From: ((Steven B. Harris))
Subject: Re: Organic germanium
Date: 15 Jun 1995

In <60.24431.2167.0N1E6EF4@canrem.com> ron.roth@canrem.com (Ron Roth)
writes:

>R >  richj @pixi.com (Richard Jacobson) writes:
>R >
>R >  Could you please explain HOW you test for germanium deficiency?
>
> As mentioned numerous times on the net before over the last few
> years, I measure *intra-cellular* levels of germanium and over 40
> other chemicals (half of them minerals), with every patient visit,
> incl rutin (which Scott B inquired about), hesperidin, some hormones,
> HDL/LDL/VLDL fractions, and a number of other items of interest.


I notice you're still not answering the question.  We want to know how
you test, not what.  We want to know your method.


                                            Steve Harris

>  > The same goes for nickel, silicon, lithium, bismuth, etc, and other
>R >  > "unproven" nutrients which can be associated with plenty of
medical problems when imbalanced.

No, they are not "associated" with any medical problems, and nobody
knows what the proper balance of these things is, if anything.  Lithium
and bismuth are not even known to be necessary for life.  Nickel and
silicon are ultratrace minerals in which deficiency has only been seen
in lab animals on ultrapurified diets breathing filtered air and
drinking triple distilled water.  Let them breathe dust, even, and the
pathology goes away and they look perfectly healthy.

                                     Steve Harris, M.D.

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Subject: Re: Elements in human body
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition

In <64uvgq$jt0$1@nyx.nyx.net> dcox@nyx.net (David Hamilton Cox) writes:

>>
>> One of my health food catalogs claims that there are 22 elements
>>in the human body, and that bee pollen is the only food with all of
>>those elements.



Comment:

Dumb.  Why would (for instance) meat from an animal have any fewer
elements than are in your body?  Unless the animal needed fewer than
you do, which there is no evidence animals do.



> I'm just curious if this is correct. I'm not asking
>about the supposed benefits of bee pollen, I am more interested in
>just knowing if the human body indeed has 22 elements, and if so
>which ones; and also if bee pollen has these elements, and no other
>food does. Does anyone know? Thanks.

The human body contains traces of all the 89 non-radiactive elements,
and a few of the radioactive ones, too.  The question is: which ones
are there for the ride, and which ones are doing something.

Right now, most scientists recognize the following schema:  the body is
make mostly of O, C, N, and H atoms.  After that come minerals.
Roughly in order of weight-abundance for the first dozen or so, these
are:

Major minerals: Ca, P, K, S, Na, Cl, Mg
Minor or trace minerals: Fe, Mn, Cu, I, Zn, Mo, Se
Ultratrace: Co, Cr, Si, Sn, F, Ni, As

This is a total of 25 elements.  Lack of any of these will cause a
deficiency syndrome in animals (even though it may be necessary to go
several generations and even keep the animals from breathing the dust
in the air to see it!), and so all are presumably necessary in humans.
There is some evidence for trophic effects of a few other elements in
animals or humans (V, B, etc), but it's not at all clear if this means
these elements are "essential" in any normal way.  Just because an
element has some effect, or the body can use it to do something,
doesn't necessarily mean the body can't get along without it entirely
if necessary.

                                    Steve Harris, M.D.

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,sci.med.dentistry,sci.med.nutrition,
	misc.kids.health
Subject: Re: Sources of Fluoride in water (was:Re: #2:Fluoride, The Complete 
	Script
Date: 8 Oct 1998 10:39:05 GMT

In <6vgarc$8tr$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> sherrell@cdsnet.net writes:

>If I could package the essense of your comments, it might be good for my
>garden. BS makes good fertilizer. You can talk nonsense all you like, but
>those who know better will recognize it for what it is. Fluoride is not
>an essential nutrient ... not necessary for the formation of healthy
>teeth or any other body part. If you don't agree, cite your references.


   I suggest you begin with the classic ultraclean isolator trace
mineral metabolism studies of Schwarz:  Fed. Proc. 33:1748, 1974.  This
work on fluoride was done at the VA Hospital in Long Beach.  The late
Dr. Schwarz is also the discoverer of the essential roles of selenium
and chromium in nutrition.  Also some odd elements like tin and
silicon.

                                         Steve Harris, M.D.