| Currently,
there is a lot of controversy about colloids. The
dictionary definition of a colloid is as follows:
"Aggregates of atoms or molecules in a finely divided
state dispersed in a gaseous, liquid or solid medium and
resisting sedimentation, diffusion and filtration."
The clear thrust of this meaning, then, is that colloids
are stable aggregates, that is, they are super atomic.
They are aggregates of two atoms or more so that even if
the colloid is in the ionic form, it still has two or more
ions at a time. We don't need colloids for that. All we
have to use is good, affordable ionic sources of minerals
and we get single ions. So, rather than having to deal
with colloids, which can be two or fifty, or even 200 at a
time, we have just one mineral at a time. That is what the
body is looking for.
There's absolutely
nothing special about colloids. But there are lots of
things about colloids that aren't special. You can almost
predict that aggregates of ions are not going to be
absorbed. There are also no studies to be found. I can not
find one study in the literature on colloid absorption or
metabolism. Nothing to do with colloid digestion,
absorption or metabolism. The reason for that is that
colloids were never meant to be a dietary supplement.
Colloids were a fad
during the course of medicine between the early 1900's
until about 1936. Certain physicians found that if they
could get silver into a state of dispersion they could use
it as an antibiotic. This was before conventional
antibiotics were known and that's what colloids were for.
When more efficient antibiotics showed up about 1935-36,
colloidal literature falls off a precipice. There were a
few scientific papers through the early 30's but there are
no papers beyond 1936. So, colloids were a passing
interest. However, it remains to be known how efficient
colloids are as antibiotics. For sure, colloids are not
going to be absorbed well and they're likely going to
prove toxic if taken on a daily basis.
There are some ridiculous
claims out there regarding colloidal minerals. One claim
is that colloidal minerals are 98 percent absorbed. This
claim has no support whatsoever. It is a bald faced lie.
Having looked through the literature myself back to 1905,
I can not find one shred of evidence that this was the
case. The people who make this claim have given two
reasons.
The first claim is that
the colloid particles are so small they are readily
absorbed. Colloids are not as small as ions. It is
unlikely that as aggregates they are going to be readily
absorbed because the transporter uptake proteins are
looking for single ions. People who claim that colloids
are 98 percent absorbed and that ionized minerals are only
8 to 10 percent absorbed even in the most healthy people
either haven't looked at the literature or are purposely
misrepresenting the literature because the literature
quite clearly shows the ionic form [absorption rate]
ranges from 20 to 90 percent depending on how hungry their
system is for the mineral at that time. So the absorption
efficiency goes up when the body is hungry for the
minerals and goes down when the body has enough of the
mineral.
Secondly, these people
claim that their minerals carry a negative charge and that
the gut is positively charged and, therefore, the two
attract each other. Even a high school text will tell you
the gut carries a major negative charge. It does not carry
a positive charge. It is simply ridiculous to make that
kind of assertion about colloids.
|
