1. The Miracle Mineral
Our initial interest in magnesium as an aid to bodily health
was aroused in 1939 by the work of Dr. P. Schrumpf-Pierron in the field of cancer research. The researches of
Professor P. Schrumpf-Pierron are written up in the Bulletin de L'Institut D'Egypte
(Vol. XIV, February 15, 1932) and others. He talks about the
rarity of cancer in Egypt where the rate of malignant cases is
only about one-tenth that of Europe. What is the cause? After
exhaustive studies and research the doctor came to the conclusion
that it was due to too much potassium and too little magnesium in
the foods of Europeans. On the other hand, in the soils of Egypt
the conditions are reversed; that is, more magnesium in relation
to the potassium.
There seems to be a definite
relationship between magnesium and potash wherever it is found,
whether in the soils, rocks, or other places. Where there is an
oversupply of potash, there is always an undersupply of magnesium
and vice versa. Schrumpf-Pierron studied the cancer statistics
for France in relation to the
rock structure underlying its soils. It worked most uncannily.
Wherever he found an excess of potash, there he discovered less
magnesium and more human cancer cases. Wherever he observed a
minimum of potash, he found a maximum of magnesium and less
cancer cases. This means that people who eat food raised in
certain soils that obtain their nutriments from the rocks that
underlie them get certain elements into their foods because of
this. Such a condition would apply more to France than to the
United States, because in a country like France there would be
more of a tendency to consume food near the point at which it is
raised. But in the United States, with our more advanced
industrial condition, where even the poorer people are able to
buy winter vegetables raised in California, Florida, and
elsewhere, a great deal of citrus foods, etc., and meats that are
shipped long distances, local deficiencies and unbalancings of
nutritional elements may tend to be corrected to a certain
extent.
When Schrumpf-Pierron found that an excess of potassium in the
rocks of a region tied in with an excess of cancer cases in that
section, we should note that excess of potassium means excess of
carbohydrates in plants grown there and, therefore, reduced
protein in the foods. Farmers should know that it is best,
therefore, to use dolomitic limestone when they apply lime,
because it is rich in magnesium and acts as a safety factor in
relation to the potash in the soil.
In an article, "The
Importance of Magnesium in Human Nutrition," by S. Marcovitch, Ph.D., printed in The Science Counselor
(December, 1954, Duquesne University Press), appears the
following: "It is now generally known that the liberal use of
potassium fertilizers tends to cause deficiency of magnesium in
plants, and even lowers the calcium and soda content. Cattle fed on such high potassium forage
develop grass tetany."
The evidence of a dietary need for much magnesium is
mountainous-our files are bulging with scientific papers on the
subject.
At this point you may be saying, "Am I getting enough
magnesium?" So may we tell you that if you eat sunflower and
pumpkin seeds, if you take at least four bone meal tablets of standard size a day, if you eat wheat germ, peanuts, peas, beans,
soybeans, and plenty of meat, you are assured of getting enough
magnesium.
At this time we would like to
discuss our bête noire--milk drinking. Dr. S. Marcovitch,
quoted above, says in the same article: "Milk with a low
magnesium ratio, while an excellent food for the young, may be
detrimental for adults."
Here is another reference: "Some component of milk interferes
with the utilization of magnesium. R.
H. Smith [in the BioClinical Journal, 67, 472, 19571 ...
recently undertook the elucidation of this phenomenon,"
Nutrition Reviews (June,
1958).
In the March 31, 1958, issue of Newsweek, we were thrilled when we read of a discovery to help heart patients
made by the famous Dr. Hans Selye
of McGill University at Montreal. Selye took groups of albino
rats and, by making them undergo certain stresses that damaged
their heart muscles, caused them to die. But when he gave them
injections of magnesium and potassium, they always continued to
live.
We are sorry that we have to disagree with Dr. Selye, but we
are of the opinion that he would have gotten the same results
with the magnesium alone, and without the potassium, and there is
much medical work that backs us up! In The Journal of the American Medical Association
(October 19, 1963), Charles Fisch,
M.D., stated that medical science may have been wrong in
prescribing potassium for patients with coronary disease.
Research shows that potassium may make digitalis intoxication worse, "even to the point
of cardioactive standstill." He says that "potassium has been too
enthusiastically received, and some say too enthusiastically
given. Recent observations, though, have pointed out to
contrindications, and certain cardiologists have suggested
caution in the use of potassium." Charles Fisch is chief of the
cardiovascular division at Indiana
University School of Medicine. He gives a lot of evidence to
prove his point.
In our own files we find several proofs that good results in
coronary cases can be obtained by the use of magnesium without
potassium. Here is S. E. Browne,
M.D., writing to The
Lancet (London, December, 1961), who says that for the
past nine months he has injected a magnesium sulfate solution
into patients with severe angina or a history of coronary thrombosis with excellent results on five
patients with really severe angina.
Another piece of evidence is in an article in The
Lancet (November 1, 1958) which says, "Recent work has
suggested that magnesium may be related to atherosclerosis and ischaemic heart disease. It has
been claimed that magnesium sulphate is of therapeutic value in
myocardial infarction, while a high magnesium diet has prevented
the development of atherosclerosis in rats." Not a word about
potassium.
In The British Medical
Journal (January 23, 1960), an item contains the following:
"Over 100 patients suffering from coronary heart disease . . .
were treated with intramuscular [injected] magnesium sulphate
with only one death, compared to their findings in the previous
year when, of 196 cases admitted and treated with routine
anticoagulants, 60 died."
In the American Heart
Journal (February, 1959) cases are described of damage to
the heart by certain medication. Then in the summary appears the
following: "The damage to the heart and the blood vessels, caused
by the bacterial polysaccharide, was considered as a common
phenomenon induced by some of the high molecular substances . . .
Such damage was reduced effectively by the concurrent oral
administration of magnesium chloride."
Another in The South African
Medical Journal (December 20, 1958): . . . "The value of
parenteral [not oral] magnesium-sulphate therapy in acute and
chronic heart disease has once again been affirmed. M cases of
angina have been treated by 5 workers with 66 per cent remission
of pain. 64 cases of acute coronary thrombosis or acute coronary
insufficiency have been treated. Of these only one died in an
acute attack. The great importance of early parenteral magnesium
sulphate therapy in these cases has been stressed . . . It is
suggested that in cases who have recovered from an attack of
coronary thrombosis, life expectancy can be improved by combined
hepatin and magnesium- sulphate by long-term therapy."
Finally, here is an interesting item from The South
African Medical Journal (October 18, 1958):
"In a personal communication to us Dr. Parsons writes as
follows:
" 'We have completed 50 cases of patients treated with
magnesium sulphate and have reported our findings in a paper to
the British Medical Journal. We feel that this form of
treatment has surpassed other forms especially in cases
suffering from angina. Medicine is a progressive science and in
its multiple branches new forms of therapy are constantly
appearing.
" 'To physicians who are students not alone of the
manifestations of disease, but also of the working of human
nature, there are few chapters in the field of therapeutics
more interesting than those which record the response of
medical men to the Supposed advances in the treatment of
disease. This can roughly be divided into 4 stages:
" 'The first reaction is that of scepticism and outright
rejection by the few whose verdict matters most. This is
understandable in the light of past experience. Many medical
men have announced their cure of disease, provided remedies to
relieve symptoms, and invented methods of treatment that seemed
to put off the inevitable tendency to dissolution. Yet few of
these inventions and discoveries have maintained their early
reputation. Another initial difficulty is that our views about
a new and unorthodox method of treatment are already prejudiced
by various influences, both emotional and intellectual, and
particularly by theories which pervade our own thought,
sometimes without our being aware of them. To be ruthlessly
critical of another man's theories is one of the easiest tasks
to accomplish. The 2nd stage in the life history of a new drug
is one of unbridled enthusiasm and acceptance by the many. Wild
and exaggerated claims are made in support of a new drug,
impossible hopes are entertained or the drug may be used in the
wrong dose and in the wrong way. This inevitably brings a
useful remedy into disrepute (3rd stage) and it may take years
before the 4th stage is reached and the drug makes its final
reappearance in the field of therapeutics. The history of
tuberculin is a glaring example of this."
So . . . we'll stake our money on magnesium without
potassium.
This page was first uploaded to The Magnesium Web Site on
January 3, 2001
http://www.mgwater.com/
Healthy Water
Association--USA