Gerson: Cancer and Disease - What corporations do not want you to know

[Tenet Nosce]

What is your opinion on calcium?

My apologies in advance, but a "Wall O' Text" is forthcoming. I'll throw in a couple pictures too, just to mix it up. But the point of this is for the reader to see the thought process by which I arrive at my opinion, rather than just passing it off as authoritative.

Calcium is one of seven macrominerals which all work together in the body. So, first and foremost, I would be skeptical of any view which presents calcium independently from the other six.

But for the purposes of your question, I usually discuss it along with the other three cationic macrominerals that occur in the first two groups (columns) of the periodic table:

Notice how the Sodium (Na+), Potassium (K+), Calcium (Ca2+), and Magnesium (Mg2+) form a box in the first two groups (columns). That is why I would consider these together. They are the macrominerals that form positively charged ions (cations). In the body, sodium/potassium tend to work as a pair, as do calcium/magnesium.

On the right hand side, in the third period (row) are the other three macrominerals. These are the ones that form negatively charged ions (anions): Phosphorus (P3-), Sulfur (S2-), and Chloride (Cl-).

Incidentally, the rest of the minerals important for biology all occur in the fourth period (row), in the middle section of the table called the "transition metals." Of these, iron, copper, and zinc, are required in greater amounts. Vanadium, chromium, manganese, cobalt, and nickel, also in the fourth period (row), but not on this graphic, are collectively known as the "trace minerals" and are required in lesser amounts.

Also of note, is that the main "heavy metals" which are known to cause toxicity if built up too highly in the body are in the same groups (columns) as copper and zinc, but in different periods (rows). Under copper are silver and gold. And under zinc are cadmium and mercury.

The terms macro- and micro- minerals refer to the amounts required by biological systems. Take a look at this chart for comparison. Just pay attention to the relative amounts. There is, of course, debate about how much of each is really required, but you can see that the amount of macrominerals needed can be several orders of magnitude greater than the microminerals.

So the first practical thing to point out from all this is that the total amount of macrominerals (Na, K, Ca, Mg) needed to meet the biological demands of the body takes up quite a bit of physical space. That means- a LOT of capsules when it comes to supplements.

Which means, it is very impractical to supplement with any of these. It usually means swallowing several "00" or "000" size capsules every day (although they could be in powder or liquid format) which also means a lot of money to pay for these supplements.

Contrast this to the microminerals where a day's supply would fit in a single "0" size capsule.

Therefore, in consideration of the cost and convenience aspects, I would tend to go with food sources as much as possible. Besides the additional nutrients present in the foods, there's the added benefit of the "just right" ratios that are required for life.

Regarding all the myriad "expert" theories regarding the ideal ratios of these, I would tend to go with "that which nature provides." This also happens to be the "scientific" view of the issue.

So, let's look at these one by one. Interestingly enough, the most abundant sources of sodium would be many of the things we consider to be "superfoods" like yeast, spirulina, and seaweeds. Animals which don't have access to these have to rely on mineral salt, or salt licks, as their main source of sodium.

In a way, salt was the original "dietary supplement", and as you probably know it used to be so valuable that people used to get paid in salt- hence the term salary.

The most abundant sources of potassium (by weight, not by calorie or volume) are actually what we have come to known as cooking herbs and spices. Of course, these were also a main driver of the global economy back in Antiquity and are still very expensive today.

After that, the most abundant source of potassium is beans. Including coffee and cocoa "beans" although they are not really beans. Also, the above mentioned "superfoods" are also abundant in potassium. As is dairy, if that is an option.

When it comes to magnesium, seeds are king, with nuts coming in a somewhat distant second. The aforementioned beans (of all types) and superfoods are also good sources of magnesium. Finally, dark leafy green vegetables. Since magnesium is at the core of the chlorophyll molecule, the more green, the better. Incidentally, dairy is a fairly poor source of magnesium.

Finally, we arrive at calcium. Dairy is at the top of the list, if an option. Dark leafy greens are in a close second. And, of course the "superfoods".

Also notice that fruit does not really come up high on the list for any of these. But the fruits that are the highest are typically tropical fruits, like palm, coconut, plantain, banana, and avocado. Then mediterranean fruits like figs, dates, and olives.

So, to sum it all up, it makes the most sense (from many angles) to get our macrominerals from food. Beans and dark leafy greens should be the foundational staples of the diet. Seeds and nuts come next. Along with liberal use of herbs, spices, and salt, as can be afforded. Primary supplementation should come from "superfoods" if they are available, and affordable.

From this perspective, you might also see why I tend to get just as concerned when I hear of people subsisting on a diet of primarily fruit and grains, as I do meat and potatoes. Yikes!

If there is any money left over after all of the above are attended to, then put it toward a macromineral dietary supplement. But ironically, it probably wouldn't be necessary at that point.

Conversely, if I were to prioritize mineral supplements, I would recommend taking a trace mineral supplement first. Then zinc. Iron and copper if necessary, but they often aren't. Then put the macrominerals last.

My specific question is regarding the disagreement over whether to supplement with more calcium (with cofactors) or with magnesium, in order to correct a calcium deficiency.

How is the determination of "calcium deficiency" being made?