Quote Originally Posted by TFX View Post
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.
I too haven't had a lot of time to respond, but I have to disagree with your premise here, and I am not sure why you are calling this "junk science."

The way I read it was all forms of germanium have the potential to produce these negative effects (including carboxyethyl germanium sesquioxide).

If this is not what is meant, then I guess I am reading it wrong.



Quote Originally Posted by TFX View Post
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!
Actually, I think upon reflection you will see that this is a totally unsound analogy you gave.

A more accurate analogy would be you saying, "Beef is good for you," and my doing a study on all strains of beef cattle to see which is the most/least nutritious. And, quite frankly, this would be a totally thorough manner of research and would constitute the best science, not "junk" science. Furthermore, if my report came back that, yes, all forms of beef are good for you ... but the repeated and prolonged ingestion of any beef can ultimately be bad for you ... a man who raises cattle might "automatically reject" this report, even if it is true

Or, the report might show that some strains of beef cattle aren't all that nutritious, but one form in particular showed promise. If a whole other series of tests were then to be conducted on this one key form of beef cattle, then this would (again) be the best science possible.



Quote Originally Posted by TFX View Post
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".
I think researching each form of germanium is absolutely vital, precisely because there is no reason to rely on Dr. Asai's work, seeing as he is peddling the products. It is incumbent upon the FDA to run their own tests and draw their own conclusions, is it not? I do not see any reason to label the FDA's findings as "junk science." As a matter of fact, let us call into question the legitimacy of Dr. Asai's claims for a moment. He said:

"No matter how much is given to animals, there is no lethal level to report. The more they get, the more active they become. In the Drugs, Cosmetics, and Medical instruments Act, the lethal amount is reached if half the animals die. With germanium there is no lethal amount."
Reference (bottom of page)

And yet, in fact, there is a lethal amount. It may be massive, but to suggest there is "no" lethal amount is a bit daft IMO. (Allow me re-use your own quote here: "All substances are poisonous; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy." ~ Paracelsus)




Quote Originally Posted by TFX View Post
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.
Well, there is a difference between stupidity and ignorance. No person, regardless of intellect, can magically know the differences in germanium without doing some intensive studies. I think you are simply being a little harsh on the FDA, when in point of fact they are exhausting every avenue. If their initial studies were on "all forms of germanium," then clearly (by virtue of the latest information I posted), the FDA has now totally narrowed their studies down to an intensive 7-year study on ONLY bis-carboxyethylgermanium sequioxide, which testing results are scheduled to be completed at the end of 2012.

Quite frankly, I for one will put a lot more stock into the results of this published study (whether those results be fantastic, so-so, or bad) than I would place stock in Dr. Asai's book. It would be great if the results were similarly excellent to his book, because I for one will then set out to obtain some. However, if there are limitations/liabilities, it will be nice to know conclusively what they are.

I suppose we will post the results on this thread at some point in the future!

Cheers,

Jack