questions for for Montygram- copper supplement
lian
1.I have slight copper deficiency: 69 mcg/dl (range 80-155).
iron and magnesium are o.k.
a. what can be the reasons for that?
b. what is the best copper supllement?- gluconate? sebacate?
2.I would to ear your opinion, what is the meaning of high RBC (RED
BLOOD CELLS) and low
lian
lian
1. before 2.5 month I had betamethasone injection, for vasomotor
rhinits. It had bad influence on my health.
Is it possible that this steroid lowered copper level?
2. my usual blood pressure until 3 month ago was 110/70. For the last
3 month it droped to 82/49.
what can cause such a reduction in blood pressure?
does copper deficiency affect blood pressure?
3. are there are risks of oxidation and imbalance with other minerals
at taking copper supplement 1mg?
Robert
"lian" <lia...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127052678.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I am perplexed as to why they did the copper level. It is very unusual to
have one done. I don't believe I have ever seen one requested in the many
years I have worked.
I am leery of the circumstance of who and where it was ordered and by who
did the level.
Here is a good link about copper.
http://www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanual/section1/chapter4/4j.jsp
Excess copper as in Wilson's disease can cause a hemolytic anemia along with
liver disease etc.
A high RBC count is known as polycythemia. It may be primary or relative,
reactive. It can be seen in hypoxic lung diseases, cigarette smokers,
asthma, or in heart disorders involving circulatory conditions.
The MCV is the average size of the red blood cell meaning they are small.
If you have an increase demand for red cell production and a limited amount
of iron then one ends up with small iron deficient red cells although the
total iron body stores may be normal or low.
The other possibility of a high red cell count and a low MCV involves
thalassemia or hemoglobinopathies common in certain areas of the world where
malaria is also common.
A high RBC with an MCV cutoff of 80 has a high negative predictor.
Thalassemia can be ruled out if the MCV is higher than 80.
montygram
1. Your diet, in detail.
2. The amount of sleep you get and the quality of your sleep.
3. Drinking, smoking, drug use ("recreational," OTC, or prescribed).
4. Family history.
5. Actual symptoms, such as severe fatigue.
And anything else you find unusual should be noted, such as a change in
bowel movements, skin discoloration, or odd sensations.
Robert covered your request in the way that an establishment doctor
would, which is fine, but incomplete, in light of the recent evidence
for molecular-level mechanisms. There is also no overall theoretical
framework for "modern medicine," but mostly observations, and of course
the mumbling about genes, DNA, pathogens, as well as "idopathic"
causes, no of which can cure anything (for the most part) at this
point, aside from the obvious things done decades ago.
montygram
open the caps and sprinkle a small amount on food (2 mg. capsules).
One brand I tried smelled horrible when I opened the container, so
check for that and bring it back if it smells strange.
These tests really don't mean much, but symptoms do, if you have any.
Be careful not to take too much zinc or iron.
At your age I began to have terrible gastrointestinal problems, and
many people in their mid to late 30s have all kinds of problems because
the "youth associated hormones" diminish. Make sure your cholesterol
is around 200 or a little higher, and of course anything that would
oxidize the cholesterol is a major problem. You can start taking a
little pregnenolone at this point. If you want to try and delay
menopause significantly, take a lot of pregnenolone, meaning about
twice what the bottle says. It should be safe, but this is uncharted
territory. If your cholesterol is 200 or so, you could just take what
the bottle suggests, which is what I think I would do if I were a woman
of your age.
What will help a great deal is to avoid stressors, such as highly
unsaturated oils, fried food, and foods containing cholesterol cooked
while exposed to air. Also not getting enough sleep, smoking, etc. are
stressors that should be avoided. Eating berries and dark chocolate is
a good idea, as well as making sure you are getting good quality
protein. I eat a boiled egg each day, several ounces of raw cheese, a
cup or so of whole milk yogurt, and some ice cream (without
carrageenan, locust bean, guarr, carob, or other stuff that shouldn't
be there).
Having what they consider slightly low copper levels is not something
to worry much about, but I do think a little copper each day is a good
idea. I seem to have less hypersensitivity reactions since taking a
little copper and only taking zinc once every few days (and in small
amounts), which is consistent with what I guess is now conventional
wisdom about the antagonism between zinc and copper, and how this
effects the immune system.
Robert
"montygram" <nazzt...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1127084139.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Could you provide more details, such as:
>
> 1. Your diet, in detail.
>
> 2. The amount of sleep you get and the quality of your sleep.
>
> 3. Drinking, smoking, drug use ("recreational," OTC, or prescribed).
>
> 4. Family history.
>
> 5. Actual symptoms, such as severe fatigue.
>
> And anything else you find unusual should be noted, such as a change in
> bowel movements, skin discoloration, or odd sensations.
>
> Robert covered your request in the way that an establishment doctor
> would, which is fine, but incomplete, in light of the recent evidence
> for molecular-level mechanisms.
You mean all disease can be cured by eating coconut oil.
There is also no overall theoretical
> framework for "modern medicine,"
You don't practice "modern medicine", nice.
but mostly observations, and of course
> the mumbling about genes, DNA, pathogens, as well as "idopathic"
> causes, no of which can cure anything (for the most part) at this
> point, aside from the obvious things done decades ago.
>
LOL. You don't need all of that to cure things do you.
No genes or DNA or pathogens or anything scientific, modern medicine.
Seriously I don't know why people hate you.
lian
Monty, I start writing all my history regarding my health, with many
details.
It came to be 6! pages. So now I try to shorten it, and will post it
tomorrow. Hope you look for it tomorrow, read and give me your wise
opinion and advices.
lian
thanks for the replies.
I am now writing my health history and problem. It's long (6 pages),
and I try to shorten it.
Please look for my story tomorrow.
Hope you will have the patience to read it and tell me your opinion.
thanks
montygram
stable, and then the "bugs" won't get you, except in very rare
circumstances or in the case of "emergency medicine," when particular
kinds of extreme biochemical activity may be needed (though it often
does long term harm). Coconut oil's beneficial properties are now well
known (lauric acid, for example), but what isn't as well understood
(mainly because nutritionists and epidemioligists are "running the
show" when biochemists should be) is that packing your body with
saturated fatty acids is one of the most intelligent things a person
can do for long term health.
As far as "modern medicine," where is the vaccine for "HIV" that we
were promised by about 1985? Where is the cure for cancer that was
supposed to occur by 1980? What can you actually cure? You can poison
bugs with antibiotics, but that can be done with much less toxicity
with anti-growth substances (e.g., white tea), but again, the point is
that there shouldn't be a problem in the first place. When there is a
"bug" going around, and I feel a bit run down, I use MSM, white tea,
and I chew on some zinc, and I haven't had a cold in a couple of years
now, even though everyone else around me gets it.
There are cures for these minor things, but "modern medicine" is mostly
about poisoning people and hoping that somehow something good will
occur. In the case of most cancer drugs, they use horrible poisons,
which lead to the cancer growth being disrupted for a while (as well as
terrible side effects), and then they say it's a great success. Even
Nobel Prize winners working in this field agree, and I have quoted them
here in previous posts.
But they have no other framework because they do not understand the
underlying mechanisms, which are tied to actual laws of nature. I
suggest that anyone who is interested in this approach read Peter
Duesberg's "Inventing the AIDS Virus." Forget about the "AIDS"
material in the book if you'd like - the rest of it presents a
biochemical understanding of "medical" phenomena, and it has
applications of nutrtion as well. For example, PUFAs can stimulate
biochemical activity in the body, often in very dangerous ways, but
there is nothing special about omega 3 and 6 PUFAs. They are just more
biochemically active than the PUFA the human body can make on its own
(the Mead acid). This way of thinking is consistent with all the
scientific evidence, but people like Robert will never be able to
"think outside the box," yet they have no problem prescribing poisons
dressed up as "medicine" and helping you into a pine box.
And I guess Robert is ignorant of all the "experts" going around
talking about how genes, DNA manipulation, etc. are going to cure all
diseases within the next year or so. They said that about "AIDS,"
cancer, and all kinds of other things. They have failed, mainly
because they are no longer doing science, as I have pointed out when
people cite "studies" that are terribly flawed. I presented my views
on why people would attack someone who just wants to stick with the
scientific method, so I won't reiterate that here. I would add,
though, that some "experts" become very arrogant, and would never admit
that they are wrong, even when the evidence is staring them in the
face. "Defending one's turf" and "not rocking any boats" seems to take
precedence over trying to help people, as we learned with Katrina (for
those who didn't realize this previously).
I will be doing a post about the debate between Enig and Peat soon, in
which some of these issues will be fleshed out.
Again, if anyone needs my help, I am here for you, free of charge.
What you will get is a biochemical view of the issue or problem - one
that is founded on basic scientific principles, and is sometimes as
simple as looking at a periodic table of elements.
Robert
oxidative damage and guess what he will recommend?
Robert
> It's an issue of prevention.
Those that come down with disease didn't eat enough coconut oil and those
who did not come down with disease eat enough coconut oil. Nice.
You can make your body biochemically
> stable, and then the "bugs" won't get you, except in very rare
> circumstances or in the case of "emergency medicine," when particular
> kinds of extreme biochemical activity may be needed (though it often
> does long term harm). Coconut oil's beneficial properties are now well
> known (lauric acid, for example), but what isn't as well understood
> (mainly because nutritionists and epidemioligists are "running the
> show" when biochemists should be) is that packing your body with
> saturated fatty acids is one of the most intelligent things a person
> can do for long term health.
And long term health by eating coconut oil has already been proven by the
biochemist who should be running the show?
>
> As far as "modern medicine," where is the vaccine for "HIV" that we
> were promised by about 1985?
I didn't know that the definition of modern medicine included promises kept
or not. I thought is was progress and evidenced based.
Where is the cure from your side? Why hasn't your side made "modern
medicine" irrelevent?
Competing sides here.
Where is the cure for cancer that was
> supposed to occur by 1980?
There is no such thing as "cancer". There are cancers and yes if you look at
childhood leukemia and lymphomas you indeed see cures.
How many cases has coconut oil cured? Oh I forgot if the person gets cancer
it's because he didn't eat enough coconut oil and if he didn't get cancer
then he's OK. How convenient of you. Think of all those cases of cancer that
coconut oil prevented.
What can you actually cure? You can poison
> bugs with antibiotics, but that can be done with much less toxicity
> with anti-growth substances (e.g., white tea), but again, the point is
> that there shouldn't be a problem in the first place. When there is a
> "bug" going around, and I feel a bit run down, I use MSM, white tea,
> and I chew on some zinc, and I haven't had a cold in a couple of years
> now, even though everyone else around me gets it.
Think of all those colds you prevented by taking MSM and tea.
It's amazing. Those people taking MSM and tea with colds didn't take enough
to cure them.
Colds are caused by a virus so regular antibiotics don't do much for them.
Anti-growth substances on a virus I guess keep the viruses from growing to
be king size super viruses the size of a baseball.
>
> There are cures for these minor things, but "modern medicine" is mostly
> about poisoning people and hoping that somehow something good will
> occur. In the case of most cancer drugs, they use horrible poisons,
> which lead to the cancer growth being disrupted for a while (as well as
> terrible side effects), and then they say it's a great success. Even
> Nobel Prize winners working in this field agree, and I have quoted them
> here in previous posts.
That part is true. The first antibiotic to treat syphilis was an arsenical
compound that eventually killed a few people and put Dr Erhlich on trial in
Germany. One of the allegations was he was making money on the drug but it
also killed people.
Progress can be slow but it is indeed progress. Nothing is perfect.
The alternative is to allow people like you treat cancer patients and that
is called "hospice care". Thank you.
>
> But they have no other framework because they do not understand the
> underlying mechanisms, which are tied to actual laws of nature. I
> suggest that anyone who is interested in this approach read Peter
> Duesberg's "Inventing the AIDS Virus." Forget about the "AIDS"
> material in the book if you'd like - the rest of it presents a
> biochemical understanding of "medical" phenomena, and it has
> applications of nutrtion as well. For example, PUFAs can stimulate
Yes I understand your laws of nature pertaining to relating the entire
universe on a FUFA basis.
> And I guess Robert is ignorant of all the "experts" going around
> talking about how genes, DNA manipulation, etc. are going to cure all
> diseases within the next year or so.
I don't listen to promises from both sides. Nor does anybody else. Promises
are for generating research funds. It is hype for money.
They said that about "AIDS,"
> cancer, and all kinds of other things.
You mean just like you have said that about FUFA's. You have learned well.
Now where's the beef?
They were wrong and you are right. Show me the cures in HIV and cancer with
your FUFA's theory.
They have failed, mainly
> because they are no longer doing science, as I have pointed out when
> people cite "studies" that are terribly flawed. I presented my views
> on why people would attack someone who just wants to stick with the
> scientific method, so I won't reiterate that here. I would add,
> though, that some "experts" become very arrogant, and would never admit
> that they are wrong,
It is not needed for someone to admit being wrong. It is more important that
someone prove that they are right.
Show me right now the cures you have generated with HIV and cancer. I am not
saying just keeping it in check but cures.
All you do is criticize modern medicine and put up nothing on your side.
Biochemists using rats is your evidence. Cancer cells being flooded with
1000's of over concentrated chemicals out of any realistic phsysiological
range as a cancer treatment?
Where are the patients being treated by your break through research?
even when the evidence is staring them in the
> face. "Defending one's turf" and "not rocking any boats" seems to take
> precedence over trying to help people, as we learned with Katrina (for
> those who didn't realize this previously).
> I will be doing a post about the debate between Enig and Peat soon, in
> which some of these issues will be fleshed out.
>
> Again, if anyone needs my help, I am here for you, free of charge.
> What you will get is a biochemical view of the issue or problem - one
> that is founded on basic scientific principles, and is sometimes as
> simple as looking at a periodic table of elements.
>
Bullshit rhetoric above buddy.
You have a poster give you a chemical level of copper and laboratory results
and you say that it is not necessary to you and you need symptoms instead of
lab results in order to help people.
Now you are talking about the periodic table?
Find copper on it and tell the lady your plan.
montygram
experiments to demonstrate my points if my detractors are correct. I
have offered to be infected with "HIV" because there is no such thing,
just cellular fragments, as the Perth Group have pointed out. Have you
even heard of the Perth Group?
I have little respect for doctors today (in general) - that is true.
But there is good reason for this. For example, insisting that my
grandmother take statins when the evidence that the establishment
themselves cite demonstrate that this is a terrible idea. I am not
saying that you and they are malicious, just that you are unaware of
the scientific method, though you like to think of yourself as a
scientist.
I offer to help anyone who needs it. This woman doesn't seem to have
anything wrong with her, and you must be aware that such a test can
vary even within a day. Have you ever heard of Dr. Hans Selye? His
ideas represent a different approach to "disease" - you start with
symptoms, not "markers." You assume that whatever the powers that be
in the medical establishment tell you is correct, but as a proponent of
the scientific method, I must analyse the data in order to see if the
results are as claimed. It is no my fault that you do not understand
the concept of scholarly integrity. Perhaps you should have chosen a
different school to attend.
Are you aware of the differences between elements such as lithium,
sodium, and potassium on the one hand, and chlorine, bromine, and
fluorine, on the other? Do you understand why fluorine is so reactive
and dangerous? Do you understand how biological molecules can be
destroyed or rendered dysfunctional do to stressors that remove
electrons? Do you understand what epiphenomena are? Most of what you
are addressing as a "doctor," if that is what you are, is
epiphenomenal. You are not dealing with the underlying or "root" cause
- that is what I do, or in the case where the evidence is insufficient,
I propose confirmatory experiments. I'm even willing to pay for the
experiments - if I am wrong. But you get paid even if you kill all
your patients. Sorry, but I won't play your game. If you want to take
me up on an experimental proposal, great, but otherwise, you're seem to
be just another "expert" is probably killing more people than you are
"saving."
Robert
> You may have not been reading my posts, but I offer to pay for the
> experiments to demonstrate my points if my detractors are correct. I
> have offered to be infected with "HIV" because there is no such thing,
> just cellular fragments, as the Perth Group have pointed out. Have you
> even heard of the Perth Group?
You totally ignore my request to see evidence that you can cure cancer. You
are the one showing the flaws of modern medicine as it's inability to cure
cancer. That is the battleground of your choice. I am saying show me your
success in curing cancer.
Show me your success in curing HIV then. All I hear is rhetoric about how
modern medicine is wrong and you are right.
Nobody cares about who is right or who is wrong. They are interested in
results. Where are your results in curing HIV?
>
> I have little respect for doctors today (in general) - that is true.
I don't care who you respect. Do you care who I respect?
> But there is good reason for this. For example, insisting that my
> grandmother take statins when the evidence that the establishment
> themselves cite demonstrate that this is a terrible idea. I am not
> saying that you and they are malicious, just that you are unaware of
> the scientific method, though you like to think of yourself as a
> scientist.
Again all you can do is criticize based on nothing but speculation of what
coconut oil can or might do or possibly do.
That's it.
Show me your scientific method that shows coconut oil can cure anything
based on actuall people with conditions like cancer, HIV or heart disease.
You say your way is better than modern medicine because it doesn't cure
anything then your methods must cure.
>
> I offer to help anyone who needs it. This woman doesn't seem to have
> anything wrong with her,
Those are the ones you can cure the most.
and you must be aware that such a test can
> vary even within a day. Have you ever heard of Dr. Hans Selye? His
> ideas represent a different approach to "disease" - you start with
> symptoms, not "markers." You assume that whatever the powers that be
> in the medical establishment tell you is correct, but as a proponent of
> the scientific method, I must analyse the data in order to see if the
> results are as claimed. It is no my fault that you do not understand
> the concept of scholarly integrity. Perhaps you should have chosen a
> different school to attend.
LOL. Through out the data and simply ask her if she was cured.
Placebo effect has cured many people by your definition.
>
> Are you aware of the differences between elements such as lithium,
> sodium, and potassium on the one hand, and chlorine, bromine, and
> fluorine, on the other?
No I rely on symptoms. LOL.
Do you understand why fluorine is so reactive
> and dangerous? Do you understand how biological molecules can be
> destroyed or rendered dysfunctional do to stressors that remove
> electrons?
Listen clown I do analysis for all of the above and you are asking me if I
know what they are. I have been doing electrolyte analysis thirty years ago
with flame photometry through to the latest ion specific electrodes.
Are you trying to impress me with your high school chemistry?
Do you understand what epiphenomena are? Most of what you
> are addressing as a "doctor," if that is what you are, is
> epiphenomenal. You are not dealing with the underlying or "root" cause
> - that is what I do, or in the case where the evidence is insufficient,
> I propose confirmatory experiments. I'm even willing to pay for the
> experiments - if I am wrong. But you get paid even if you kill all
> your patients. Sorry, but I won't play your game. If you want to take
> me up on an experimental proposal, great, but otherwise, you're seem to
> be just another "expert" is probably killing more people than you are
> "saving."
>
All I ask is proof and all you give me is hot air. Stick to alternative
healthcare that requires no proof.
Doug Freese
"Robert" <Rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37Wdna_r78X...@got.net...
>> All I ask is proof and all you give me is hot air. Stick to
>> alternative
> healthcare that requires no proof.
I admire your desire to get Monty to provide proof but it isn't there.
He just likes to pointless arguments.
-DF
Mr-Natural-Health
lian wrote:
> 1.I have slight copper deficiency: 69 mcg/dl (range 80-155).
> iron and magnesium are o.k.
> a. what can be the reasons for that?
Excess Zinc
montygram
interpreting the existing evidence. Go to pubmed.com and search for
cancer PGE2 or cancer LTB4. These molecules, derived from AA, act as a
fuel for cancer. If you do not agree with their interpretations, then
do what I do, namely, cite the exact source and explain what you think
is wrong with it.
In the meantime, get that round, red object off your nose, will you
please!
Mr-Natural-Health
montygram wrote:
> In the meantime, get that round, red object off your nose, will you
> please!
Explain, compare, and contrast the differences between science, basic
science, and the scientific method.
Me thinks you are way confused. You have my condolences.
montygram
cancer."
For example: "Pancreatic
cancers strongly resembling the human disease have been produced in
Syrian golden hamsters...The incidence of cancers rose when the animals
were fed a diet rich in corn oil."
Source: Pancreatic disease: a casualty of hepatic "detoxification"?
Lancet. 1983 Oct 29;2(8357):1000-3.
The evidence is quite old, Robert. I think you are able to grasp the
concept that if you avoid certain foods, the cancer would not develop
in the first place. The AA metabolites fuel the cancer. What happens
if your car has no fuel in the gas tank, Robert? Is this too
complicated for you? Do I need to think up an even simpler analogy for
you?
The old studies were on point. There were no ridiculous "endpoints" as
there are today, such as "CD4 counts" in "AIDS patients."
But if you don't believe me, take me up on my offer: we will feed
whichever common lab mammal you choose a diet rich in corn oil (your
choice) and another group fresh coconut oil (my choice) as the primary
fat source, and we will see which group lives longer. If you want to
add fish oil or flax oil to your group so that the "essential fatty
acids" are "balanced," great! They will just die sooner.
If not, why? For those who read these posts, explain to them why you
won't take me up on my offer. I am only making sure that no
manipulations occur, such as using hydrogenated coconut oil instead of
fresh coconut oil. According to your way of thinking, Robert, this
should have no effect, right?
You may suffer from selective illiteracy, but I will keep pointing out
the fact that so many post citations here, but appear to never have
actually read the study. They just accept whatever the researchers
claim. As has been pointed out by many before me, the claims made
about the data often contradict the data.
In contrast, I am just examining the evidence, and if the evidence
suggested that corn oil was healthy, I would be the first to say,
"let's it plenty of it." In fact, I eat canned, organic corn once in a
while. On point experiments have shown that it is higher in
antioxidants than fresh corn, and it is very low in fat, so it's not a
problem. It's only when the oil is consumed in a concentrated, refined
form that it is a major problem, and of course, this is how millions of
people do consume it each day.
montygram
The scientific method involves experiments that can be repeated for
verification and that is controlled. The 1930 Burr & Burr was flawed
in several major ways, as I've pointed out many times, though they can
be forgiven for some (but not all) of these flaws.
Basic science involves things that are accepted by 99.9% of the
scientfiic community, such as the relativity or the periodic table (and
the implications of it). Moreover, these concepts have been verified,
usually in several different ways, using the scientific method.
If I say "doing science," I mean that they are aware of the scientific
method and make sure that it is being followed to the letter.
"Science," however, is a term that can mean different things to
different people, and in different contexts.
But you've never been interested in anything remotely resembling
science, so why should you care? You need a newsgroup called something
like MrNaturalHealth.is.great
Nothing else would ever satisfy you.
Mr-Natural-Health
montygram wrote:
> "You totally ignore my request to see evidence that you can cure
> cancer."
Sorry, but medicine cannot cure cancer.
Just thought that you might want to know. :)
Mr-Natural-Health
> For nature boy:
>
> The scientific method involves experiments that can be repeated for
> verification and that is controlled.
Nope! Any medical student writing that answer on my quizzes would score
a well deserved F for piss-poor articulation.
> Basic science involves things that are accepted by 99.9% of the
> scientfiic community, such as the relativity or the periodic table (and
> the implications of it).
Gee, here I thought basic science referred to things like basic
chemistry. Silly me. So, why do YOU write ONLY about what that 0.01%
thinks rather than what 99.9% of the Science Geeks on these ngs accept?
Kindly prove your point, by showing us just one person who agrees with
your kooky ideas, but who is clearly NOT a classic kook like you.
> If I say "doing science," I mean that they are aware of the scientific
> method and make sure that it is being followed to the letter.
And, just where is the compare and contrast, bit? Do I have to mother
you, too?
Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence, believed in
Science too, but never used the scientific method. I have a web page
on him. No need for a page on you, however. Have you trained at least
3,000 phyicians to blood-let and in the rest of the killing arts?
You have my condolences.