Calcium Montmorillonite Clay for Dogs

[Officially Retired]

Being part of this forum reminds me alot of my father ,whom passed 14 years ago, and of all his good friends from back home Sr.Morfin, A.Bellon, Estudiante, A. Cardenas, G. Rodriguez,Sr. Magana and a few others i cant remember anymore. The memories of my father and these great dog men reflect alot in these forums. I wish I could have learn much more from my father when we lived in MX City at that time. Unfortunatly I was too young and more interested in video games and teenage girls...actually, female in general. lol....what I do know is that as a grown man I have aquired my fathers passion for these dogs and the raw beauty these game dogs offer.

It's funny how many things we look back on in life, and wish we could revisit them with a more mature perspective

Thank you both for your great input. As you both recommended I will continue to research on this product to ensure this proofs to be beneficial to my dogs and not something that would cause damage to them. Again I truly appreciate the knowledge and the time that you both took to respond to my post. I look forward to continuing expanding my knowledge through this forum with all the great topics and dog men recommendations.
Cheers to all that have left us..and all that remain....
Spike

Thank you very much for the interesting topic. I will follow-up on this more as I have more time to do so. Cheers!



_____________________________________
_____________________________________

A critical observation in regards to the general toxicity of all substances was made by Paracelsus (1493-1541) over 500 years ago. He stated "All substances are poisonous; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy."

Though I get the gist of this quote, all it does is muddy the issue. The issue is whether the substance is safe to use at the recommended dose or not. Whether "all" substances can become toxic, if you overdose the hell out of them, just muddies the issue.

For example, the wormer pyrantel is considered "safe" to use, precisely because even at 20x the dose needed to kill the roundworm there are few known side-effects. Just because you could ultimately give a toxic dose, if you gave a dog enough, doesn't change the fact that pyrantel is considered a non-toxic substance at the recommended dose to do what it is supposed to do. By contrast, piperazine (another wormer) can induce major toxic symptoms at only 2-3x the recommended dose. Therefore, the margin of safety is much less in piperazine.

So the point is this: if the required dose of a substance to "work" at its intended purpose also runs the risk of toxic effects, then that substance cannot be considered a "safe" drug to take, but in fact is a risky drug/substance to take. By contrast, if another drug can be given at a specific dose to achieve the same effect, and runs zero risk of toxic effects, then that drug is considered safe to use.

Bottom line, the FDA is full of lies. The evidence for Ge132 is out there in abundance, and not from the labs who produce it, which one could count on a single hand at this time. Here are some examples of the diverse indepth studies that have been conducted.

I am not sure this inflammatory statement about the FDA is necessarily true. The FDA may be a slow-turning mechanism, but it admits the efficacy of a number of drugs that actually do work and actually are safe. Clearly there must be some merit to whether Ge132 works, otherwise they wouldn't be spending so much money running a 7-year test on it. The very fact that they're running such a test means that the substance has shown promise. But there may also be some unwanted effects to the substance, and I think by doing a 7-year test they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, rather than playing guessing-games or "repeating what they hear."

http://www.organicgermanium.net/germanium_studies.htm

I am not sure if you even read all of these studies here, but even they describe possible renal failure:

"Germanium is not an essential element. Its acute toxicity is low. However, at least 31 reported human cases linked prolonged intake of germanium products with renal failure and even death. Signs of kidney dysfunction, kidney tubular degeneration, and germanium accumulation were observed. Other adverse effects were anemia, muscle weakness, and peripheral neuropathy. Recovery of renal function is slow and incomplete even long after germanium intake was stopped. The total dose of ingested germanium (as dioxide, carboxyethyl germanium sesquioxide, germanium-lactate-citrate, or unspecified forms) varied from 15 to over 300 g; the exposure duration varied from 2 to 36 months."
Reference

Therefore, it seems the FDA isn't lying. What it seems like is that they're trying to be thorough.

More importantly and easiest to understand and verbalize is this. LD50 is the “Lethal Dose” of any given material required to kill 50% of a given population. LD50 data is typically stated in a dosage amount per every kg of body weight of a test subject. By this criterion, highly toxic materials always have a lower LD50 than less toxic materials. For obvious reasons, most LD50 data on any substance is collected from animal and not human testing. In spite of this, LD50 has proven quite reliable when extrapolating to human toxicity, and always provides a good point of reference. Published LD50 data for germanium sesquioxide is further evidence of its safety.

Well, there is a major difference between a LETHAL dose and a dose that can create negative side-effects. So you're arguing something else now. I am sure it would take quite a lot of germanium to actually kill a person; however it seems like even at the recommended dose it can create negative side-effects.

Now, pay real close attention to the dosages here, because they are massive. The reported LD50 for germanium sesquioxide is in excess of 6,300 mg/kg orally for mice, greater than 10,000 mg/kg orally for rats, and greater than 1,000 mg/kg intravenously for rats. Chronic exposure studies are equally impressive at 3,000 mg/kg orally for 6 months on rats with no toxicity, and 500 mg/kg intravenously for 6 months on dogs, also with no toxicity. Considering this data in its proper perspective, germanium sesquioxide is at least 1 (one) time safer than calcium carbonate 47, three (3) times safer than table salt 48, four (4) times safer than potassium chloride 48, and 23 times safer than chromium picolinate 49
If you guys want to know nearly as much as I do about Ge132, here is a link to Dr. Asai's book which I purchased about 1987 when I was just getting started with pit dogs. The only thing you won't have after reading this that I do is a personal testimony of it's high level of efficacy in numerous situations.
http://www.karlloren.com/ogc/researc...ook1/book1.htm

Again, I do not doubt that germanium is effective in certain applications; otherwise studies on it would have been abandoned. The fact that they are pursuing the studies indicates it has potential, but the fact that there are multiple previous studies showing toxicity indicate that caution and more study is warranted.

Therefore, I do not believe calling the FDA "full of lies" is appropriate, because plenty of studies support their caution. Thus I believe that the results of this 7-year study are ultimately going to be more conclusive than any of the previous studies.

Jack