CHROMIUM and CHINESE HAMSTERS (Cont)                         (2 of 4)

FAILURE TO OVERCOME YOUR EDUCATION  Causes this type of error. Note
that:

        1. Chromic Chloride can produce chromosome damage in cultured
cells – including human lymphocytes –  in the concentration range of
0.5 – 1.0 mM. [5 - 7]

        2. Purified DNA studies show that sufficient concentrations of
trivalent chromium can impair DNA reproduction fidelity. [8] Thus, it
must be the Cr(III), not the picolinate salt, which is the cause?????
However, you have to THINK to see this!

        3. Some BASIC research would have told these validated idiots
that unphysiologically high concentrations of iron, copper, manganese,
selenium and nickel are potentially mutagenic, also. [9 - 17]  Each of
these has a higher concentration in the body than Cr. [18]

        4. In the presence of COPPER, VITAMIN C can cause DNA damage!
Sooo? [19] We obviously shouldn’t take Vitamin C since we have copper
in our bodies — at least we’d BETTER have some!

        5. Fully HALF of the natural food and herb compounds tested have
shown mutagenic activity in one or more assays. [20] The answer? I
guess it’s to eat only the other half!

        6. Anti-carcinogenic protective compounds in cruciferous
vegetables are in fact mutagenic in cell cultures AS WELL AS in intact
animals. [21]

        7. This ain’t new information. [Paracelsus wisely observed (16th
Century} that "The dose makes the poison"] Clearly a bit more of the
liberal arts would have better prepared these "researchers".

        8. Do you love the FDA? In a document entitled "Toxicity of the
Essential Minerals — Information pertinent to Establishing Appropriate
Levels of Single-Mineral Supplements" they state "No adverse effects
were observed in either mice or rats given an inorganic salt which
supplied 5 ppm chromium(III) in drinking water THROUGHOUT THEIR LIVES.
[22] Just to draw a comparison, that’s equivalent to a human ingesting
about 10,000mcg DAILY FOR LIFE!

My snide comments and anger are expressed because this is a poorly
written study, grasping for a sensational conclusion and its cost me a
lot of time to investigate. When I found that the researchers had
obviously done little or no background research, I got p——ed! I’m
not a bioscientist, but I AM an engineer who’s written protocols and
conducted scientific studies. This one’s conclusion insults me!  It
also has both user acceptance and commercial ramifications. If a user
who would have benefitted, such as a type II diabetic, is scared off,
he/she is deprived unnecessarily of a personal benefit. If the
commercial manufacturer is driven out of business by spurious
conclusions such as this research group offers, we all lose. Only when
the results are real and adverse is an attack such as this justified.
Until then, the normal caveats would have to suffice. Unfortunately,
this study’s conclusions look to be a shabby attempt to damage the
marketability of CrPic by a commercially motivated sponsor group. Can I
prove it? No. But,  I suspect . . . . . . . . . . .

                                             Ralph Burr,
                                             Director
                                             The Zeda Association