On Sun, 2004-03-07 at 20:46, Nenah Sylver wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Garnet" <garnetri...@earthlink.net> > To: <silver-list@eskimo.com> > Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 8:21 PM > Subject: CS>Potassium - Debunking this very irresponsible series of articles > > > > There are a few pointers in this series of articles that cause me to > > have serious doubts about their validity. > > Garnet, > Thanks for your sharp eye for details that I overlooked at 5 in the morning. I > do, however, question some of YOUR questions about the article. > > > 1) The author claims his blood electrolytes were NEVER checked in over > > 25 years of care by a physician, and one would assume cardiologist. > > > > This is absurd. Electrolytes are checked with great regularity. It is > > part of a standard blood panel on any heart patient and has been so for > > a very long time. > > After hearing so many horror stories about doctors, I can believe that that > his > electrolytes were never checked. I say, let's not make assumptions without > asking the man.
I reread this section and he does in fact state that his electrolytes were never checked "to check for a potassium deficiency". This to me means they were indeed checked and he perceived that the doctors were not looking to see if the potassium levels were low. This is too absurd to entertain as it is one of the MOST basic parameters in a blood panel besides the cell counts, it is a known indicator of poor cardiac function and any doctor, even the worst is going to look at the easy indicators. And asking the author would not reveal the intentions of his physicians. That is something only the physician would know. > > > 2) He claims that sodium is a poison and that potassium is more > > important. He states that "unlike toxic sodium, potassium is essential > > to our health" > > > > It is the balance of minerals that is important, not one single mineral. > > Sodium is required by the body and is as important as any of the > > electrolytes, to maintain the potential across cell membranes, due to > > the relative concentrations of all of the electrolytes. Without sodium > > we would also die. > > I agree that we need sodium. However, one thing that's very interesting is > that > the body conserves sodium while excreting potassium. When I was doing research > for my book on sauna therapy, all the sources I consulted said that after a > short while of excreting both sodium and potassium (as well as other > minerals), > the body then LEARNS to hold on to the sodium but cannot help eliminating > potassium. Knowing this, I read the article with great interest. I don't think > it's such a big deal if we don't supplement the diet with sodium. Most of us get adequate Sodium in our diets. The author was calling sodium toxic and this simply is not true by the currently accepted definition of toxicity. He is using inflammatory language and rear to prersuade readers of his articles. A red flag which indicates to me that he must rely on fear not truth to reach his end. > > > Sodium does NOT cause high blood pressure. Restricting excessive sodium > > consumption in a hypertensive patient will help lower high blood > > pressure. But to turn the converse into sodium is toxic or causes high > > blood pressure is a grave error in logic. > > I also think we need to describe WHAT FORM that sodium takes -- which I did > catch on reading the article but didn't think to mention while posting it. > Pure > sodium chloride without being balanced by other trace minerals is a whole > different kettle of (salty) fish than "whole food" salt. So is potassium taken without regard to the total balance of minerals in the body and diet. Mineral balance is difficult to measure with accuracy. We can read blood levels but this tells us little about the depoted minerals in organs and other tissues like bones. These tissue stores of minerals are fluid, that is they equilibrate with blood, easily accessed by the body when the BALANCE is kept. For instance without the trace mineral Silicon Calcium and Magnesium utilization and absoprtion for that matter will not be adequate. You hear very little about Si because it is difficult to measure at the low levels it occurs and there is little money for basic research since Reagan cut funding while in office. Best to take minerals in a balanced formula or in your food if you can obtain high quality naturally or organically grown food. One very simple solution is to grow herbs on your patio in containers and feed them seaweed and natural fertilizers high in minerals. Use them with every meal. If you are not vegetarian make rich soup stocks with bones, a bit of vinegar over egg shels will draw out the minerals. There are many ways to supplement minerals in a balanced natural matrix. > > > 3) Potassium, sodium, calcium, magnesium and phosphorous are macro > > minerals. > > > > This author refers to some of these as trace minerals. > > I didn't catch this either. > > > 4)"...'research" proved longa go that simple deficiency can not cause > > life threatening conditions." > > > > This too is absurd, it is well known in the medical community that > > potassium deficiency can kill you, indeed that any electrolyte > > deficiency if severe enough will kill you. It was widely spoken of in > > response to the number of people using "liquid" protien diets in the > > 70's, some of whom died with big follow ups in the media. > > Yet the thrust of his article seems to be that simple deficiencies are > life-threatening. I'm still giving him the benefit of the doubt, and regard > this > simply as sloppy writing and editing. Maybe I'm being naive. Mineral deficiencies can be life threatening, I don't know what you mean by "simple deficiency" as that is not a quantitative term. Too much potassium is a diuretic so taking a lot more than you need will also be unhealthy. He does not mention the diurectic effect at all! Dehydration is one of the most common states found upon autopsy. See, that scared you didn't it? I think his writing is irrepsonsible, not just sloppy. > > > 5) By the seventies, all meaningful references to serious mineral > > deficiencies had been removed from the curriculum. > > > > Again not true. I attended classes in medical physiology with medical > > students as a graduate student in pharmacology in 1979 - 1981. The > > nutrition part of this course most certainly did deal with mineral > > requirements and deficiencies. > > Remember too that this guy is living in Australia. He doesn't specify WHICH > curriculum had eliminated these studies. Again an example of his sloppy irresponsible style of writing and persuation. He states that across the board medical schools were not teaching that supplements might be necessary. Indeed they were, even the pharmaceutical companies were passing out free nutrition manuals when I was in grad school -- they also make money on supplying mineral supplements to hospitals and doctors. > > > We were not taught all a person needed was "a diet rich in fruit and > > vegetables". In fact this top ten medical school brought in Dr Linus > > Pauling to lecture on Vit C. As well as one of the biochemists telling > > us personally what he took each day in the way of supplements and why. > > You were taught well. LOTS of doctors and health care practitioners I know are > taught that a diet rich in fruits and veggies is adequate. In fact, this is > the > official line nowadays of many US government departments. Only to avoid the controversy and possible malpractice lawsuits. Doctors are not nutritional counselors. I have had MDs send me to nutritional counselors who did know more and I was well served by the interaction of the two. I live in a small rural town so it is not something you just find in larger cities. Depends on who you consult. Best to check out any pracitioner before handing over your health or your money. > > > The author is also, after scaring his readers which he so neatly accuses > > modern doctors of doing, soliciting donations!!! > > > > Follow the money . . . . > > Yet the author is still making his article freely available to people without > their having to pay for it. And he isn't leaving his readers hanging: he's > suggesting a concrete, easy remedy to what he posits as the problem. Ever hear of a "loss leader"? It is a well known and common practice in marketing. His solution can cause many problems and I would certainly never take that amount of elemental potassium without carefully monitoring my blood levels. > > I am willing to overlook the flaws in the article, because it underscores so > well the importance of potassium. For me, it was a good wakeup call. Raising awareness is a good thing, IF you present the whole story and tell it well. He has not done this. > > Thanks for your critique. Your welcome. Garnet > > Best, > Nenah > > > > -- > The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. > > Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org > > To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com > Silver List archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html > > Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com > OT Archive: http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html > > List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com> > > o -- The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com Silver List archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com OT Archive: http://escribe.com/health/silverofftopiclist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
