Calcium Montmorillonite Clay for Dogs

[spike33]

I also got this from Nature's Variety ingredient glossary:

Montmorillonite is a clay that is primarily colloidal silicate, which contains over 50 ultra-trace mineral compounds including Antimony, Barium, Beryllium, Boron, Bromine, Cadmium, Carbon, Cerium, Cesium, Chloride, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Dysprosium, Fluoride, Gadolinium, Gallium, Germanium, Iodine, Lanthanum, Lithium, Manganese, Neodymium, Nickel, Phosphorus, Rhenium, Rubidium, Samarium, Scandium, Silicon, Silver, Strontium, Sulfur, Tellurium, Thallium, Thorium, Tin, Titanium, Vanadium, Ytterbium, Yttrium, Zinc, and Zirconium. Feed studies by the Veterinary Medical Diagnostics Laboratory at Texas A&M University have shown that Montmorillonite clays can sequester (bind) aflatoxins contained in grains and oilseeds.

[Officially Retired]

Wow! interesting stuff you guys, thanks very much for this valuable information. So far what I've found about M-clay (to see how much of these claims are, in fact, real benefits of the substance, versus how much of these claims could be quackery) is that back in 2007 animal scientists at Texas A&M University demonstrated definite effectiveness of Calcium Montorillonite Clay as an aflatoxin binder in animal feeds. Check out this link:
polyploidy.tamu.edu/professors/dixon/publications/CLAY1373.pdf
Hope we can get something good out of this article.

I also got this from Nature's Variety ingredient glossary:
Montmorillonite is a clay that is primarily colloidal silicate, which contains over 50 ultra-trace mineral compounds including Antimony, Barium, Beryllium, Boron, Bromine, Cadmium, Carbon, Cerium, Cesium, Chloride, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Dysprosium, Fluoride, Gadolinium, Gallium, Germanium, Iodine, Lanthanum, Lithium, Manganese, Neodymium, Nickel, Phosphorus, Rhenium, Rubidium, Samarium, Scandium, Silicon, Silver, Strontium, Sulfur, Tellurium, Thallium, Thorium, Tin, Titanium, Vanadium, Ytterbium, Yttrium, Zinc, and Zirconium. Feed studies by the Veterinary Medical Diagnostics Laboratory at Texas A&M University have shown that Montmorillonite clays can sequester (bind) aflatoxins contained in grains and oilseeds.

Aflatoxins, you might recall, are what were found in a lot of dog food kibbles, which killed so many dogs a few years back. They are produced in grains, which shouldn't even be a part of the diet of a raw-fed dog.

Still, as suspected, M-Clay does contain a lot of trace minerals--including good ol' germanium

Here is a Wikipedia article on medicinal clays in general: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicinal_clay

This is not the same as reading published studies, but it does give a good overview of some of the history, claims, and facts about medicinal clays.

Jack

[TFX]

I will respond in detail with facts later, I'm running around like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest right now. Food for thought, do we really trust the government as a credible source on anything? Trusting the FDA to give credible information on something they cannot tax and regulate is, well, a bad idea in general. The government-medical complex is a mighty big machine.

[Officially Retired]

I will respond in detail with facts later, I'm running around like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest right now. Food for thought, do we really trust the government as a credible source on anything? Trusting the FDA to give credible information on something they cannot tax and regulate is, well, a bad idea in general. The government-medical complex is a mighty big machine.

I was waiting for that angle

But, by the same token, do we really trust the "literature" from the companies who manufacture and have a financial interest in the product?

At some point, we have to trust someone, which is why it is best to read extensively so as to make the most informed decision possible ... to make the proverbial "educated guess" as to whom to trust ... and then either reject using the substance, or let our own experiences be our guide if we do choose to use it.

Jack

[spike33]

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.

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

[TFX]

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."

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.


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

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.

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

[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

[TFX]

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.

[Officially Retired]

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.

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.

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)

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