I could get into a big back and forth scenario that would be quite lengthy, but I simply do not have the time. Yes, I have read the studies, some of them are very good, and you have pulled out the one that is very poor. This is the brand of junk science that the FDA and some others are using, so I am actually glad that you did point this out, because this is where I was going with this whole thing anyhow if there were any more questions. Read very closely the following piece you excerpted from the quoted study:

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."

Do we see the problem yet? If not, let me explain. Ge132 refers only to bis beta carboxyethel germanium sesquioxide, however this study does not. It contains several known forms of germanium based substances, and also "unspecified forms". Sheesh, talk about "muddying the waters"!!! That is why the Japanese research tends to be sound, they did not pervert their studies with other forms of germanium. That would be akin to me saying beef is good for you, and then you doing a study on chicken, goats, and swine that have been exposed to toxic waste because they are all "meat products". That is junk science! Therefore, it really would have been most appropriate for me to only list links containing studies of Ge132, but in the interest of time I used a link that had some good and a few poor studies. However, it illustrated a fundamental pillar of the allegations I made against the FDA, and their brand of "science". To be fair however, the FDA has to study these other forms of germanium, because there are unscrupulous people piggybacking on the Ge132 science and selling these other dangerous substances as "Organic Germanium" or just "Germanium". Stupid people do not understand the difference, ingest the toxic junk, and then Ge132 gets a bad rap. Putting multiple substances into one big pot to study them individually is where I have a problem with the FDA's approach. It reminds one of a man agressive backyard bred blue tainting the good name of APBT after an unfortunate incident, the brush is too broad.