
Originally Posted by
Ddanimal
There are good reasons to expect diatomaceous earth to be effective in a wide variety of diseases. The scientific evidence is sparse, but this there, and its clear. Mostly, the scientific evidence is in the animal/veterinary literature.
There are a lot of ignorant people on this forum who apparently dont understand how science works. Science is empirical. It requires experiments. Science is not a body of dogma. The dogma here appears to be "DE is pure silica, which is sand, and that cannot possibly have an effect." This is wrong for a couple reasons:
1) DE has extremely high surface area and therefore high surface activity. It has very high cation binding capacity and high surface charge. its a high surface-energy material. Accordingly, its binds to things. Things like toxins.
2) DE is not sand. Sand is crystalline silica. DE is hydrated amorphous silica. Accordingly, DE has different surface chemistry. Chemical bonds are strained, and therefore more reactive. There will be more active surface sites for chemical reactions and possibly catalyst reactions.
Also, DE is not pure silica. It contains dozens of trace minerals (e.g. transition metals), and this of course could contribute to or create novel surface-active effects.
The mechanisms of activity of DE are generally not known, but some are. When used against insects, the evidence is pretty good that it scrapes and cuts the insects. But this mechanism of activity doesnt really make much sense inside the gut. Rather, what seems more likely is that DE binds toxins the gut, for example toxins produced by bacteria. DE may also have antimicrobial effects due to its surface chemistry.
it is well-established at this point that gut bacteria are hugely important in the pathogenesis of many diseases, including autoimmune diseases, arthritis, chronic infections, and even cardiovascular disease and psychological disorders. So, it is plausible for DE to have effects on any of these diseases. There is also evidence that DE can affect the growth (inhibit or promote) of gut bacteria. What specifically it does is not known, but its preposterous to assert that it must be inert. All the evidence is to the contrary: that DE is active and may be highly active.
Its pretty pathetic that a long thread (83 replies so far!) on "the science forum" has no references to actual scientific literature or studies (sorry if i missed one). Its not that hard, people. Learn how to use Google Scholar to make your point.
In view of the scientific research I have read about DE-animal studies and research into its chemical properties-I am quite inclined to believe the people on here who say it has helped them. While there are no human studies on the diseases mentioned here, it is very plausible that DE would have the effects reported.
Here is an example of the type of research i am talking about. These papers are hard to find because DE is used in laboratory filtering procedures, so keyword searches will pull up thousands of studies that have nothing to do with administering DE to humans or animals, or testing the effects of DE on bacteria. But those studies are out there. Not a huge number, but enough to clearly prove that DE is not "inert".
Effect of diatomaceous earth on the performance and blood variables of broiler chicks during experimental aflatoxicosis
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diatomaceous earth (DE) is a type of tectosilicate found in large quantities in Iran. It is possible that this compound can absorb mycotoxins. An experiment was conducted to evaluate the protective effects of DE on experimental aflatoxicosis in broilers from 1 to 42 days of age. In four treatments of four replicates, 160 one-day-old Hubbard male chicks were subjected to two levels of aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) (0 and 1.0 mg kg−1) and DE (0 and 30 mg kg−1)
RESULTS: Body weight gain, feed intake, feed conversion ratio, and productive efficiency index were adversely affected in the chicks treated with AFB1. Weight of heart was significantly decreased (20.3%) by AFB1 (P < 0.05). Serum total protein, albumin, and the activity of serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) were decreased by AFB1. DE significantly (P < 0.05) increased body weight gain (9.51%), feed intake (7.44%), and improved feed conversion ratio (2.08%) as well as productive efficiency index (5.48%) in the birds that subjected to AFB1 DE also increased serum albumin (22.6%), and the activity of serum LDH (44.4%).
CONCLUSION: DE might be beneficial in reducing toxic effects of AFB1 in broilers. It is possible to include DE as an alternative to other mycotoxin binders at levels of 30 mg kg−1 in the diets on offer to broilers between the ages of 1 and 42 days. Copyright © 2007 Society of Chemical Industry