Scientific paper stating airborne barium releases 'responsible' for human illness

[...]
deejay, you're such an [...] that it's impossible to have a civil meaningful discussion with [you].

My IQ, for the record... 162.

Your main defect... you're not half as smart as you think you are.
 
Please focus on the claims and evidence, and not on each other's comprehension skills. Thank you.
 
Purdy's paper was first mentioned round these parts almost five years ago:

http://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/comment-page-1/#comment-3100

That is very much NOT a government source admitting barium use. It’s an opinion piece written by an English farmer, Mark Purdy, published in a journal (Medical Hypoteses) that specializes in speculative and non-mainstream medical theories.

The fact that it is indexed by the NIH does not constitute any kind of connection with the government. The NIH simply indexes everything.
Content from External Source
But really this thread should have stopped at post #2, which pretty much covers everything:
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/49922
 
Last edited:
French study "Roundly criticized" - Just addressed that, Mike. Now the 'hundreds of studies you cite, where are they, please, and who funded them? (That topic is covered extensively in several documentary films about GMO - you will find that Monsanto funds the vast majority of these in the 'self-policing' effort which has been placed upon it by a largely non-functioning and entirely absent-from-process FDA)

You also still cannot satisfactorily explain how I know what an 'endocrine disruptor' is without your help, or even without Purdy's assistance - therefore by your logic, I must be 'making it up'... you do realize that's what he's saying, don't you? He's describing an endocrine disruptor in very, very specific terms.

As well, I've already demonstrated the links:

a - historical observations worldwide, substantiated with independent testing (much of which is not available to me) citing undue presence of "aluminum, barium,", et al being closely associated with the phenomenon known as "chemtrails" (check chemtrail sites for that, they contain more than a dozen years of reports and data, much of which predates Purdy's writing).

b - Purdy's observation that certain epidemiology can essentially be "mapped" across the human spectrum, purely by the presence of these chemical elements in soil and water at toxic concentrations.

c - The presence and 'human intervention' required to produce IRREGULAR, TOXIC concentrations of barium, aluminum, et al in vivo within human populations and resulting epidemiology

Open question: Anyone here know what 'myelin' is, where it's found in the body, in what form it takes, or what it's function is in a healthy human? Why a scientist might possibly mention 'myelin' without building an entire thesis on it (eg, because the information is commonly known)? Pathological symptoms in unhealthy tissue? In what diseases the 'myelin sheathing' is damaged or disrupted, and the mechanism/s thereof? Anyone?

So apparently what you're saying here is that established science 'doesn't exist' simply because established scientists, having 'done their own research', already know what they're talking about - and therefore they use their own terminology, not having need to use language you may understand, and therefore they don't need to 'reinvent the wheel within their chosen fields, assuming a bit of 'common knowledge' being shared among the readers -

then I must ask, is 'your particular understanding' now somehow a 'prerequisite' for established science? And if so, by whose authority do you claim that to be?

I'll leave you with this thought on GMOs - go ahead, have a nice bowl of it for breakfast if you'd like (BTW, this is NOT the first time GMO grass has killed cattle via cyanide poisoning - how do you think they knew what to look for?:
http://www.inquisitr.com/262111/gen...-begins-releasing-cyanide-kills-texas-cattle/

GMO grass: Safe and effective for your fields and lawn. Assuming you can tolerate cyanide. And good luck with that, assuming you have the stomach for it.
 
Your talking about chemplanes - I'm talking about biological loading due to human-induced sourcing.

Big difference.


Have you stated the source, though? I haven't come to it yet. What is the means? The thread is called "airborne barium release". What are they using to get it airborne? Is it there intentionally? Why can't you plainly state what you are claiming.
 
That grass is not GMO, as has been pointed out in other threads. Perhaps you should read the entire article and not the sensationalized headline. The very last sentence says this: "Update: The original report we received stated that the grass was a GMO version of Tifton 85. In fact it was a hybridized version of the product."
 
Not only 'responsible', but gives the chemical analysis of exactly HOW it is responsible:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15082100

[...]

Sounds like inside information to me. Open for discussion.

I will reply with: http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=589

I haven't done any research into this, but judging from how many cars and trucks on the road there must be worldwide, your point seems massively moot. Yes, more airborne Barium than 'normal' might be bad for us, but don't you think there might be a whole host of sources much closer to home, other than supposed chemtrails?!

Potential source: brake pads.
Found in: Millions of cars, trucks, bikes, and probably trains.
 
a - historical observations worldwide, substantiated with independent testing (much of which is not available to me) citing undue presence of "aluminum, barium,", et al being closely associated with the phenomenon known as "chemtrails" (check chemtrail sites for that, they contain more than a dozen years of reports and data, much of which predates Purdy's writing).

Which tests, which chemtrail sites, what data and reports? Please cite one example of a test AFTER searching Metabunk and Contrailscience.com to make sure it wasn't full of bunk.

Also, please define what YOU mean by chemtrails. What do you believe this term is referring to? There are a large number of different interpretations, and I'd like to see yours stated.
 
a - historical observations worldwide, substantiated with independent testing (much of which is not available to me) citing undue presence of "aluminum, barium,", et al being closely associated with the phenomenon known as "chemtrails" (check chemtrail sites for that, they contain more than a dozen years of reports and data, much of which predates Purdy's writing).

Deejay, I'll never claim to be a scientist, I'll never claim to be an intellect, I'll never claim to know anything about biology, however, once you begin talking about the upper troposphere and the dynamics of the weather "up there", that's when my ears perk up...I spend nearly 50% of my monthly life, "up there". I've been in aviation since I was 15 and have been involved in the US commercial airline industry for 16 years, I'm going to tell you, with much confidence, that I am an expert in upper tropospheric activity and in US commercial airline activity. I'm also going to tell you that chemtrails don't exist in any way, militarily or commercially.

Whatever is going on in your mind, please consider taking a step back...maybe a few miles back, and get a grip on what you are telling us. I am being sincere, people her who debunk actually know what they are saying and can back it up with formal, scientific education. For me, I have formal education, I have an undergrad in aviation and meteorology. I also have 11,000 hours of flying all types of aircraft, and, I've participated in weather modification. I'll never claim to be smart, but I thoroughly understand my field and the atmosphere around me.

You've done a great job of avoiding the knowledge you could achieve on contrailscience (it is exact), instead you waste your time listening to blowhards who want to make money from the...um...less willing to learn...you are severely misguided and if that is against the politeness policy please ban me as I can't take this anymore.
 
French study "Roundly criticized" - Just addressed that, Mike.

Only to your own satisfaction.

Now the 'hundreds of studies you cite, where are they, please, and who funded them? (That topic is covered extensively in several documentary films about GMO - you will find that Monsanto funds the vast majority of these in the 'self-policing' effort which has been placed upon it by a largely non-functioning and entirely absent-from-process FDA)

Both questions are answered here

Who funded the studies that supposedly show GMO has problems?

You also still cannot satisfactorily explain how I know what an 'endocrine disruptor' is without your help,

I have no problem with that - since I'm no trying to.

or even without Purdy's assistance - therefore by your logic, I must be 'making it up'... you do realize that's what he's saying, don't you? He's describing an endocrine disruptor in very, very specific terms.

No - I say you are making it up because what you say has no link that I can see to what Purdy said for those cases when I said you were making it up.

If hter is a link then perhaps you could make it clearer - then I won't think you are making it up.

As well, I've already demonstrated the links:

a - historical observations worldwide, substantiated with independent testing (much of which is not available to me) citing undue presence of "aluminum, barium,", et al being closely associated with the phenomenon known as "chemtrails" (check chemtrail sites for that, they contain more than a dozen years of reports and data, much of which predates Purdy's writing).

Sources for any such studies that you do know of?

b - Purdy's observation that certain epidemiology can essentially be "mapped" across the human spectrum, purely by the presence of these chemical elements in soil and water at toxic concentrations.

c - The presence and 'human intervention' required to produce IRREGULAR, TOXIC concentrations of barium, aluminum, et al in vivo within human populations and resulting epidemiology

There is no such actual requirement for human intervention - there are places in the world where barium in the form of Barite "blows in the wind" from surface deposits.

Open question: Anyone here know what 'myelin' is, where it's found in the body, in what form it takes, or what it's function is in a healthy human? Why a scientist might possibly mention 'myelin' without building an entire thesis on it (eg, because the information is commonly known)? Pathological symptoms in unhealthy tissue? In what diseases the 'myelin sheathing' is damaged or disrupted, and the mechanism/s thereof? Anyone?

Open question - when is Deejay actually going to answer any questions?

So apparently what you're saying here is that established science 'doesn't exist' simply because established scientists, having 'done their own research', already know what they're talking about - and therefore they use their own terminology, not having need to use language you may understand, and therefore they don't need to 'reinvent the wheel within their chosen fields, assuming a bit of 'common knowledge' being shared among the readers -

Apparently you cannot read what I write, since I said no such thing.

What I actually said was that Purdey's conclusions had been examined a decade or more ago and found faulty - and you quoting him does not make them correct.

then I must ask, is 'your particular understanding' now somehow a 'prerequisite' for established science? And if so, by whose authority do you claim that to be?

No, and none.

I'll leave you with this thought on GMOs - go ahead, have a nice bowl of it for breakfast if you'd like (BTW, this is NOT the first time GMO grass has killed cattle via cyanide poisoning - how do you think they knew what to look for?:
http://www.inquisitr.com/262111/gen...-begins-releasing-cyanide-kills-texas-cattle/

GMO grass: Safe and effective for your fields and lawn. Assuming you can tolerate cyanide. And good luck with that, assuming you have the stomach for it.

Organic beansprouts from Germany have killed more people than all the GMO in the world.

Your OP was shouting to the heavens that airborne barium releases are responsible for human illness - and now you have resiled from that.

What's more you have never actually examined Purdey's sources for claiming that barium airborne releases were used in the manner he said. If you had read the links to discussions already held on here you would know why you are wrong.
 
Ceterum censeo, deejay,

you still owe us some evidence for the claim of "5,000 percent rise in soil concentrations of aluminum in non-industrial area".

Yet annother question unanswered ...
 
The 'GMO grass releases cyanide' article is a lie.
Tifton 85 is a hybrid between Bermuda Grass and Star Grass, which is from Africa. And which on it’s own has been known to be high in cyanide.
Content from External Source
Under stressed conditions of drought it can build up prussic acid, there was some growth from rain and the cows rushed to eat it, then it turned lethal inside them.

Grasses produce prussic acid NATURALLY. Yes, plants produce poisons. In times of stress, including drought, they produce prussic acid. This is converted to hydrocyanic acid in the rumen of the cows. If they eat enough, they die from cyanosis.
Content from External Source
It's a known phenomena that has happened before, and has nothing to do with GM.

http://www.examiner.com/article/gmo...t-kills-texas-cattle-not-genetically-modified
 
First the grass was a common hybrid, not GMO. Just more nonsense and fear mongering from the anti GM crowd.

http://skepticalvegan.com/2012/06/24/a-case-of-mistaken-identity/

The grass in question, Tifton 85, is actually a conventionally bred bermudagrass hybrid that has been in use since the 1980′s largely for forage. While such an event has never been reported with Tifton 85 before, poisoning events with other forage are not unheard of and are usually driven by environmental factors such as drought. A number of forage grasses and other crops have cyanogenic potential, farmers growing forage and ranchers raising cattle have been aware of this issue for a long time and are already advised to take steps to avoid such problems. While this latest incident justifies a closer look at Tifton 85, it is not in anyway evidence against the use of genetically engineered crops. In the face of widespread public misunderstanding and fear of technologies such as genetic engineering and the anti-scientific threat of GMO labeling bills in California and elsewhere, the false framing of this news as an anti-GMO horror story is not just dishonest but is downright harmful to the public understanding of science.
Content from External Source
http://pearlsnapblog.com/2011/09/30/forage-facts-prussic-acid-poisoning/

It’s getting to be that time of year again when producers need to beware of prussic acid poisoning if cattle are grazing forages such as sorghum, sudangrass, or sorghum-sudan hybrids after a frost. Prussic acid, also known as hydrocyanic (HCN) is not a normal constituent of plants. Grasses such as sorghum, sudangrass, and their hybrid counterparts can accumulate large quantities of this cyanogenetic glycosides, leading to serious implications for livestock. When plant cells are damaged from wilting, frosting or stunting, this glycoside breaks down and forms free HCN. Once consumed by cattle, conditions in the rumen create the perfect environment for further breakdown of glycosides to form free HCN. In large doses, this can lead to toxicity issues.

Though commonly seen in sorghums and sorghum-sudan hybrids, prussic acid poisoning can sometimes also be an issue in johnsongrass. Increased chances for toxicity also exist in conditions when plants are drought stressed, moisture stressed, and during excessive nitrogen fertilization.
Content from External Source
 
I feel there are way too many topics inside this thread... But hey, most of the posts are good ones!
 
It is with some interest that I found this article on using barium to analyse prehistoric teeth -

They found that both in humans and macaques, the ratio of the elements barium and calcium in the teeth revealed what the baby had been eating when those teeth formed. The researchers analyzed the enamel (the outer layer of the tooth) and the dentine (the mineralized layer that supports the enamel).

The parts of the teeth that form in the gums before birth have very little barium, Arora said, probably because only a small amount of the element gets into the fetus through the placenta. After birth, barium spikes and stays high in the tooth enamel and dentine. If a baby transitions to formula, the barium levels get even higher, as formula has even higher levels of barium than breast milk.
Content from External Source
having established this from modern human and monkey teeth, they applied it to a 100,000 year old Neanderthal tooth:

Barium has the advantage of resiliency compared with other elements, so Arora and his colleagues tested their new method on a very old tooth. They used a molar from the Scladina Neanderthal, a fossilized juvenile found in Belgium.

Similar patterns as in humans and macaques appeared: a barium increase at birth, which stayed high until the Neanderthal was about 7 months old. At that point, the tooth indicated, the Neanderthal baby went into a transitional diet, consuming breast milk supplemented by solid food.
Content from External Source
Which makes a mockery of any claim that it's all new, or it's all added to jet fuel, or it must be from human-generated sources, or anything else that fails to acknowledge that barium is in the "natural environment"!
 
I hear a lot of interesting excuses and am reading offerings of what amount to "screen grabs" from erstwhile academic sites - still, no one has SPECIFICALLY addressed the mechanisms which Purdey outlined in the original link, the basic topic being atmospheric concentrations of endocrine disruptors due to manmade influence and the detrimental effects of these chemical-biological reactions on human health - except to dismiss Purdey offhand with little more than a sideways glance, based on secondary information without any credible analysis whatsoever of the information contained therein.

That's a nice technique: Distract, change the subject, discredit... but never address the obvious question: What about the thesis?

Certainly there's no lack of detail in Purdey's thesis. It's all right there, in black and white - and yet some here are pretending VERY HARD to not know what an 'endocrine disruptor' is - I find that absolutely fascinating for someone (anyone in fact) who claims to have a scientific background, let alone anybody publicly proclaiming an an IQ 'above average' and a college education.

Not to anyone specific, just an observation. Endocrine disruption. It's really basic biology, basic medicine, basic epidemiology. Somebody who reads scientific publications on a regular basis should know this without needing to resort to an encyclopedia or having to acquire a second Bachelor's.

Now coincidentally, one of the side topics which has arisen in this thread has been GMO, and the supposed "safety" of GMO products and pesticides.

The following film illustrates very well how firms like Monsanto, et al, have conquered the funding landscape for university and research science - therefore, they GET the 'science they expect' from their employees and grantees. Not coincidentally, Monsanto et all use precisely the same techniques as seen implemented throughout various threads at this site... and quite a few more, which are only alluded to in this film (yet are often more violent)... perhaps that's just an extraordinary coincidence of the tactical landscape.

http://covvha.net/scientists-under-attack-full-length/#.UcS_ir9caG8

and here's a link to an article sussing out the PR industry-fronted 'astroturf' campaigns put out by firms like Monsanto, Coca Cola, etc., designed to hide the facts of their dangerous products from the general public, and also to adequate "smokescreen" to any criticism which does somehow make it's way through the press

http://www.takepart.com/photos/big-ag-and-biotech-industry-front-groups-1?cmpid=foodinc-fb
 
Certainly there's no lack of detail in Purdey's thesis. It's all right there, in black and white - and yet some here are pretending VERY HARD to not know what an 'endocrine disruptor' is - I find that absolutely fascinating for someone (anyone in fact) who claims to have a scientific background, let alone anybody publicly proclaiming an an IQ 'above average' and a college education.

Not to anyone specific, just an observation. Endocrine disruption. It's really basic biology, basic medicine, basic epidemiology. Somebody who reads scientific publications on a regular basis should know this without needing to resort to an encyclopedia or having to acquire a second Bachelor's.

So why did Purdy not mention the endocrine system or hormones?
 
I would suggest that the discussion on GM food be taken to another thread. I will be willing to discuss it there. You are not going to distract me on this thread.

This thread is about barium, not GM crops.
 
That's a nice technique: Distract, change the subject [...]

Is that the "technique" which you employed when you veered off after your claim of immensely elevated aluminum levels, somehow moving on to radar rings, military weather manipulation, HAARP, Evergreen, questioning the qualification of debunkers, IQ levels and ultimately 9/11 ?

Now you seem to be on a similar path again after you learned that there are multiple sources for barium particles all around us.
 
Is that the "technique" which you employed when you veered off after your claim of immensely elevated aluminum levels, somehow moving on to radar rings, military weather manipulation, HAARP, Evergreen, questioning the qualification of debunkers, IQ levels and ultimately 9/11 ?

Now you seem to be on a similar path again after you learned that there are multiple sources for barium particles all around us.
You forgot to mention GMOs.
 
I hear a lot of interesting excuses and am reading offerings of what amount to "screen grabs" from erstwhile academic sites - still, no one has SPECIFICALLY addressed the mechanisms which Purdey outlined in the original link, the basic topic being atmospheric concentrations of endocrine disruptors due to manmade influence and the detrimental effects of these chemical-biological reactions on human health - except to dismiss Purdey offhand with little more than a sideways glance, based on secondary information without any credible analysis whatsoever of the information contained therein.

That's a nice technique: Distract, change the subject, discredit... but never address the obvious question: What about the thesis?

Certainly there's no lack of detail in Purdey's thesis. It's all right there, in black and white - and yet some here are pretending VERY HARD to not know what an 'endocrine disruptor' is - I find that absolutely fascinating for someone (anyone in fact) who claims to have a scientific background, let alone anybody publicly proclaiming an an IQ 'above average' and a college education.

Not to anyone specific, just an observation. Endocrine disruption. It's really basic biology, basic medicine, basic epidemiology. Somebody who reads scientific publications on a regular basis should know this without needing to resort to an encyclopedia or having to acquire a second Bachelor's.

Now coincidentally, one of the side topics which has arisen in this thread has been GMO, and the supposed "safety" of GMO products and pesticides.

The following film illustrates very well how firms like Monsanto, et al, have conquered the funding landscape for university and research science - therefore, they GET the 'science they expect' from their employees and grantees. Not coincidentally, Monsanto et all use precisely the same techniques as seen implemented throughout various threads at this site... and quite a few more, which are only alluded to in this film (yet are often more violent)... perhaps that's just an extraordinary coincidence of the tactical landscape.

http://covvha.net/scientists-under-attack-full-length/#.UcS_ir9caG8

and here's a link to an article sussing out the PR industry-fronted 'astroturf' campaigns put out by firms like Monsanto, Coca Cola, etc., designed to hide the facts of their dangerous products from the general public, and also to adequate "smokescreen" to any criticism which does somehow make it's way through the press

http://www.takepart.com/photos/big-ag-and-biotech-industry-front-groups-1?cmpid=foodinc-fb

Detail is something that is very much lacking in the paper. Essentially his proposal is that Ba2+​ in free ion form scavenges sulphur to form BaSO4​. No mention is made as to how the Ba2+​ is produced or the actual pathway and by products of the production of BaSO4​. Similar there is no mention as to the fate of the BaSO4​. Now that is the really interesting thing as if his hypothesis is correct it would be really simple to test for. In his discussion section he proposes

Postmortem analyses of MS affected brain in order to establish the distribution and concentration of Ba/Sr/Mo depositions would be useful
Content from External Source
Well call me picky but surely there would be no Ba deposits if the Ba2+​ has been converted to BaSO4​? Given that it is biologically inert and is not metabolised by the liver it would be readily excreted. Surely then a simple test for the hypothesis would be to test for elevated BaSO4​ levels in the urine and faeces of MS sufferers? Or is that just too simple?
 
Dave, you are stating the obvious about the paper which the OP didn't understand.
Bottom line is the top line, and the Journal which published it.

The problem with reading much into Purdy's paper is that it is has no result. It is a hypothesis statement, nothing more. I don't think he meant it as anything else, and anyone who reads more into it than what he puts forward as a hypothesis simply doesn't understand the scientific method.
 
Dave, you are stating the obvious about the paper which the OP didn't understand.
Bottom line is the top line, and the Journal which published it.

The problem with reading much into Purdy's paper is that it is has no result. It is a hypothesis statement, nothing more. I don't think he meant it as anything else, and anyone who reads more into it than what he puts forward as a hypothesis simply doesn't understand the scientific method.

It sounds like you are inferring the OP does not understand what he is talking about. I am shocked as I was under the impression he had a brain the size of a planet ;) However I did feel that someone had to answer Deejay.

You are correct about Mark Purdey and his meaning of the paper. I met him a few times and he was a really nice guy. He made a few appearances at some meetings for Gulf War Syndrome campaigners and his work with organophosphates and BSE was quite compelling (organophosphates have been suggested as a causative factor for GWS). I have nothing but the utmost regard for the bloke but even he would admit that his knowledge was lacking in many areas. I do think that what happened is after "success" with the issue around BSE he got to big for his boots and began to see patterns that maybe did not exist. I guess it was like a hobby.

I challenge Deejay to show me where his work from this paper has been continued or subject to further investigation. Cluster and occupational epidemiological studies would be a relatively simple way to prove the hypothesis, as would biochemical analysis, yet I seem unable to find any. Surely if the paper had some legs it would at the very least have been referenced in articles other than conspiracy websites?
 
I challenge Deejay to show me where his work from this paper has been continued or subject to further investigation. Cluster and occupational epidemiological studies would be a relatively simple way to prove the hypothesis, as would biochemical analysis, yet I seem unable to find any. Surely if the paper had some legs it would at the very least have been referenced in articles other than conspiracy websites?

I'll get ready to add that to the list of direct questions and challenges Deejay has ignored in the course of this thread.
 
That's a nice technique: Distract, change the subject, discredit... but never address the obvious question: What about the thesis?

What about it? Many people, including me, have asked you this already. Where are the experiments? If there is no reason to believe that this mechanism of barium interfering with and permanently damaging endocrine pathways does what he claims, then there is simply nothing more to debunk here. It's a poorly written paper.
 
Last edited:
well then I'm mistaken - Aluminum levels hundreds of times beyond expected soil concentrations must be part of the new landscape...
 
Is it Aluminum? We know there is a direct link to neurological disorders and aluminum toxicity, such as Alzheimer patients all have aluminum toxicity, but this doesn't mean they have Alzheimer's either, there is another catalyst or perhaps genetic, the research is still out but neurological problems are known to exist and why aluminum cookware is being banned soon. Antacid tablets are by far the worse form, chewing gum does the same thing without side effects. If we are going to consider anything, we should look to nature first. Across Minnesota and much of the nation we are seeing some plant species die unexpectedly and rapidly. Attached are a series of pictures of two species dying so rapidly that their needles are still intact. There is a lake over the ridge and these trees have plenty of water available, sapling show good rooting in areas where these species are dying. Invasive species generally takes time to invade an area, this is throughout the state of the past year. The DNR and others are looking into it, but according to my water samples and visual discoveries, I believe it is acidic soils caused from an abundance of magnesium and other elements, possible aluminum as well. It is vital, no matter what the cause, that we find the source before we see the great northern woods die. The species being affected the most is a juniper and long needled pine. The colors look like fall but that's because of their rapid death and the needles still intact.
View attachment 3273
View attachment 3274
View attachment 3275
View attachment 3276
View attachment 3277
View attachment 3278
 
Is it Aluminum? We know there is a direct link to neurological disorders and aluminum toxicity, ....

we do?

It is certainly news to me - I've read all the scaremongering of course - but you mean there's actually credible evidence now?
 
http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_myths_about_alzheimers.asp
Myth 4: Drinking out of aluminum cans or cooking in aluminum pots and pans can lead to Alzheimer’s disease.
Reality: During the 1960s and 1970s, aluminum emerged as a possible suspect in Alzheimer’s. This suspicion led to concern about exposure to aluminum through everyday sources such as pots and pans, beverage cans, antacids and antiperspirants. Since then, studies have failed to confirm any role for aluminum in causing Alzheimer’s. Experts today focus on other areas of research, and few believe that everyday sources of aluminum pose any threat.
Content from External Source
 
we do?

It is certainly news to me - I've read all the scaremongering of course - but you mean there's actually credible evidence now?
Yes we do, its very well known. Aluminum Toxicity is very well known, along with the side effects, you can research OSHA and other industries where accidents occur. As I said, they know that Alzheimer patients all have an abundance of aluminum in the brain, but an abundance of aluminum doesn't mean you have Alzheimer's, there is a trigger that they are still researching. The U of M (University of Minnesota) is doing great research on this and have made many breakthroughs.
 
http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_myths_about_alzheimers.asp
Myth 4: Drinking out of aluminum cans or cooking in aluminum pots and pans can lead to Alzheimer’s disease.
Reality: During the 1960s and 1970s, aluminum emerged as a possible suspect in Alzheimer’s. This suspicion led to concern about exposure to aluminum through everyday sources such as pots and pans, beverage cans, antacids and antiperspirants. Since then, studies have failed to confirm any role for aluminum in causing Alzheimer’s. Experts today focus on other areas of research, and few believe that everyday sources of aluminum pose any threat.
Content from External Source
Maybe, but this doesn't take away from one fact, if you have low levels of aluminum in your system, you will not be subjected to Alzheimer's when you get older.
 
Yes we do, its very well known. Aluminum Toxicity is very well known, along with the side effects, you can research OSHA and other industries where accidents occur. As I said, they know that Alzheimer patients all have an abundance of aluminum in the brain, but an abundance of aluminum doesn't mean you have Alzheimer's, there is a trigger that they are still researching. The U of M (University of Minnesota) is doing great research on this and have made many breakthroughs.

http://theconversation.com/does-aluminium-cause-alzheimers-and-breast-cancer-8799


25 March 2013

Some very early studies suggested that there was
more aluminium in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease than those without. Almost immediately, people selling stainless steel cookware seized on this result to promote their pots over aluminium ones (we were buying new cookware at this time, and I had some interesting discussions with these people).

Aluminium is rather hard to measure at the low levels that are in the brain, and later studies with better methods failed to find elevated aluminium levels in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s. Actually, there’s good evidence the positive results were due to contamination.


Personally, I wouldn’t have been surprised to find increased aluminium in the brains of Alzheimer’s sufferers. There’s an accumulation of a toxic protein called beta amyloid in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease. This protein binds metals including aluminium, but it binds copper, zinc and iron more strongly. In part, this binding of copper and zinc contributes to the protein’s toxicity. Despite significant amounts of copper in the accumulated amyloid in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s however, there’s no evidence that high levels of copper exposure increase the disease’s incidence.

What’s more, people on dialysis who are exposed to much higher concentrations of aluminium than most people for long periods of time don’t have a higher incidence of Alzheimer’s disease than people not on dialysis.

So, aluminium and Alzheimer’s disease, no.
Content from External Source
 
Yes we do, its very well known. Aluminum Toxicity is very well known, along with the side effects, you can research OSHA and other industries where accidents occur.

Yes aluminium toxicity is well known - but what about this direct link to Alzheimers and/or neurological disorders??

As I said, they know that Alzheimer patients all have an abundance of aluminum in the brain, but an abundance of aluminum doesn't mean you have Alzheimer's, there is a trigger that they are still researching. The U of M (University of Minnesota) is doing great research on this and have made many breakthroughs.

So does alzheimers cause the abundance of aluminium....or vice versa?

Maybe, but this doesn't take away from one fact, if you have low levels of aluminum in your system, you will not be subjected to Alzheimer's when you get older.

From the Canadian Alzheimers society:

Post-mortem examinations of humans with Alzheimer's disease show that there are high concentrations of aluminum in the brain. However, aluminum normally is not found in healthy brain tissue and researchers do not know how the metal gets into the brain. Some researchers compared the aluminum concentration on brains of subjects affected by Alzheimer's disease and age-matched controls. They found no differences between the two groups, suggesting that elevated aluminum concentration may be associated with age.
Content from External Source
 
Back
Top