calcium

While doing the research for Fighting Cancer - A Survival Guide, I came across two warnings about calcium promoting the growth of cancer, which is why I wrote in the book that cancer patients should avoid calcium supplements completely. However, Belinda Berry has queried this as a number of her sources recommend calcium supplementation. I think it is therefore useful to examine what our sources of information actually say.

1. Max Gerson: "...ten to fourteen days after administration of calcium compound the cancers started a rapid regrowth and were beyond cure. " These referred to cases of osteosarcoma. (Max Gerson: A Cancer Therapy)

2. Max Gerson: "I administered calcium and phosphate compositions in a number of cases where the X-rays showed far advanced decalcification and in three cases of haemophilia, complicated by osteosarcoma tumours. The bleedings had been stopped with this medication but the tumours started to grow immensely. Several of these cases were lost." Here it is not certain that the description applies only to osteosarcoma. (Max Gerson: A Cancer Therapy)

3. Dr Forbes Ross: "On another occasion I had reason to administer calcium salts...to cases of cancer...I was appalled at the rate of growth of the cancers." (quoted in Dettman , Kalokerinos & Dettman: Vitamin C: Nature's Miraculous Healing Missile)

"I see from Max Gerson's book, that he is referring to the growth of tumours after administering calcium phosphate compositions in the case of osteosarcoma.

"It is not clear what the composition actually was, and I remain to be convinced, although I can surmise that the growth of calcium-dependant tumours or calcifications could be exacerbated by a high intake of calcium.

"I note however, from 'Alternative Medicine Guide to Cancer' that Jesse Stoff M.D. "advises his cancer patients to take a calcium supplement, particularly if they are suffering from a cancer that has infiltrated the bones. Dr Stoff recommends working within a range of 800 to 100mg of calcium daily, and 400 to 800 mg of magnesium. The proper amounts of these nutrients will vary depending on the individual's age, sex, blood chemistry and other factors."

"Further, in the same book, Lawrence H.Taylor M.D. "recommends amounts of both calcium and magnesium vary depending on the individual's age, sex, blood chemistry and other factors. A 19-year prospective study found that calcium deficiency was associated with a higher risk of colorectal cancer (22). Supplementation should be based on two factors (1)serum calcium-to-phosphorus ratio (ideally 4 to 1); and (2) the relative amounts of magnesium in the daily diet (ideally 2-to-1 ratio of calcium to magnesium). "Women need more calcium in general to help prevent osteoporosis", says Dr Taylor. "Though the connection with colon cancer is not definitive, calcium is also needed for numerous other aspects of human health, including heart, muscle and nerve function."

Another intriguing thought picked up from the same book: "shark cartilage is 22% calcium, which puts 14 times the normal RDA for calcium in your system."

Dr Rosy Daniel from the Bristol Cancer Help does not have anything contrary to say about calcium in her 1997 book 'Healing Foods', and neither is it commented on in Sandra Goodman PhD's recently updated 'Nutrition and Cancer: State of the Art".

Seems I have run into yet another of cancer's conundrums, where if you delve beneath the surface, there are contradictory and opposing views to almost every topic!"

promotes a simple strategy for wellness, one that I discussed in my book `Fighting Cancer’: namely, the strategy of maintaining an alkali pH. To measure one’s pH you can get coloured strips from a pharmacist. When you lick the strips, the colour that emerges will indicate your body’s pH level. A level of 7.4 or higher is best. A level under seven indicates acidity. An alkali state is healthy and an acid level is unhealthy. Cancer cannot grow in an alkali environment. Barefoot and Reich argue that the easiest or best way of moving the body’s pH to an alkali state is to take calcium supplements with magnesium and vitamin D (or preferably, a lot of sunlight). They argue that calcium ions are vital for many cellular bio-chemical processes and so should not be avoided. It is also true that the way that a body reacts at late stage cancer cannot be taken as a guide for normal or ill people whose cancers have not reached a very late stage. So I accept that I may have been wrong to warn against calcium. I think it is reasonable to follow this advice and take calcium supplements when there is any indication that one’s body’s pH is below optimum alkalinity. There is no known toxicity to calcium or even to vitamin D – certainly not at any level anyone is likely to be able to tolerate. Many vitamin D pills will give a dose of 400 iu but a day in the sun can stimulate the production of 10,000 iu – and doses of up to 500,000 iu a day have not caused people problems. This indicates the importance of not avoiding the sun.

2. taking cesium and rubidium salts (one study found this treatment cured 50% of patients who were in the final weeks of their `terminal’ illness – some were even comatose.)

Many doctors are claiming that today's problem with calcium is not that people are not getting enough of it but that they're getting too much. One of vitamin C's jobs is to take out excess minerals from the body. Some people think this may be why calcium ascorbate form of vitamin C are less useful than the sodium ascorbate form - it's too busy eliminating the excess calcium to do anything else. Perhaps. One piece of evidence that people are getting too much calcium is the fact that elderly people in Northern Europe and the States have a far higher hip fracture rate than elderly people in third world countries - or in countries where dairy products are little consumed. Bones have two component substances: calcium and collagen. Calcium makes the bones harder and more brittle, collagen makes them more flexible. Vitamin C is, incidentally, an important component for healthy collagen production. The more the bones are calcified the more likely they are to break. I, personally, have grown very suspicious of anything containing supplementary calcium. I think that the benefit of calcium supplementation for cancer patients is unproven and there is sufficient personal testimony that it is dangerous. Sufficient to persuade me that it may possibly be dangerous. But everyone has to take their own reading of the evidence.

I would like to add to the discussion on calcium. To summarize my position: There is strong evidence that calcium is important in the fight against cancer. But just taking calcium carbonate (the most commonly prescribed form of calcium) is no good at all. People wishing to have an effective defence against cancer and osteoporosis should take calcium citrate along with magnesium, vitamin D, boron and silica. I find calcium in tablet form to be a very effective and practical supplementation. But, the problem is that most doctors prescribe the wrong form of calcium. Calcium carbonate is not well absorbed. Those supplements that utilize calcium citrate (especially coupled with enough magnesium and vitamin D3, if possible, boron and silica) demonstrate much better absorption rate than calcium carbonate. Most adult males can supplement up to 600mg, females up to 1000mg. Excess supplementation with calcium citrate will not hurt the body (we rarely get enough anyway, it's a daily struggle), and it's cheap enough, so it's better safe than sorry.

A lot of doctors I know claim that older people benefit little from calcium supplement because they cannot absorb calcium effectively. But most of them, nearly all of them, don't know the differences between calcium citrate and calcium carbonate. They think all forms of calcium are the same. Actually the problem of poor calcium absorption lies more on the form of calcium than age. I've known people over 60 with significant bone-growth, even after bone injury, when supplemented with high grade calcium citrate product.

Now back to Vitamin C and calcium: Calcium ascorbate can be found in many reputable brands of Vitamin C supplements, and for a very good reason. Vitamin C, ascorbic acid, is easily flushed out of the body in urine within 1-3 hours. Some manufacturers compensate this by increasing the dosage up to 1000mg per tablet, yet it still lasts for only 2-3 hours. Some people experience upset stomach with such high dosage of Vitamin C. One way to prolong the short life of Vitamin C is to supply it in ascorbate form to achieve a time-release effect. Poly C, a patented formula made by Usana Health Sciences Inc., utilizes calcium, potassium, magnesium, and zinc ascorbates, together with bioflavonoids to enhance synergism. The four ascorbates turn into ascorbic acid at different time frames, resulting in a six-hour effective range, very long for Vit. C. Those made with only calcium ascorbate kind of missed the boat in terms of the time-release effect, but still less irritable to the stomach than ascorbic acid, since the ascorbate is alkaline initially.

Nevertheless, there should be little concern over the calcium from calcium ascorbate in terms of interfering with Vitamin C (the bad Press). Most people are under nourished in calcium and would seize the available mineral, so it won't interfere with the absorption of Vitamin C. The benefit of Vitamin C would be compromised only when the serum calcium level is already too high, ironically induced when calcium intake is insufficient (our body then releases way too much calcium from bone mass to the body-the major reason for Osteoporosis). Calcium gluconate, is but another form of calcium with rather poor absorption rate. Calcium carbonate is mainly alkaline in nature and so requires a higher acidic pH medium to get absorbed. Oyster shells have Calcium Carbonate and also a high amount of Lead in them. So it's no good. Calcium Gluconate is cheap but is poorly absorbed. It is quite upsetting to the stomach and tends to be constipating. A high dietary calcium intake combined with vitamin D and Magnesium can increase bone density and reduce fractures in older women and, probably, men.

The Institute of Medicine recommends that persons 19 to 50 years of age consume 1,000 mg per day of calcium and that persons older than 50 years consume 1,200 mg per day. The average American consumes less than 800 mg of calcium per day. In postmenopausal women with low dietary calcium intake, specially prepared 500-mg tablets of calcium citrate malate were more effective in preventing bone loss than 500-mg tablets of calcium carbonate. In another study, 500 mg of calcium citrate taken with breakfast produced serum calcium levels significantly higher than those demonstrated after 500 mg of calcium carbonate. The most common adverse effects of calcium supplements are constipation, intestinal bloating and excess gas. Adverse effects occur most frequently with calcium carbonate. Switching preparations or increasing fluid intake may relieve symptoms. Patients who form calcium-containing stones are generally advised (incorrectly) not to take calcium supplements. However, a low intake of calcium can aggravate the risk of stone formation by increasing absorption (calcium released from bone mass) and urinary excretion of oxalate. High calcium intakes can increase stone formation only in patients with absorptive hypercalciuria. Those with renal hypercalciuria may experience increased bone loss if calcium intake is too low. Please check out the following web site for calcium gluconate and calcium citrate. Calcium is really the life and death mineral.