*** It is a radical idea, oui. I don't know if anyone has specifically
looked into it further--Kervran lived in the early-mid twentieth
century, if I recall. But, if one also takes into account the
experience of Anthroposophy and BD farmers (empirical experience since
the 1920's when the results meant viable crops or not)-- there is some
fundamental relation between Calcium and Silica in organisms which has
to do with the fruiting of soft tissue(Calcium) or the laying down of
the "skeletal" structures (Silica). In plants the "skeleton" relates
to stem rigidity ( fibrous plant material--made up of various mineral
incorporations). In humans it is bone--made of Calcium phosphate or
variations on that compound. If plants are not developing, the BD
farmer is going to promote silica by applying an energetic spray. If
plants are not fruiting, the farmer promotes calcium via another
energetic spray.
It is a bit of a Yin-Yang relation parallel. We know that Calc is
fundamentally soft (eg limestone gets easily eaten away by acid),
Silica is fundamentally very hard (sand is erosion resistant)--there is
a similar alchemical understanding obtained by the remedy types in
homeopathic typology, of course.
So, in a case of parathyroid dysfunction, the regulation of Calcium is
affected. But calcium is a primary constituent of bone, (not soft
tissue) in the human. BUT- the polar end member of the calcium-silica
continuum is silica, which has to do with rigidity. In the Schuessler
"biochemic" system, Silica has to do with bone, nail and connective
tissue integrity.
So, there are clues here which could substantiate a deranged calcium
metabolism in a client needing the rx Silica (determined semiologically
or otherwise confirmed as the optimal and "key" resonant totality).
But these are not new ideas, only afternoon musings. If you rule out
silica in the case, then they are relatively moot. If you have not
investigated silica, that would be a good idea IMO.
*** A matrix of calcium carbonate--organically derived.
their shells do get wonky, so I wonder
*** Well, nothing like empiricism to prove or disprove reported
results, which must be reproducible! However, you would need to do
the converse experiment (eliminate silica, a bit more difficult)--in
order to show the difference in importance of those two dietary
components. As well, there are other variables here--hen variety,
length of time of deprivation, etc.
As I recall, it was Silica which Kervran thought (from his controlled
experiments) was the *greater* controlling variable in shell morphology
and integrity ("wonkiness" as the Wisconsin term) than Calcium. The
interesting point if I recall was that chickens receiving *plenty* of
calcium could not muster shells if they were deprived of silica. This
had no (obvious) chemical explanation at the time (and may well still
be lacking that even now?), so Kervran posited a transmutational one.
There very well could be some biochemical metabolic reason for the
result. But, IF silica in the diet controls the structure of calcium
eggshells, then that agrees with the Steinerian idea of the role of
Silica in organismic systems. In humans, a silica metabolic
derangement could cause a problem with calcium deposition or erosion
(eg osteoporosis, etc). If the rx is silica, silica has marked
affinity for glands, produces tumors, etc, --but the abstract ideas I
present here are one step back from those manifestations.
To be really scientific, if one could eliminate Silica in one's
henhouse, and *compare* that separately in time with elimination of
Calcium, then one would have more than anecdotal rebuttal to those
published results from Kervran's experiments doing the latter
procedure. Chickens would have to be isolated radically in
non-concrete pens in order to do any of these experiments, since they
peck everything.
I'm going to go scramble some eggs
AH
------------------