Talk:Coral calcium

Long paragraph at end
What is with the little paragraph at the very end, after the link section? It seems rather random and a little out of place.192.211.25.44 23:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The person who wrote that paragraph may have had only good intentions, but the paragraph was about calcium's role in the body.  If it belongs in Wikipedia at all, it should be in the article "calcium" or "bone" but not this one.  Also, it looks like the paragraph was taken word-for-word out of a health book or something.  I took care of it - thanks for bringing it to our attention.  ZZYZX 20:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Critic Tidbit
I added a tidbit to the article. This should resolve this matter. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü ( talk/contribs ) 19:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Other sources/links to consider

 * "Alert! Coral Calcium Supplements Scam" -- Ronz  16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Spotlight on Coral Calcium" -- Ronz  16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Counting on Coral Calcium?" (probably too ad-heavy with too little content) -- Ronz  16:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Coral Calcium Scams " -- Ronz  16:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "The Evidence About Okinawa Coral Calcium Supplements" -- Ronz  16:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Coral Calcium – The answer to how do you spell HYPE?" -- Ronz  16:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We have three links already that suggest that Coral Calcium is a scam and no links saying otherwise. I think we should either have some sort of positive links (if any exist!) to balance of the point of view or just select one or two of the best quality, most reliable negative links. Either suggestion will help satisfy WP:WEIGHT. Having a list of only negative links will certainly throw this article into WP:NPOV violation. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, from what I've read, I think the benefits of Coral calcium have been over-hyped. But my opinion really doesn't matter in terms of writing this article. So, if there are any secondary-sources touting these benefits, I think the article would be vastly improved to show both sides of the argument (thus satisfying WP:WEIGHT). Right now, the article seems a bit one-sided. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ronz, you can add another external link of your choice to the article. There are very few references or externals. :) - Mr.Gurü ( talk/contribs ) 19:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a suggestion that often works - if you want those articles lin ked to, use them as references if they support a fact stated in the article. You can always add to the article using brief block quotes from the articles if the quotes are on point and enhance the article. This article could use some more references.LiPollis 22:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article for discussion
However, though carbonate may leave the body rather quickly, the calcium component continues to provide pH level support throughout the body. It facilitates the body's natural balancing of serum pH. Generally speaking, the increased presence of calcium denotes a higher pH level. Also, though the pH level of the blood itself varies only slightly, body tissues and organs can become dangerously acidic if the body is depleted of pH balancing minerals. In a deficient state, the body allocates it's mineral resources to the blood to keep the body alive. The pH balancing properties of coral calcium may be most helpful in more remote regions like the ears, nose, sinuses, and throat.

If you use, or are planning to use coral calcium supplements, please take a reasonable dose, as the kidneys may be affected negatively by extreme doses. In cases of therapeutic use, it is wise to avoid green tea, and other sources of oxalate. Kidney stones may develop otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the first paragraph is inaccurate, though it the inaccurate information that the coral calcium proponents suggest. The second paragraph is inappropriate for inclusion because it's a how-to (See WP:NOT). --Ronz (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Warren Says: "The second paragraph is inappropriate for inclusion because it's a how-to" - This is not a How-To, it is a health warning. It is our duty to protect the general public from overuse of a health related chemical, if it is within our power to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.201.161 (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the slightly changed version that was added again by the same editor, as none of my concerns have been addressed. --Ronz (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It is imperative that this article be balanced immediately. Quackwatch is a notoriously biased and inappropriate source for Wikipedia. Though the information I gave may not be satisfactory to certain people, it is cited properly, and reasonable considering the fact that it is widely held throughout the medical community that calcium is required and beneficial to the human body. For the benefit of all those who read this article, I added this stop gap to balance the article. Please feel free to change the contribution as new information comes to light. If this article is not balanced immediately it should be deleted by TPTB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.201.161 (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you would like to delete the article, see WP:AFD --Ronz (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you like me to start the AFD instead, or have you changed your mind? --Ronz (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine with me as long as it is balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.201.161 (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Another paragraph moved from article for discussion
"On the other hand, 'Proper calcium intake may reduce the incidence of colon and rectal cancers through forming insoluble soaps with some mild carcinogens produced in the body, including bile acids and free, ionized fatty acids.' - Elson M. Haas M.D."
 * This appears to be a poorly supported WP:FRINGE theory. --Ronz (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a statement of fact, merely a comment that this is a respected doctor's belief about coral calcium based on his experiences. You must also realise that wikipedia does not solely cater to empirical data.

BTW, Elson M. Haas, MD, is the founder and director of the Preventive Medical Center of Marin in San Rafael, California, one of the leading integrated healthcare facilities in the country. He is the author of several popular health and nutrition books, including THE NEW DETOX DIET, STAYING HEALTHY WITH THE SEASONS, and THE FALSE FAT DIET. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.201.161 (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to respond here. I already pointed out WP:FRINGE with regard to this entry.  As this is a medical claim that Haas is making, it should be supported by peer-reviewed medical research at least. --Ronz (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"alkalinizing agents such as CaCO3 are ingested, the body promptly excretes the alkaline components in urine." This statement is scientifically inaccurate. When alkalinizing agents are ingested, they react almost instantly with stomach acid to form water and a salt, in this case a calcium salt. This, in effect neutralizes the acid and allows the calcium to be readily absorbed by the intestines. The excess alkaline molecules are then expelled from the body, leaving the body in a less acidic state than it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.201.161 (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And the source of this information is? --Ronz (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * discussion doesn't require citations, does it? anyway : Neutralization It's basic Chemistry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.201.161 (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Basic chemistry fails to describe what's going on, hence the need for Biochemistry. --Ronz (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Medical Information
"not a reliable source for medical information - see talk" Ronz, If you have reason to believe that Elson M. Haas MD is not a reliable source, please shed some light. Magnonimous (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Already did above on 01:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC). --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

'The above study also states: "In our study, supplemental calcium intake was significantly associated with decreased risk even among participants with low dietary calcium intake".' This is not irrelevant and off topic, it proves that a decreased risk of colon and rectal cancer is a health benefit of coral calcium. Since it was written in the Possible Health Benefits section, how is it off topic? Magnonimous (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not specific to coral calcium. It's specific to low dietary calcium intake though, which is not the topic of this article.  It proves nothing, as it is a single study. --Ronz (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "In our study, SUPPLEMENTAL CALCIUM intake was significantly associated...", This means calcium supplements including coral calcium. Magnonimous (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In case that doesn't satisfy you: "The extended follow-up and better assessment of long-term diet through multiple dietary assessments in these two cohorts allowed us to increase the statistical power to examine moderate associations, to assess dietary and supplemental calcium separately". This study clearly both draws a distinction between dietary and supplemental calcium intake, and takes them both into account. Magnonimous (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"[original research?]" - You are taking this thing way too literally man. The founders of Wikipedia could not require that all articles, including basic interpretations of published works, be completely quoted from published material. That's a violation of copyright law. Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Magnonimous (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"It proves nothing, as it is a single study" --- You're incorrect, the article was written by five researchers, three of which are prominent doctors, and obviously satisfies your personal requirement of peer-reviewed medical research. Magnonimous (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't clear. We need to cite medical consensus, rather than cherry picking studies.  The studies of course have to be peer reviewed, which was my first objection to the Haas reference. --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Proof of consensus: "Our results suggest that calcium may be protective against colorectal cancer development even at a lower consumption level compared to Western populations" - Dietary intake of calcium, fiber and other micronutrients in relation to colorectal cancer risk: Results from the Shanghai Women's Health Study (Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN/Shanghai Cancer Institute, Shanghai, China) Magnonimous (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Calcium May Protect Women from Colorectal Cancer. University of Minnesota Academic Health Center Magnonimous (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Conclusion: High calcium intake, particularly from supplements, is associated with a reduced risk of distal colorectal adenoma" Calcium intake and colorectal adenoma in a US colorectal cancer early detection program - American Journal Of Clinical Nutrition Magnonimous (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is WP:OR of cherry picking studies and saying they prove medical consensus. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC) --- ( Not WP:OR, as work has been published. ) Magnonimous (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Medical consensus" sounds an awful lot like majority opinion to me. WP:FRINGE clearly states "Wikipedia maintains a non-negotiable principle of neutral point of view in which all significant views are represented fairly and without bias, with representation in proportion to their prominence". Clearly the minority(or what is perceived by some to be minority) must also be represented fairly. Magnonimous (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But that's not what I meant. I mean that we follow NPOV and FRINGE by not cherry-picking articles. --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is now balanced, (Satisfies NPOV); Journal of the National Cancer Institute is a respected source in the medical community, (covers FRINGE) Magnonimous (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

More Studies
New England Journal of Medicine, January 14th 1999; 340(2):101-7. 

Content forking
As it currently stands (or as it did before I removed it) the section on health benefits is a content fork. Studies on any purported health benefits of calcium belong on the calcium article or on the articles of the specific forms of calcium purported by the provided references to yield health benefits. The only information that belongs on this article is information that is specific to coral calcium. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Content forking refers specifically to creating New articles to bypass WP:NPOV. This information is contained in the intended article. Also, these studies explicitly refer to calcium supplementation, which includes coral calcium. Magnonimous (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless they actually mention coral calcium, that is your own personal opinion. "John says calcium supplements benefit health, Bob says coral calcium is a calcium supplement, therefore coral calcium benefits health." This is the exact type of argument prohibited as original synthesis. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that Magnonimous has created a content fork to continue his edit-warring: Coral Calcium Claims‎ --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

TRUCE: RONZ / MAGNONIMOUS
Ronz I would like to call a truce.

Here's how I see things now:

I believe Coral Calcium is beneficial to health. My own experience has been that coral calcium has boosted my immune system. At least three times in the past, I have started to take it when I catch a cold. My symptoms have almost vanished completely after two days of supplementation, on at least three separate occasions. This may not be medical proof, but it has dissuaded my skepticism.

I DO believe that coral calcium is overpriced, and I am NOT yet convinced that it can cure cancer, I'm with you on that score. However, the studies deserve credit in that they seem to show that we're on the right track, that we might find a cancer cure if we figure out how calcium works against cancer, and find something that works better.

You believe that Coral-Calcium Is overblown, hype, that doesn't deserve any more credit than blistex does in curing anything. You believe that Robert Barefoot and Carl J. Reich MD are fabricating studies and lying about calcium in order to make a profit. You don't believe that calcium has healing properties, just that it is required by the body in some way.

Your views are covered in the article unquestioned. Mine are not.

I will agree not to add any more to the article.

You will agree not to erase any more from the article.

WE WILL STOP EDIT WARRING!

WE WILL DISCUSS CONSTRUCTIVE WAYS TO IMPROVE THE ARTICLE!

Do you agree to these terms as they are read above??? Magnonimous (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition to everything I've said above, I'm going to run down some pointers on reliable medical studies. A paper on a study is not a reliable source for its own results; it is a primary source The results of a study do not belong on Wikipedia unless mentioned in other reliable sources (news articles, the introduction/background information included in other studies, or best of all, peer reviewed review articles). Someguy1221 (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your concern, but the listed study was republished from it's original form into the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. This means that a reliable authority believes it is a reliable source. Magnonimous (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. (but please please take it to the main article) Someguy1221 (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Dubious
"There is evidence that in some cases, molecules that contain radioactive atoms can deviate in chemical behavior from those that do not."

Are there any citations for this? Apart from the kinetic isotope effect, which is greatest in the isotopes of hydrogen, I do not see the differences expected. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly suspect it is someone's original research, or in some other manner unverifiable by reliable sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's leave it there for a day or two, if there is any further discussion. Then, we can take the sentence out. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Restored Health Benefits Section
Coral calcium claims deletion review feedback: "There is no earthly reason for the health claims and counterclaims to be forked off into a separate article.".

"The content should be discussed at Coral calcium"

Some admins think this information belongs back at this page. Magnonimous (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem remains that this section constitutes original synthesis merely by appearing on this page. There are many sources to assert that calcium provides health benefits, and sources to assert that coral calcium is a type of calcium supplement, the same as calcium carbonate. But only sources that actually discuss coral calcium belong here. Anything about calcium in general belongs on Calcium. Anything about calcium carbonate belongs at calcium carbonate, etc. The administrative actions surrounding the Coral Calcium health claims article was merely an administrative assertion that the claims don't get their own article. Unless an admin said otherwise, it was no endorsement of the content's placement on this article. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Original Synthesis
This information is covered under the WP:NOTOR exception for simple logical deductions. It is a simple Syllogism.

Major premise: Calcium Is Beneficial to Health Minor premise: Coral Calcium Provides Calcium Conclusion: Coral Calcium Is Beneficial to Health

Note that this means that it can be deduced logically, therefore the above does not have to be expressly written. Magnonimous (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is neither a syllogism nor even correct logic. Coral calcium contains more than just calcium. In addition to carbonate, it contains various impurities. These impurities make it qualitatively different from normal calcium carbonate. And because of these impurities, we can't assume it will have the same effects as normal calcium carbonate. To say that it will, you're merely drawing your own conclusion. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment
Does including information on the health benefits of other forms of calcium constitute original research? One user feels it does not. His opinion is summarized in his own words: Major premise: Calcium Is Beneficial to Health, Minor premise: Coral Calcium Provides Calcium, Conclusion: Coral Calcium Is Beneficial to Health. I believe this unquestionably original synthesis. This user claims it is not original research, and instead is a syllogism. The problem with this argument is that coral calcium is qualitatively different from the forms of calcium discussed in the references supporting this argument. By virtue of having a slightly different chemical composition thanks to impurities, this logical leap cannot be made. The relevent diff is this one. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A composition test was done by a company called West Coast Analytical Service to determine ratios of elements by weight. A sample of coral calcium was run through a Rigaku ZSX100e XRF(X-Ray Fluorescence) machine. These were the results: Scroll down to Coral Calcium.

In order by weight the sample contained:

CaO (calcium) : 27.95%;

MgO (magnesium): 14.86%;

SiO2 (silicon): 0.42%;

Na2O (sodium) : 0.22%;

SO3 (sulfur) : 0.22%;

SrO (strontium): 0.17%;

P2O5 (phosphorus) : 0.073%;

TiO2 (titanium) : 0.005%;

MnO (manganese) : 0.005%;

Al2O3 (aluminum) : 0.04%;

(Elements in oxidized form due to combustion, a necessary step in the analysis process)

(Original composition was not necessarily in oxidized form)

Contrary to popular belief / rumour, this sample contained no lead.

--Magnonimous (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Calcium, Magnesium, Sodium, Phosphorus, and Sulfur, are all required Macronutrients and are all found in the diet.


 * Manganese is a Micronutrient that is needed by the body in small amounts.


 * "Titanium is non-toxic even in large doses", and "most plants contain about 1 part per million (ppm) of titanium, food plants have about 2 ppm", so it can be found in the diet as well. (see Titanium


 * "Silicon is an essential element in biology, although only tiny traces of it appear to be required by animals. It is much more important to the metabolism of plants".


 * The amount of strontium |Strontium contained in the average daily dose of coral calcium is less than 1/20th the amount found in an ordinary head of lettuce.
 * "The intake of aluminum |Aluminum from food for an adult amounts to about 8 milligrams per day, although higher daily intakes have also been estimated."

My contention is that all of these minerals are contained in the diet of every participant in this study, therefore these so-called impurities are inconsequential to the outcome of this study. --Magnonimous (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was hoping you'd realize at some point the amount of sources you need to synthesize to prove this completely knocks it out of the WP:NOTOR exception range. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, this information proves that the difference between using coral calcium and using calcium carbonate, or any other calcium supplement is so negligible that it cannot reasonably impede the "logical leap".

Also, these sources are only required for this discussion, and are therefore not subject to the rules of Original Research. --Magnonimous (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the WP:NOTOR exception that you're claiming requires that the jump from givens to conclusions be undeniably logically true. The fact that there is a source of denial, one that you have defeated only by synthesizing yet more sources into an original argument, proves that the original argument fails to pass muster. But then now we've both made our points, hopefully more people will come along to review them. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC comment: If we're discussing the health effects of non-coral calcium, it seems we should simply link to something like Calcium Having an island of that debate here is not only unnecessarily duplicative, but it creates the unnecessary and wrong impression that such claims are unique to coral calcium. Moreover, the health benefits of supplements do depend on the whole mix. Calcium with D3 is thought to have different effectiveness than calcium alone. Therefore, I think it is synthesis to include this material here. Cool Hand Luke 07:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed section removed
I've removed the disputed section. I've made multiple comments about the problems within it, and recieved no reply to many of my concerns. To summarize:L --Ronz (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Robert Barefoot and Carl J. Reich M.D., The Calcium Factor is not a reliable source of anything, other than the authors opinions.
 * The article should not give any recommendation about the use of coral calcium per WP:NOT#HOWTO.
 * "'Proper calcium intake may reduce the incidence of colon and rectal cancers through forming insoluble soaps with some mild carcinogens produced in the body, including bile acids and free, ionized fatty acids" The source of this quote has repeatedly been changed by editors, but none of the sources to date actually verify this information.
 * And, we now have an RfC about the original research issues.

Conflict Resolution
There is a major problem with this article. Notwithstanding magnonimous's unrelenting antics, he seems to have a point. This article is riddled with bias. Contrary to mag's assertion that adding more content to balance it is the correct thing to do, wikipedia policy dictates that point of view content should be removed, especially in articles based on science. Stephen Barrett references are point of view content, based on his opinions, and fit into that category. Sidenote: "coral calcium" is a catchy slogan that marketers use to promote their product, and does not properly reflect the actual content therein. see Okinawa Coral, What does Okinawa Coral Contain. MLGSP (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be opposed to a complete stubbification of the article, removing all poorly referenced material. However, I see no reason to change the name. Okinawa coral is a subset of coral calcium, so redirecting would seem entirely inappropriate. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * POV content from all significant POV is what makes up alot of Wikipedia. It just has to be well-sourced. Read NPOV again. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 20:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Restored page
Please do not replace the entire contents of this page with that of Okinawa Coral‎. Okinawa Coral‎ is up for deletion as a pov fork of this article. --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * not entire, changed title, and changed subject to reflect title of article. By the way, None of this information contains any point of view either for or against coral calcium. It just contains basic information about coral calcium, after all this is AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. It's time to take out the trash. Magnonimous (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's no justification for removing an entire page and replacing it with the contents of a pov fork that is up for deletion. --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the "subject" of coral calcium, and that is much more than just about coral calcium itself. That applies to all articles at Wikipedia. As such it should include all notable issues on the subject, including false claims and their debunking, as long as it is well sourced and written in an NPOV manner. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 20:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Salvaging useful info from Okinawa Coral
Of all the content in Okinawa Coral‎, I think the one reference is worth saving to possibly incorporate here, once the article is restored back to consensus version: --Ronz (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Coral Calcium: Is It Better Than Other Calcium Supplements, Yadhu N. Singh, PhD

What Does Okinawa Coral Contain?
I was unable to verify any of this information, so it is not merged in. --Ronz (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Production
I've left this section intact from Okinawa Coral. It can be partially verfied from the Yadhu N. Singh external link, but I decided not to use that as a reference for now in the hopes that we can find something acceptable that verifies most if not all of the section. --Ronz (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
Inappropriate self-published sources found in this article should be removed promptly, including:


 * "Be Wary Of Coral Calcium and Robert Barefoot" -- Stephen Barrett M.D.
 * "Coral Calcium – The answer to how do you spell HYPE?" -- Dr. Michael T. Murray.
 * PH alkalinisation references derived from "ACID OR ALKALINE" -- Gabe Mirkin M.D.

84.129.232.119 (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Those sources are reliable as they are all qualified to discuss this subject. "Self published" is not exactly the right way to describe them.ScienceApologist (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Self published" simply means that the work has been published by the author. Quackwatch is a personal website operated by Stephen Barrett MD.


 * With regards to the qualifications, there is an exception to the self published sources rule if the person is qualified. However, it is rather strict:


 * The person must be a known expert in the field of -article title-.
 * their articles about -article title- must have been published by reliable third party source(s).
 * The cited article must not be based heavily on opinion, etc., etc.
 * But, even if it matches these criteria, including a self published source is frowned upon.


 * I'm afraid to say, I haven't yet found a coral calcium article from Stephen Barrett that has been published by a reliable third party source. Also, in my opinion the "Be Wary Of..." article is chuck full of Barrett's personal opinions, irony not intended. -- BE  TA  23:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed Reference
"Causes, Diagnosis and Effects of Abnormal pH Status, M J Bookallil"

1. This is not properly cited. (the article name is missing, "Causes, Diagnosis and..." is a subtitle in a main article)

2. There is no mention of cancer in the article.

 BE  TA  03:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How about providing us with the correct reference here, in case it could be used to support some of the material? --Ronz (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the reference is "Ph of the blood:Acid-Base balance, by Michael J. Bookallil", but it wouldn't be appropriate for this article, as it makes no mention of coral calcium.  BE  TA  13:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Another reference removed
I have been mentally debating over this for days:

Dr. Stephen Barrett has said, "Limestone has no unique health properties." 

I have decided to remove it for the following reasons:

suggests that this isn't just an opinion. A published opinion, albeit from a respected source, belongs only in an article about the person who says it. properties is contradicted by the article itself: "...contain significant amounts of lead and other heavy metals". The fact that some coral calcium supplements may be hazardous to your health negates the claim that these supplements have no effect on health.
 * 1) This reference has been tagged as a self-published source, and this has not been refuted.
 * 2) It does not relate to coral calcium. It is a claim about limestone.
 * 3) I have examined the article from which this originated; there is nothing in the article that
 * 1) What tipped the scales for me was the fact that the claim that limestone has no health

 BE  TA  00:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
I see my addition was reverted. I have no inherent interest in this article, so I'm not going to put it back, even though I was frankly very surprised at it. I was simply finding references for pages that needed them. But, after reading this talk page, I am far less concerned, as it seems this entire article is speculative and essentially ridiculous. My source wasn't a reliable source? How WOULD you conveniently and reliably cite a health claim that is vague and weasely? Good luck with this article, guys, you're going to need it. Tanthalas39 (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Bone grafts
Moved from the lede section for discussion: --Ronz (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC) "Coral calcium is also used in bone grafts, where it is accepted as effective by some surgeons."

First, this doesn't belong in the lede section. It doesn't fit in any of the current sections, so I thought it best to move it here for more discussion.

As 71.246.31.235 pointed out, the article is currently about the dietary supplement, which is powdered, fossilized coral. If I recall correctly, the bone grafts are made from skeletal coral, where the pores in the coral structure are similar to those of bone. Minimally, we need to make the differences clear to avoid confusion. --Ronz (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The coral used in surgical procedures is not the same thing as the powdered dietary supplement described in this article, despite the similarity in terms used to describe them. The purveyors of "coral calcium" rely on the similarity in names in order to pretend to medical legitimacy.  I don't think mention of the surgical coral is relevant to this article, but if it is going to be added back in, I agree that the distinction between the two should be made clear.  71.246.31.235 (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dead or alive
If 'coral calcium' is sourced only from dead coral above sea level, then there is no potential for impact on live coral. Hence the delete. David notMD (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * A) It's not (country-specific regulations). B) The source is referring to concerns that it will not be so limited in the future. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)