Obamacare: A Nixon Legacy?


Dr. Gary North reviewed this video.  Parts of it he likes.  

The segment on Nixon is terrific. The tapes reveal the connection with Edgar Kaiser. The key fact is this: Nixon heard about this plan on February 17, 1971. He then had a speech written for him, which he delivered on national TV the next day. The video reported this, but did not mention it. It is clear that Kaiser and Ehrlichman had the whole package ready to go. Nixon approved it without having read it or even thinking through the implications. This was the #1 source of HMO's in U.S. history. Nixon had given no thought to the whole program. It changed American medicine.

He definitely likes the video but doesn't have high hopes for it.  

The video was posted in 2014. The video as of this week had 96 views. It took two years to get this. Maybe there is another posting of this video online with more views, but with under 100 views in two years, this project was a failure. I have rarely seen any YouTube video with so few views.

We need lots of videos like this one. But they take lots of time to produce. There is no guarantee that anyone will view them.

Then there is this fact. They change nothing. Ever. 

There is no one better in assessing government programs than Gary North.  He understands Congress. He worked inside its bowels for a few years under Ron Paul.  This point here is not so much hopeless as much as it is practical.

Voters cannot get Congress to repeal a bad program. Congress will only make it worse. We never see repeal -- only "repeal with replacement." Once there is a constituency for a program, it's forever.

In other words, don't waste your time on federal activism or federal legislation.  His antidote? 

There is only one way to kill a program: the bankruptcy of the federal government. They all must go down together. It is politically impossible to kill them once they become law.   

It's coming.  So he says.

Though Dr. North did admit that he finds national politics entertaining.

I love national politics. It's a three-ring circus: Senate, House, and White House.

The big economic issues are never addressed, such as:

1. The unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare: $210 trillion (present value)
2. Federal Reserve policy
3. The extension of administrative law -- 81,611 new pages in the Federal Register (2015)
4. Tax reform: 74,600 pages
5. The causes of, and solutions to, the flattening of households' median real income since 1965

There is a reason for this silence: there are no politically acceptable solutions. "Don't ask. Don't tell. Don't worry."

Buy a monthly subscription.  It may be the most valuable purchase you've made this year.  

It's hard to sift through the amazing assortment of foods on the market and figure out which ones serve our health and which ones compromise it.  

We've all heard how important fruits and vegetables are for our health.  But is this true or is the grower's public relations that we're being fed?  Man cannot live on spinach alone.  And we're always told that the most nutrient dense foods are green leafy vegetables. Yum.  If you love salads, yum.  If you're Popeye, yum. But what if you're trying to restore, rebuild, and remineralize?  That was a mouthful.  I ask this question to put a mild damper on the categorical truth that all vegetables are good for you.  Maybe in small portions perhaps.  But what about vegetarians?  I'll get to them later. But are all vegetables good for us?  

Carrots help our eyesight, right?  But what about their sugars? 

Spinach builds strong muscles, right?  But what about its oxalates?

Broccoli fights cancer, no?   

So, yeah, vegetables are good for us.  But they're also bad for us.  Amy Kubal explains how:

Let’s think about this logically. Animals have ways to make sure they don’t become some other animal’s dinner (including a human being’s). They can run away, or they can stay and fight with claws, horns, or teeth. If they win, great. If not, fire up the BBQ! Plants aren’t so lucky. Since they can’t defend themselves physically, they’ve evolved multiple insidious ways of warding off predators biochemically. Plants produce a variety of harmful substances collectively known as antinutrients. (Not harmful to the plants, but harmful to the poor saps who eat them.) They’re exactly what they sound like: they work against you absorbing nutrients from those foods.

Oy, vey!  Wish people would make up their minds.  Are they good or are they bad?  Well, both.  Vegetables do contain enzymes that help us digest other foods we eat like meat. They contain Vitamin C which allows our bodies to make the ever important gelatinous protein collagen to help repair our muscles and joints.  

So why are they bad for us?  Oxalic and Phytic Acids.  Some acids are good for us, while others not so much.  Essential fatty acids are good for us, even essential.  Citric acid helps prevent scurvy and protects our gums.  So not all acids are bad.  But Phytic Acid and Oxalic Acid are not recommended. Why?  Because they can block the absorption of important minerals.  Minerals don't always get the press that vitamins and oils and herbs do but they're every bit as important if not more important since we tend to use them up. Recently I found Bill Sardi's article on how Zinc, which is a vital mineral for men, can actually rebuild the Thymus gland back to its original size.  Talk about your miracles.  In the medical journals Zinc gets better represented as a remedy, but in your popular press and commercial ads, it's not zinc that gets air time.  It's usually calcium.  And Calcium isn't even the most important mineral, yet the manufacturers of it have scared people into believing that if they don't get enough their bones will break.  One mineral by itself is not the answer, though that report on zinc is impressive.  Even Linus Pauling didn't realize the importance of zinc.  Not all of his treatments with Vitamin C succeeded.  It wasn't until Abraham Hoffer in Canada who was mixing Vitamin C with zinc that the nutritionists community took notice.  Sort of.  

So Oxalic and Phytic acids you should avoid.  Actually, the reports on Pytic acid are mixed because so many healthy foods contain some levels of phytic acid. Realfoodsforlife writes

Foods that contain significant amounts of oxalic acid are ( in order from highest to lowest): buckwheat, star fruit, black pepper, parsley, poppy seed, rhubarb stalks, amaranth, spinach, chard, beets, cocoa, chocolate, most nuts, most berries, and beans. If you had to really avoid oxalic acid that would be difficult.

Okay, so it's the chelating function of phytic acid that prevents absorption of zinc, magnesium, and calcium, which is not good.  But this chelation is beneficial, according to Bill Sardi, when it chelates excess iron from your body.  And this is especially beneficial for men, since women have a built-in biology that eliminates blood monthly.  

Phytic acid—also called inositol hexaphosphate, or IP6—is comprised of six phosphorus molecules and one molecule of inositol. It has been mistakenly described for decades as an "anti-nutrient" because it impairs mineral absorption. However, in the 1980s food biochemist Ernst Graf, Ph.D., began to tout phytic acid for its beneficial antioxidant properties achieved through mineral chelation. [32]

Phytic acid in foods or bran should be distinguished from supplemental phytic acid, which is derived from rice bran extract. In foods, phytic acid binds to iron and other minerals in the digestive tract and may interfere with mineral absorption. As a purified extract of rice bran, taken between meals so it will not bind to minerals in the digestive tract, phytic acid is readily absorbed into the bloodstream, where it acts as a potent mineral chelator. [33] Phytic acid binds to any free iron or other minerals (even heavy metals such as mercury, lead and cadmium) in the blood, which are then eliminated through the kidneys. Phytic acid removes only excess or unbound minerals, not mineral ions already attached to proteins.

So maybe nuts and chocolate and berries and beans are still worth eating.  I do recall my dad warning me as a kid not to eat raw rhubarb.  It was because of the phytic and oxalic acids but he couldn't articulate that reason but that's what it was. Not because it's particularly poisonous--I mean people made rhubarb pie (delicious) for Godssakes--but because he knew of the wisdom of cooking certain vegetables.  Here are the facts on rhubarb:  

From an MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) for Oxalic acid, LD50 (LD50 is the Median Lethal Dose, which is the dose of a drug or chemical predicted to produce a lethal effect in 50 percent of the subjects to whom the dose is given) in rats is 375 mg/kg. So for a person about 145 pounds (65.7 kg) that’s about 25 grams of pure oxalic acid required to cause death. Rhubarb leaves are probably around 0.5% oxalic acid, so that you would need to eat quite a large serving of leaves, like 5 kg (11 lbs), to get that 24 grams of oxalic acid. Note that it will only require a fraction of that to cause sickness.  – The Rhubarb Compendium

If those foods listed don't fit neatly into the Mediterranean Diet that we're all supposed to worship, then I don't know what does.  Not that these foods if eaten are going to kill us, right?  Maybe not but there still are problems with oxalic acid.

Oxalic acid poisoning symptoms include weakness, burning in the mouth, death from cardiovascular collapse, on the respiratory system, throat – burning in the throat, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, convulsions, and coma.

In addition, there is this.  Realfoodforlife again:

Oxalic acid binds with some nutrients, making them inaccessible to the body. To eat large amounts of high oxalic foods over a period of weeks to months  may result in nutritional deficiencies, most notably of calcium.

This is the real concern, because the oxalic acid, along with phytic acid, blocks mineral absorption, like calcium, zinc, magnesium, phosphorus which is essential for teeth.  Is this the reason why so many Americans are mineral deficient, particularly in magnesium and zinc?  Probably not.  The NCBI states that vegetable sources are minimal in the Amerian diet and the main way that Americans anyway get oxalates is through coffee and tea.  That's what I feared.  I love my joe.

The main sources of oxalate in diets were regular tea and coffee (80-85%). Only 15-20% of oxalate was derived from other plant foods. Patients did not adhere to high fluid diet and, what is more, as common beverage they chose rich-oxalate black tea. Patients' daily intake of calcium was low and didn't exceed 520 mg. Vitamin C consumption was higher than Polish Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) and vitamin B6 lower than DRI.

What does it all mean?  It means you're going to have to forego coffee and tea.  It means you're going to have to find something else hot to drink, like hot lemon water.  

Imagine eating a raw vegetable diet.  All that oxalic acid is not doing your teeth any favors.  But there is a way around this and still get the nutrients locked inside vegetables.  Cook your vegetables.

Eating oxalic acid foods together with calcium-containing foods such as yogurt, milk and other dairy products may reduce the risk of kidney stone formation, advises the University of Maryland Medical Center. In addition, a study published in 2005 in the “Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry” reported that several cooking methods help lower the oxalic acid content of vegetables. The researchers tested nine raw and cooked vegetables and found that boiling and steaming significantly reduce oxalic acid in vegetables with a high content of the compound, such as spinach.

Now it's time to turn the tables.  Are all oxalic acids bad, or do they provide any or some kind of health benefit?  Let's read Realfoodforlife:

It has been assumed that black tea due to its high oxalate content increases kidney stone formation but recent research has shown it to have a preventive effect.

Victoria Boutenko of the Raw Food Family cites research on how high oxalic acid foods actually reduce the formation of kidney stones.  The true cause of kidney stones is not oxalic acid but actually animal protein.

Oxalic acid linked to the cure or prevention of cancer:When cancer is diagnosed there is always a low level of oxalic acid in the blood. It is important to have the enough oxalic acid in our blood because this eliminates all abnormal cells without harmful side effects.

Every alternative cancer cure that is successful is filled with foods, herbs, grasses, and teas that are full of high amounts of oxalic acid.

American Cancer Society conducted tests over 50 years ago using oxalic acid in the treatment of cancer and the results in papers and evidence were positive.

“When oxalic acid is in our blood; in foods & beverages we eat and drink, and testimonials confirm oxalic acid kills cancer cells, virus, bacteria, and decalcifies the material in plaque in arteries; and is in the blood of all warm blooded mammals”. From booklet.“ Questions and Answers About E- M- F, Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated with the Use of Electric Power.

Radiation will decompose oxalic acid in the blood. This usually weakens the immune system so the body is unable to fight off viral or bacterial disease.  Is this why many cancer patients die from cancer related to viral pneumonia.

So, where does that leave us?  Cook your vegetables. Cooking them lowers the amount of oxalic acid while still getting enough for prevention of bad things.  Nothing is simple.  Biology is not simple.  Knowledge of biology is certainly not simple.  Here is what I mean.  How many times have I read that Vitamin C is vital for health?  I've posted articles and videos to that fact.  Think of Linus Pauling Abraham Hoffer and their curing of cancer patients using high dose Vitamin C.  Maybe Vitamin C should only be taken in large amounts over short periods where you are fighting something serious.  Anyway, give this a read from Dr. Andrew Saul:

Ascorbate (the active ion in vitamin C) does increase the body's production of oxalate. Yet, in practice, vitamin C does not increase oxalate stone formation.  Drs. Emanuel Cheraskin, Marshall Ringsdorf, Jr. and Emily Sisley explain in The Vitamin C Connection (1983) that acidic urine or slightly acidic urine reduces the UNION of calcium and oxalate, reducing the possibility of stones. "Vitamin C in the urine tends to bind calcium and decrease its free form. This means less chance of calcium's separating out as calcium oxalate (stones)." (page 213) Also, the diuretic effect of vitamin C reduces the static conditions necessary for stone formation in general. Fast moving rivers deposit little silt.  

It appears that the biggest risk from oxalates are kidney stones.  

And I am sure they serve their purpose, whatever that is. But what is that purpose?  I've read claims that green

One of the features of nutritional articles on the web is that they're laid out in the positive.  In other words, they're often promoting Vitamin C for skin and hair and eggs to reduce stroke.  Try this, get plenty of that, make sure you're taking enough of magnesium. Which is all very helpful if we're living in a deficient world. And some of us may be doing just that.  But deficiencies are a real thing and their cause is multiple.  Yes, big-agra with its monoculture crops can depleted the nutrition in food.  I don't know for sure, but that's what I've read and heard.  Also, people just don't know what to eat.  We often eat what is put in front of us regardless of what it is or ignorant to what is inside it.  But there is another factor that causes deficiencies.  And that's the interaction of foods.  

O, Complication!

Maybe it's not as complicated as you think.  See there are chemicals in plants that help plants survive.  Just as there are thorns on a rose bush and needles on cactus, these are all features that help the plant survive even after it gets eaten.  I believe that there are desert animals whose digestion has adjusted to eating cactus and are not harmed by the spiny vegetation.    

Just One Egg a Day Reduces Stroke by 12%

by Stephen Matthews from Mail Online

That's not a bad start.  And that's good knowledge.  Anyone who already eats eggs, more than one a day like myself, we already know of the hormonal and brain benefits one gets from fat and choline inside eggs.  I love eggs.  Though I've tried them raw, I don't like how raw eggs work on my digestion.  But friend eggs, sunnyside up.  That's ideal.  But if you can't eat them that way, hard-boiled is still a good way to eat them.  With salt and pepper?  Delish.  

I'd read last night that your average table salt has aluminum in it.  

When you look at the ingredients list of some salt containers, you see the ingredient 'Anticaking agent 554'. Unfortunately anticaking agent 554 is Sodium aluminosilicate, an Aluminium containing compound. Best to avoid any product with containing obvious aluminium and use salt products not containing this agent. 

It's really hard to be a purist with every aspect of our diets.  But I thought I would link that anyway.    

So what about the stroke risks?

Consuming just one egg a day reduces the risk of stroke by 12 percent, scientists say.

"Scientists say."  You gotta love gripping journalism.  Which scientists?  What lab?  And it goes on . . . 

A study, led by US scientists, also shows that eating egg each day had no association with coronary heart disease - the leading cause of death worldwide.

"A study . . . ."  Which study?  Does it have a name?

Researchers reached the conclusion by reviewing a host of studies published over a period of 33 years - between 1982 and 2015 - which involved more than 275,000 participants. 

"Researchers reached the conclusion . . . ."  And again, "Researchers."  Trust in us folks.  We know who and just don't think that it is important for you to know, least not yet.  Least not unless you ask. 

They evaluated the relationships between eating eggs and coronary heart disease plus stroke. 

Whoa!  That's almost specific information on what hypothesis they were looking for. 

Lead researcher Dr Dominik Alexander, of the EpidStatInstitute, US, said research is needed to understand the connection between egg consumption and stroke risk.

Ah, yes.  Finally, a name.  

But he added: 'Eggs do have many positive nutritional attributes, including antioxidants, which have been shown to reduce oxidative stress and inflammation.

I wonder how many people the American Heart Association have killed by way of their recommendation to avoid eggs over the last 40 years?  Not a word here about the benefits of eggs for heart and brain health, except to say that to eat "low-fat dairy."  Love how they inserted the low-fat recommendation.  You need fat!  You need cholesterol.  More on cholesterol here and here. 

'They are also an excellent source of protein, which has been related to lower blood pressure.'

Absolutely, yes.  One of the best sources of protein to fat ratio.  Hard to find a better food on the planet.

One large egg boasts six grams of high-quality protein and antioxidants lutein and zeaxanthin, found within the egg yolk, as well as vitamins E, D, and A. 

On Vitamin E, check this out. 

According to Wilfrid Shute, M.D. and Evan Shute, M.D., Vitamin E in quantity has many benefits. One is an oxygen-sparing effect on heart muscle.  Another benefit is that Vitamin E helps to gradually break down blood clots in the circulatory system, and helps prevent more from forming. Vitamin E encourages collateral circulation in the smaller blood vessels of the body. It seems to promote healing with the formation of much less scar tissue. Vitamin E helps strengthen and regulate the heartbeat. 

The above benefits, say the Shutes, mean that vitamin E is important in the treatment of many diseases of the circulatory system. These cardiologists treated heart attacks, angina, atherosclerosis, rheumatic fever, acute and chronic rheumatic heart disease, congenital heart diseases, intermittent claudication, varicose veins, thrombophlebitis, and high blood pressure. That's quite a list, to which they soon added diabetes and burns as well. Many medical authorities were skeptical, to say the least. Vitamin E seemed to be too good for too many illnesses. 

So there's that.  Here is the rest of the article:

Vitamin E has previously been found to reduce the risk of future heart attacks in people with heart disease while lutein may help protect against clogging of the arteries. 

The findings lends further support to changes in the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which now include regular consumption of eggs among protein choices.

It also builds on a 2015 analysis in which dietary cholesterol was shown to have no association with cardiovascular diseases.

Dr Tia Rains, from the Egg Nutrition Centre, said: 'This systematic review and meta-analysis underscores prior research, showing the lack of a relationship between eggs and heart disease and now suggests a possible beneficial effect of eating eggs on the risk of stroke.'

The findings were published in the Journal of the AmericanCollege of Nutrition. 

"ZINC IN OLD MICE FACILITATED A COMPLETE RECOVERY OF THYMUS GLAND FUNCTION AND REGROWTH OF THE ORGAN WITH GREATER IMMUNE EFFICIENCY

". . . zinc [in old mice] facilitated a complete recovery of thymus gland function and regrowth of the organ with greater immune efficiency."

Spinach has a high zinc content.

Maybe there isn't a master mineral.  Maybe all essential minerals are masters of health.  I recently wrote about the magic of magnesium.  But why are minerals in general so important?  Is it just general, good maintenance?  Maybe.  Or is it that minerals are essential in digestion, like breaking down proteins?  Maybe it's not the class of nutrients that's so important as how well any single nutrient interacts with our biology to produce desired outcomes.  

For example, I recently read Bill Sardi's "Reassessment of Vitamin C Therapy and Cancer," published at his site and picked up by Lew Rockwell.  What astonished me wasn't actually the benefits of Vitamin C or the benefits of Vitamin C therapy on cancer.  What struck me was the study by Abram Hoffer.  

Enter a forgotten investigator in the war against cancer — Abram Hoffer MD, a nutrition-minded psychiatrist based in Canada who was known for his use of high-dose niacin therapy to treat schizophrenia.  Vitamin C therapy for cancer could easily be dismissed except for Dr. Hoffer’s strikingly successful use of oral vitamin C (12,000 mgs/day) to achieve prolonged survival times.

So Hoffer produced astounding results in his cancer therapy, but no third party ever tested or examined his results to find out why he was successful.  And to show you just how successful he was, check out this chart:

Here is Dr. Hoffer’s 5-year survival data:

Oral Antioxidant Therapy & End-Stage Cancer

Abram Hoffer MD, Journal Orthomolecular Medicine, Volume 15, 2000

No. of patients treated/vitamin C: 441

No. of patients in control group (chemo, radiation): 54

SURVIVAL CONVENTIONAL CANCER TREATMENT [i.e., chemo-therapy]
Year 1: 28%

Year 2: 15%

Year 3: 15%

Year 4: 13%

Year 5: 11%

VITAMIN C TREATMENT*

Year 1: 73%

Year 2: 56%

Year 3: 48%

Year 4: 44%

Year 5: 39%*

Consisted of 12,000 mg oral vitamin C as ascorbic acid, mega-dose niacinamide, beta carotene, zinc.

What is equally astounding is that no one checked his work.

Steven Hickey and Hilary Roberts, researchers from Manchester, England, also report on Abram Hoffer’s exceptional results with oral vitamin C in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. [Journal Orthomolecular Medicine 2013]  Reasons for the astounding effect of oral vitamin C were not explored, however.

Sardi found that in addition to the oral Vitamin C, that Hoffer also administered Zinc.  But which kind.  There are different kinds of zinc, 7 different zinc supplements in all [actually, there are more]:

• 
  

1.  Chelated Zinc.

2.  Zinc Orotate (some claim that this is the best form)

3.  Zinc Picolinate.

4.  Zinc Gluconate.

5.  Zinc Acetate.

6.  Zinc Oxide.

7.  Zinc Sulfate.

So at least from Sardi's article it's not clear which zinc was used.  And though the benefits of zinc are reported almost everywhere, take a look at very specific, very important organ that responds nicely to zinc.  That organ?  Your Thymus gland.

Dr. Hoffer treated his patients with an array of other nutrients including zinc.  Zinc is the key nutrient that primes T-cells in the thymus gland that shrinks with advancing age.

Shrinkage of the thymus gland, located below the chest plate (sternum) is progressive with advancing age.  The thymus gland is responsible for activating T-cells that are essential for immune system maintenance.   The thymus gland shrinks at a rate of about 3% per year till middle age and then 1% per year thereafter.  [Frontiers Immunology 2013]  There are no present therapies offered by physicians to regenerate the thymus gland even though they are widely documented and available.

This information should spike everyone's radar.  More on the thymus gland and zinc. 

Remarkably, zinc supplied to old mice facilitated a complete recovery of thymus gland function and regrowth of the organ with greater immune efficiency.  Researchers conclude that age-related thymus gland shrinkage and immune system dysfunction are not intrinsic and irreversible and largely depend upon zinc adequacy.  [International Journal Immunopharmacology 1995]

Imagine folks who've suffered childhood diseases and have had to endure chronic conditions their whole life.  If only they'd known about the combination of zinc and Vitamin C. So there's that.  Then there's this. 

A recent study is instructive.  Vitamin C, aspirin, and zinc were administered to laboratory rats given a chemical to induce colon cancer.  Aspirin and vitamin C maintained normal colon cells in 87.5% of the animals whereas zinc showed a 100% reduction in tumor incidence. [Asian Pacific Journal Cancer Prevention 2013]

All this to prove that Vitamin C as a cancer therapy works but works mainly because of the pair.  When used alone Vitamin C didn't always perform.  It still did better than chemo, or conventional therapies, but it performed off the charts in the presence of zinc.  One more note on cancer therapy.  Check this out.

When vitamin K3 is combined with vitamin C therapy, cancer cells die by autoschizis – that is they are split and utterly destroyed. [Ultrastructural Pathology 2010]

The synergistic use of vitamin E as alpha tocopherol succinate and synthetically made vitamin K3 plus ascorbic acid is also proposed as a further enhancement of vitamin C cancer therapy. [PLoS One 2012]

Not surprisingly, the addition of quercetin to vitamin C + vitamin K was more effective in killing cancer cells than the two vitamins alone in a lab dish study. [Alternative Medicine Reviews 2010; British Journal Cancer 2010]

This is hopeful stuff.  It was upon this recommendation that I tried Zinc Orotate. 

Zinc orotate is a chelated form of zinc that is more readily absorbed by the body than any other zinc supplement available. Manufacturers of it will usually boast about having this type, because they have good reason to. Zinc orotate passes through the membranes of cells easily, and it pulls the highest amounts of accompanying minerals into the cells, which leads to higher tissue concentrations of zinc and other beneficial nutrients

But I felt nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  Was that nothing feeling the result of that powerful absorption?  Who knows? Then I read this article by Sardi on zinc acetate.  I could not believe what an energetic rush I got.  And it centered around the heart and the spine.  I thought "Wow! This stuff is potent."  Turns out that the zinc acetate was waking up my thymus gland.  

Given what I read on the internet, Sardi outstrips most in his details and exhaustive research, that exhaustive work to compare stories, and find out what was missed and why.  Talk about dedication.  

The other form of zinc I have taken is Chelated Zinc.  See, the nice thing about Sardi is that he explains which organ responds so well to a specific nutrient.  In the case of zinc it is the thymus gland.  Then he does background study on it and finds out that with age people's thymus gland shrinks.  And when that shrinks, you're going to have lowered immunity. All the other articles on the web tell you that zinc is good for immunity, which sounds good but is no where near the specificity of Bill Sardi.  Amazing, really. 

There are essential minerals for health, then there are trace minerals.  Both equally important, one more than the next? FitDay sums it up:  

Five percent of your diet typically includes macro minerals and trace minerals. Macro minerals are minerals that you need in quantities greater than 100mg/day and make up about 1 percent of your total body weight. These include sodium, chloride, potassium, phosphorus, magnesium, and calcium. Trace minerals are elements that are needed is smaller amounts, 1-100mg/day by adults and are less than .01 percent of totalbody weight. These include Copper, Chromium, Fluoride, Iodine, Iron, Molybdenum, Manganese, Selenium, and Zinc. Trace Minerals are inorganic matter that cannot be destroyed by cooking or heat and are essential to the body for a variety of processes.

Macro Minerals

1.  Sodium.

2.  Chloride.

3.  Potassium.

4.  Phosphorus.  [despite this being a macro mineral, people's teeth are a mess today.  What's causing that?  Lifestyle?]

5.  Magnesium.

6.  Calcium: good for teeth and bones.  You know where to get it--milk and meat products.

Trace Minerals

1.  Copper.

2.  Chromium.

3.  Fluoride. 

4.  Iodine.

5.  Iron.

6.  Molydenum.

7.  Manganese.

8.  Selenium. 

9.  Zinc.

10.  Cobalt.

Together, I count 16 minerals in all.  But the lists that I have found range from 11 to 17 to 19 as in the list I compiled below, so there seems to be some debate as to which minerals are trace or macro or necessary for health.  And here I thought I was going to add or organize information into bite-sized, manageable tidbits.

1.   Lithium orotate.

2.   Reacted calcium

3.   Calcium-Magnesium

4.   Chromium

5.   Iron

6.   Magnesium

7.   Magnesium-Potasium

8.   Selenium.

9.   Phosphoros.

10.  Zinc.

11.  Stromium.

12.  Sodium

13.  Copper

14.  Manganese

15.  Molybdenum

16.  Iodine.

17.  Sulfur

18.  Fluoride. 

19.  Cobalt

Also, almost all the articles I read at sites like NCBI, KnowledgeofHealth, Natural News, and others point out deficiencies.  Why are Americans deficient in these nutrients?  Isn't this knowledge built in the local culture, local wisdom of its people?  You would think.  But one reason that Americans are deficient is precised because of what we consume, like alcohol, or people turning Vegan to for lifestyle or eating too many nuts or vegetables.  There are nutrients in daily foods called anti-nutrients that actually block minerals from getting absorbed into our system.  Is it entropy?  

My guess is that if you eat beef, cheese, milk, yogurt, eggs, and green leafy vegetables that you're getting the best multivitamin known to man.  Some folks recommend nuts for Vitamin E, but nuts contain an anti-nutrient called phytic acid, which blocks the absorption of calcium, zinc, magnesium, and others.  If a population is experience a deficiency in these minerals, it doesn't seem like a good idea to eat foods that block their absorption.  And why are nuts so prevalent in our stores and diets?  Is it because of the Mediterranean Diet craze?  Who knows?  But definitely pasteurized nuts have grown in popularity since I was a kid.  And the only packaged nuts we ate were sunflower seeds, peanuts, and corn nuts.  Stores used to have a bin of assorted nuts in shells.  Yeah.  At Christmas time my dad would buy bags of walnuts that we'd shell on the dining room table and pick from.  It was never the kind of thing where we open a bag and start eating them like, well, peanuts.

The latest mineral on my Top 5 List is zinc.  Wow!  This stuff is restorative.  I mean if you're in to taking supplements and all, I would definitely make zinc a priority.  You can find zinc in foods, of course, with oysters having the highest level of zinc than any other food.  So you want lots of zinc through food, eat your oysters. But if you're shell fish averse, you'll want to supplement.  

So I go to the internet not so much to prove as much as I do to corroborate my claims and findings.  We all know that zinc is good for us, but how good?  Where is it best served and what organs are best served by adequate zinc or zinc supplementation?  

John Phillip reports at Natural News that . . . 

Researchers at Duke University Medical Center and chemists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology collaborated to study the effects of zinc on brain function. Scientists experimenting with mice used a chemical that binds with zinc to eliminate it from the brain of the test animals. They found that in the absence of the mineral, communications between neurons was significantly diminished and that zinc is vital for controlling the efficiency between nerve cells in the hippocampus.

For more than a half century, scientists have understood that high concentrations of zinc are deposited within nerve cells; called vesicles, they package the transmitters which enable the nerve cells to communicate. The highest concentrations of brain zinc are found among the neurons of the hippocampus that control the high functions of learning and memory.

Clearly, if you're looking for brain support, zinc is the way to go. But we're always hearing about fish oils or gingko biloba and others as brain food.  And they are.  But these lowly minerals tend to take a back seat in the miraculous department until you're deficient in them.  And how does one become deficient in zinc, magnesium, and calcium?  Phytic acid is one way, one of a series of anti-nutrients available to us in our stores that end up in our diet. Nuts are a big one. The phytic acid in nuts blocks the absorption of minerals in our system.  Does the phytic acid deplete the minerals? I don't know, but I would say that blocking is no picnic either. We want magnesium in our bodies.  We need calcium for bones and teeth.  One of the things that phytic acid does is block or deplete phosphorous, which is the essential mineral for our teeth.  You want to keep those bones in your head for a lifetime?  Then consume foods high in phosphorous.

Then the question of which kind of zinc.  And there are several. The first zinc supplement that I took was Zinc Orotate on the recommendation of an online article.  In fact, I went through 2 bottles of them, thinking that this was the best of the zinc forms. I really did not feel anything.  Even overdosing on Zinc Orotate, nothing.  The next zinc I tried was Zinc Acetate on the implied recommendation of Bill Sardi.  

But for best absorption, Sardi recommends Zinc Gluconate and Zinc Methionine:  

SUPERIORLY ABSORBED FORMS OF SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRIENTS: VITAMINS, MINERALS, & TRACE MINERALS

1.  Zinc gluconate: Zinc methionine.

2.  Inorganic selenium as selenite, selenite: Organically bound selenium in a natural full array of protein-bound forms (Seleno Excell®).

3.  Iron as ferrous sulfate: Iron as carbonyl iron (Ferronyl).

4.  Magnesium oxide: Magnesium chloride, carbonate, malate, glycinate, gluconate, threonate, others. 

Further, Sardi lists some conditions that zinc improves

       Zinc deficiency is associated with a low sperm count. 

Zinc deficiency increases the prevalence of dental caries. 

Zinc deficiency in the skin is associated with psoriasis and acne.  Patients with these skin conditions are likely to have normal blood serum levels of zinc.

Zinc supplementation is associated with 14% reduction in preterm birth.  

Zinc is only recently appreciated as an essential nutrient to prevent age-related bone loss, a.k.a, osteoporosis.

A skin rash condition (acrodermatitis enteropathica) which emanates from an inherited disorder of zinc absorption is resolved by zinc supplementation.Zinc carnosine is a remedy for H. pylori infection and gastritis.

Crohn’s disease results in poor zinc absorption.  Researchers successfully used 110 milligrams of zinc sulfate (providing 75 mg of elemental zinc) to quell recurrence of symptoms of Crohn’s disease (10 of 12 patients experienced resolution of their “leaky gut” problem).  

Resolution of a leaky gut!  That is news, incredible news.