Guest guest Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 Actually, I think there is a lot of validity to the idea that the missing trace minerals which have largely been depleted from our soils and produce are also a missing key to good health - though I am not at all sure that the answer lies in a heavy seafood diet, especially given the fact of how many toxins man has introduced into fish these days.If you go visit our friends at Utopia Silver and click on Products and then on Books you will find an inexpensive book ($3.50) titled "The Root of All Disease" by Elmer G. Heinrich, which gives tells about why present day foods provide less nutrition than they did in years past, the problems associated with mineral deficient soils, and the vital difference between "metallic" and "plant derived" minerals.I have seen quite a few remarkable testimonials from people who have taken a plant derived mineral supplement containing 75 trace minerals which is available from Utopia Silver which group members here can get it for 15% off by using our discount code of LR001 and following the link above to the product. (You can also use the discount code for the book if you are interested in it)I am a firm believer in the importance of trace minerals and have been researching their importance and their decline in our soils and food supply. Soon I will be completing a series of articles about them - and I might also add that I take them daily and consider them one of the most important supplements that I take. If I could only take three or four supplements, I think that would be one of them.Here is a link to my first article in the series about our vanishing minerals:Our Disappearing Minerals and The Vital Role They Play in our HealthTonyoleander soup , "marmeyh" <Martie.Hanekom wrote:>> Dear group> > Today while I was looking for a cure for pernicious anemia I came > accross this website www.truehealth.org. According to the author a > seafood diet of at least 4-6oz per day is the cure for many diseases > including MS and cancer. Tony, I would really appreciate your comments > on this claim.> > Regards> Martie> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 Wouldn't taking sole' give a person the same amount of minerals, or perhaps even more as most sea salts list the mineral content at 82 trace minerals? Of course there is a lot of salt in the sole', but there have also been great benefits realized from taking sole'. And we do need the sodium. Apparently the amount of sole' taken in the mornings is not enough to put too much sodium in. Sole' is made by taking natural sea salt (usually people use Himalayan salt for this as it is considered uncontaminated and unpolluted) and letting it dissolve in water until the water becomes fully saturated and can't dissolve any more salt. Then a teaspoon of this is taken every morning upon waking, on an empty stomach. Said to give the full spectrum of minerals. I do believe plant derived minerals are best, but if the plants are being grown on depleted soil, and are being fertilized with the chemical compounds to make the minerals, then are we getting the correct type of minerals that can be assimilated into our bodies? Seems the sole' would be the more natural method, as the Himalayan salt beds were laid down before modern contamination--and our blood is most like salt water. And if the plants being utilized are sea plants, why not just take sea salt? I've been trying to decide which is the best way to get minerals into my body. Colloidal minerals seem good, but on the other hand I've read where so long as the colloids are made from rock material our body still will not assimilate correctly, as they are not the right kind. Plant material would be best--but are they being grown in mineral rich soil, or the ocean (which is everywhere polluted today)? A quandary! :-) Samala, Renee Samala, Renee ---- Actually, I think there is a lot of validity to the idea that the missing trace minerals which have largely been depleted from our soils and produce are also a missing key to good health Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 The plant derived minerals I am talking about come from the famous prehistoric deposits in Utah, which were formed by decaying plants eons ago. They have already been pre-digested by the prehistoric plants and are thus much more bioavailable than mere rock minerals, contain much more trace minerals than does sole' and they are also found in the same proportion that were taken up by plants. Himalayan sea salts are good sources of minerals too, but I believe that there is no better source of trace minerals than the plant derived minerals I wrote about. oleander soup , " Gaiacita " <gaiacita wrote: > > Wouldn't taking sole' give a person the same amount of minerals, or perhaps > even more as most sea salts list the mineral content at 82 trace minerals? > Of course there is a lot of salt in the sole', but there have also been > great benefits realized from taking sole'. And we do need the sodium. > Apparently the amount of sole' taken in the mornings is not enough to put > too much sodium in. > > Sole' is made by taking natural sea salt (usually people use Himalayan salt > for this as it is considered uncontaminated and unpolluted) and letting it > dissolve in water until the water becomes fully saturated and can't dissolve > any more salt. Then a teaspoon of this is taken every morning upon waking, > on an empty stomach. Said to give the full spectrum of minerals. > > I do believe plant derived minerals are best, but if the plants are being > grown on depleted soil, and are being fertilized with the chemical compounds > to make the minerals, then are we getting the correct type of minerals that > can be assimilated into our bodies? Seems the sole' would be the more > natural method, as the Himalayan salt beds were laid down before modern > contamination--and our blood is most like salt water. And if the plants > being utilized are sea plants, why not just take sea salt? > > I've been trying to decide which is the best way to get minerals into my > body. Colloidal minerals seem good, but on the other hand I've read where > so long as the colloids are made from rock material our body still will not > assimilate correctly, as they are not the right kind. Plant material would > be best--but are they being grown in mineral rich soil, or the ocean (which > is everywhere polluted today)? A quandary! :-) > > Samala, > Renee > > Samala, > Renee > > ---- > > Actually, I think there is a lot of validity to the idea that the missing trace minerals which have largely been depleted from our soils and produce are also a missing key to good health > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 Yes, this would be great. Except I'm thinking about the atom bomb testing all over Utah and surrounding states, and how much fall out went to the land surrounding the areas. Everyone is always trying to watch out for what we eat, and then we buy stuff from areas that have had these bomb tests. I know some people that won't buy salt from the ancient salt mines here in the US because of underground testing. We just can't believe the government when they say "oh, but the radiation didn't travel THAT far". Samala, Renee ---- The plant derived minerals I am talking about come from the famous prehistoric deposits in Utah, which were formed by decaying plants eons ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 I can find no record of atmospheric or underground atomic bomb tests in or near the caves and deep soil deposits where the plant derived minerals are located and I doubt that any fallout drift penetrated the alluvial clay which contains the plant minerals. There is probably more nuclear fallout in the average backyard - since it is everywhere thanks to the insanity of mankind. It is also in the sea and the creatures that dwell therein, albeit in very, very tiny amounts. oleander soup , " Gaiacita " <gaiacita wrote: > > Yes, this would be great. Except I'm thinking about the atom bomb testing > all over Utah and surrounding states, and how much fall out went to the land > surrounding the areas. Everyone is always trying to watch out for what we > eat, and then we buy stuff from areas that have had these bomb tests. I > know some people that won't buy salt from the ancient salt mines here in the > US because of underground testing. We just can't believe the government > when they say " oh, but the radiation didn't travel THAT far " . > > Samala, > Renee > > ---- > > > The plant derived minerals I am talking about come from the famous > prehistoric deposits in Utah, which were formed by decaying plants > eons ago. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2008 Report Share Posted August 26, 2008 That's good to know. Thanks. Samala, Renee ---- I can find no record of atmospheric or underground atomic bomb tests in or near the caves and deep soil deposits where the plant derived minerals are located and I doubt that any fallout drift penetrated the alluvial clay which contains the plant minerals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.