common in the calcium group (101

events in 69 women v 54 events in 42 women, P=0.008). After adjudication

myocardial infarction remained more common in the calcium group (24

events in 21 women v 10 events in 10 women, relative risk 2.12, 95%

confidence interval 1.01 to 4.47). For the composite end point 61 events

were verified in 51 women in the calcium group and 36 events in 35 women

in the placebo group (relative risk 1.47, 0.97 to 2.23). When unreported

events were added from the national database of hospital admissions in

New Zealand the relative risk of myocardial infarction was 1.49 (0.86 to

2.57) and that of the composite end point was 1.21 (0.84 to 1.74). The

respective rate ratios were 1.67 (95% confidence intervals 0.98 to 2.87)

and 1.43 (1.01 to 2.04); event rates: placebo 16.3/1000 person years,

calcium 23.3/1000 person years. For stroke (including unreported events)

the relative risk was 1.37 (0.83 to 2.28) and the rate ratio was 1.45

(0.88 to 2.49). "

--

Steve - dudescholar4@ basicmail. net

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvoc ates.org/ quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

------------ --------- --------- ------

[Guest guest]

I personally think that kidney stones are caused by nanobacteria.

Nanobacteria has been found in kidney stones, brain " sand " , prostrate

stones, and arterial hard plaque.

K2-MK7 and D3 I think are still effective over time in removing calcium

from use by nanobacteria who need it to build calcium " shells " around

their small growing colonies. Other modalities help as well like EDTA

IV therapy in conjunction with the old antibiotic tetracycline. This

happens to be one area I've been interested in for a long time. Try

reading the book " The Calcium Bomb " . Research in this area is going

slow but there are about dozen medical research studies available.

Steve

wrote:

> " Magnesium, the vital mineral in this partnership that is proving so effective

in preventing the formation of kidney stones, is indispensable for a proper

regulation of calcium metabolism. When animals deficient in vitamin B6 were

given high levels of magnesium, they continued to show oxalic acid in the urine

but they no longer converted this acid into kidney stones. Magnesium, then, by

improving the body's utilization of calcium, has the effect of a

solvent-preventing the caking and crusting, like lime in your teakettle, of

unassimilated calcium. "

>

> http://www.mgwater.com/rod16.shtml

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> From: Roni Molin <matchermaam@...>

> hypothyroidism

> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 11:22:47 PM

> Subject: Re: Re: back to square one/

>

>

> Well, isn't that a nice kettle of fish. The old story fo damned if you do and

damned if you don't is still alive and well. I kow I have some spinal problems,

and this is another pita that I'll have to look into. I never get rid of one

search when another one rears it's ugly head. My son is prone to kidney stones,

so I sent him this article. I hope he reads it.

>

> Roni

> <>Just because something

> isn't seen doesn't mean it's

> not there<>

>

>

>> I take a 600mg calcium pill plus whatever other calcium I get. Is that good,

bad or

>> indifferent would you say?

>

> Whatever you do, I would take the following recent study into account

> and a post I made on the subject elsewhere:

>

> --

>

> Calcium supplementation increases heart attacks and strokes in large

> controlled study.

>

> Here is the URL for the full New Zealand study, not just

> the abstract, as published in the British Medical Journal. It was a

> study that included n=1471 participants randomized into two groups, a

> larger n than many studies. Given the advice on taking calcium AND the

> lack of medical research to support it's alleged cardiovascular

> benefits, this study adds to the body of knowledge.

>

> Vascular events in healthy older women receiving calcium

> supplementation: randomised controlled trial

> <http://www.bmj. com/cgi/content/ full/bmj. 39440.525752. BEv1>

>

> Here is the results paragraph, notice that not only are cardiovascular

> events dramatically increased with calcium supplementation, but

> strokes increased significantly as well. Also, if you read farther into

> the study, you will see a review of available literature and recent

> research and might identify with the speculation that taking a LESS

> bio-available form of calcium likely results in fewer but still

> significants increases in death rates:

>

> " Results Myocardial infarction was more commonly reported in the calcium

> group than in the placebo group (45 events in 31 women v 19 events in 14

> women, P=0.01). The composite end point of myocardial infarction,

> stroke, or sudden death was also more common in the calcium group (101

> events in 69 women v 54 events in 42 women, P=0.008). After adjudication

> myocardial infarction remained more common in the calcium group (24

> events in 21 women v 10 events in 10 women, relative risk 2.12, 95%

> confidence interval 1.01 to 4.47). For the composite end point 61 events

> were verified in 51 women in the calcium group and 36 events in 35 women

> in the placebo group (relative risk 1.47, 0.97 to 2.23). When unreported

> events were added from the national database of hospital admissions in

> New Zealand the relative risk of myocardial infarction was 1.49 (0.86 to

> 2.57) and that of the composite end point was 1.21 (0.84 to 1.74). The

> respective rate ratios were 1.67 (95% confidence intervals 0.98 to 2.87)

> and 1.43 (1.01 to 2.04); event rates: placebo 16.3/1000 person years,

> calcium 23.3/1000 person years. For stroke (including unreported events)

> the relative risk was 1.37 (0.83 to 2.28) and the rate ratio was 1.45

> (0.88 to 2.49). "

>

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

[Guest guest]

Interesting. Magnesium is well known for dissolving calcifications. I use to

have to tell any new doctors that were taking a chest X-ray of me not to freak

out...that I had speckled x-rays; white spots indicating calcium deposits in my

chest. They'd call me back for another x-ray anyway and have me contort my body

and take x-rays at odd angles to determine whether the tumor looking spots were

actually in my lungs or not. They weren't.

My sternum cartilage was totally calcified by the time I was 25 which I

understands happens to much older men. Since I have discovered the wonders of

magnesium mainly because of cardiac issues I have totally lost the calcification

spots in my chest (sternum is normal for my age) in my X-rays and cleared up a

number of life long oddities that magnesium deficiency can cause. I never had

kidney stones.

My first hand experience leads me to believe that magnesium would also blow down

the houses of even the nanobacteria if they are made of calcium. The research

showing magnesium dissolving kidney stones AND preventing them totally makes

sense to me.

________________________________

From: Steve <dudescholar4@...>

hypothyroidism

Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 8:31:06 AM

Subject: Re: Re: back to square one/

I personally think that kidney stones are caused by nanobacteria.

Nanobacteria has been found in kidney stones, brain " sand " , prostrate

stones, and arterial hard plaque.

K2-MK7 and D3 I think are still effective over time in removing calcium

from use by nanobacteria who need it to build calcium " shells " around

their small growing colonies. Other modalities help as well like EDTA

IV therapy in conjunction with the old antibiotic tetracycline. This

happens to be one area I've been interested in for a long time. Try

reading the book " The Calcium Bomb " . Research in this area is going

slow but there are about dozen medical research studies available.

Steve

wrote:

> " Magnesium, the vital mineral in this partnership that is proving so effective

in preventing the formation of kidney stones, is indispensable for a proper

regulation of calcium metabolism. When animals deficient in vitamin B6 were

given high levels of magnesium, they continued to show oxalic acid in the urine

but they no longer converted this acid into kidney stones. Magnesium, then, by

improving the body's utilization of calcium, has the effect of a

solvent-preventing the caking and crusting, like lime in your teakettle, of

unassimilated calcium. "

>

> http://www.mgwater. com/rod16. shtml

>

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> From: Roni Molin <matchermaam>

> hypothyroidism

> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 11:22:47 PM

> Subject: Re: Re: back to square one/

>

>

> Well, isn't that a nice kettle of fish. The old story fo damned if you do and

damned if you don't is still alive and well. I kow I have some spinal problems,

and this is another pita that I'll have to look into. I never get rid of one

search when another one rears it's ugly head. My son is prone to kidney stones,

so I sent him this article. I hope he reads it.

>

> Roni

> <>Just because something

> isn't seen doesn't mean it's

> not there<>

>

>

>> I take a 600mg calcium pill plus whatever other calcium I get. Is that good,

bad or

>> indifferent would you say?

>

> Whatever you do, I would take the following recent study into account

> and a post I made on the subject elsewhere:

>

> --

>

> Calcium supplementation increases heart attacks and strokes in large

> controlled study.

>

> Here is the URL for the full New Zealand study, not just

> the abstract, as published in the British Medical Journal. It was a

> study that included n=1471 participants randomized into two groups, a

> larger n than many studies. Given the advice on taking calcium AND the

> lack of medical research to support it's alleged cardiovascular

> benefits, this study adds to the body of knowledge.

>

> Vascular events in healthy older women receiving calcium

> supplementation: randomised controlled trial

> <http://www.bmj. com/cgi/content/ full/bmj. 39440.525752. BEv1>

>

> Here is the results paragraph, notice that not only are cardiovascular

> events dramatically increased with calcium supplementation, but

> strokes increased significantly as well. Also, if you read farther into

> the study, you will see a review of available literature and recent

> research and might identify with the speculation that taking a LESS

> bio-available form of calcium likely results in fewer but still

> significants increases in death rates:

>

> " Results Myocardial infarction was more commonly reported in the calcium

> group than in the placebo group (45 events in 31 women v 19 events in 14

> women, P=0.01). The composite end point of myocardial infarction,

> stroke, or sudden death was also more common in the calcium group (101

> events in 69 women v 54 events in 42 women, P=0.008). After adjudication

> myocardial infarction remained more common in the calcium group (24

> events in 21 women v 10 events in 10 women, relative risk 2.12, 95%

> confidence interval 1.01 to 4.47). For the composite end point 61 events

> were verified in 51 women in the calcium group and 36 events in 35 women

> in the placebo group (relative risk 1.47, 0.97 to 2.23). When unreported

> events were added from the national database of hospital admissions in

> New Zealand the relative risk of myocardial infarction was 1.49 (0.86 to

> 2.57) and that of the composite end point was 1.21 (0.84 to 1.74). The

> respective rate ratios were 1.67 (95% confidence intervals 0.98 to 2.87)

> and 1.43 (1.01 to 2.04); event rates: placebo 16.3/1000 person years,

> calcium 23.3/1000 person years. For stroke (including unreported events)

> the relative risk was 1.37 (0.83 to 2.28) and the rate ratio was 1.45

> (0.88 to 2.49). "

>

--

Steve - dudescholar4@ basicmail. net

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvoc ates.org/ quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

[Guest guest]

No research on magnesium braking down nanobacteria calcium shells at all

exists that I've been able to find. A lot of things were tried and EDTA

was the only viable solution when tested in vitro that disrupted the

calcium shells. There were only two products which killed the

nanobacteria after the shells were disrupted and tetracycline was very

effective but the second option was minimally effect, citric acid.

Steve

wrote:

> Interesting. Magnesium is well known for dissolving calcifications. I use to

have to tell any new doctors that were taking a chest X-ray of me not to freak

out...that I had speckled x-rays; white spots indicating calcium deposits in my

chest. They'd call me back for another x-ray anyway and have me contort my body

and take x-rays at odd angles to determine whether the tumor looking spots were

actually in my lungs or not. They weren't.

>

> My sternum cartilage was totally calcified by the time I was 25 which I

understands happens to much older men. Since I have discovered the wonders of

magnesium mainly because of cardiac issues I have totally lost the calcification

spots in my chest (sternum is normal for my age) in my X-rays and cleared up a

number of life long oddities that magnesium deficiency can cause. I never had

kidney stones.

>

> My first hand experience leads me to believe that magnesium would also blow

down the houses of even the nanobacteria if they are made of calcium. The

research showing magnesium dissolving kidney stones AND preventing them totally

makes sense to me.

>

>

>

> ________________________________

> From: Steve <dudescholar4@...>

> hypothyroidism

> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 8:31:06 AM

> Subject: Re: Re: back to square one/

>

>

> I personally think that kidney stones are caused by nanobacteria.

> Nanobacteria has been found in kidney stones, brain " sand " , prostrate

> stones, and arterial hard plaque.

>

> K2-MK7 and D3 I think are still effective over time in removing calcium

> from use by nanobacteria who need it to build calcium " shells " around

> their small growing colonies. Other modalities help as well like EDTA

> IV therapy in conjunction with the old antibiotic tetracycline. This

> happens to be one area I've been interested in for a long time. Try

> reading the book " The Calcium Bomb " . Research in this area is going

> slow but there are about dozen medical research studies available.

>

> Steve

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

[Guest guest]

BUT studies show that kidney stones can be prevented with magnesium

supplementing.... just perhaps not those built as homes by nanobacteria.

________________________________

From: Steve <dudescholar4@...>

hypothyroidism

Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:29:20 PM

Subject: Re: Re: back to square one/

No research on magnesium braking down nanobacteria calcium shells at all

exists that I've been able to find. A lot of things were tried and EDTA

was the only viable solution when tested in vitro that disrupted the

calcium shells. There were only two products which killed the

nanobacteria after the shells were disrupted and tetracycline was very

effective but the second option was minimally effect, citric acid.

Steve

wrote:

> Interesting. Magnesium is well known for dissolving calcifications. I use to

have to tell any new doctors that were taking a chest X-ray of me not to freak

out...that I had speckled x-rays; white spots indicating calcium deposits in my

chest. They'd call me back for another x-ray anyway and have me contort my body

and take x-rays at odd angles to determine whether the tumor looking spots were

actually in my lungs or not. They weren't.

>

> My sternum cartilage was totally calcified by the time I was 25 which I

understands happens to much older men. Since I have discovered the wonders of

magnesium mainly because of cardiac issues I have totally lost the calcification

spots in my chest (sternum is normal for my age) in my X-rays and cleared up a

number of life long oddities that magnesium deficiency can cause. I never had

kidney stones.

>

> My first hand experience leads me to believe that magnesium would also blow

down the houses of even the nanobacteria if they are made of calcium. The

research showing magnesium dissolving kidney stones AND preventing them totally

makes sense to me.

>

>

>

> ____________ _________ _________ __

> From: Steve <dudescholar4@ basicmail. net>

> hypothyroidism

> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 8:31:06 AM

> Subject: Re: Re: back to square one/

>

>

> I personally think that kidney stones are caused by nanobacteria.

> Nanobacteria has been found in kidney stones, brain " sand " , prostrate

> stones, and arterial hard plaque.

>

> K2-MK7 and D3 I think are still effective over time in removing calcium

> from use by nanobacteria who need it to build calcium " shells " around

> their small growing colonies. Other modalities help as well like EDTA

> IV therapy in conjunction with the old antibiotic tetracycline. This

> happens to be one area I've been interested in for a long time. Try

> reading the book " The Calcium Bomb " . Research in this area is going

> slow but there are about dozen medical research studies available.

>

> Steve

--

Steve - dudescholar4@ basicmail. net

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvoc ates.org/ quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford