• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Indium Sulfate


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#61 simple

  • Guest
  • 258 posts
  • -0
  • Location:San Diego, CA

Posted 02 September 2007 - 01:54 PM

removed inappropriate remark

Edited by brainbox, 04 September 2007 - 07:57 PM.


#62 neogenic

  • Guest
  • 481 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 02 September 2007 - 06:17 PM

Fundam Appl Toxicol. 1995 Aug;27(1):140-8. Links
The reproductive and developmental toxicity of indium in the Swiss mouse.Chapin RE, Harris MW, Hunter ES 3rd, Davis BJ, Collins BJ, Lockhart AC.
Reproductive Toxicology Group, National Toxicology Program/NIEHS, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, USA.

Indium is increasingly used in a variety of industries, and while there are few studies of its developmental toxicity, ther are no reports of its potential reproductive toxicity. These studies were undertaken to investigate the possible reproductive toxicity of indium and to determine the relative vulnerability of males and females. We used, initially, a 21-day combined developmental/reproductive toxicity protocol. Oral exposures to InCl3 ( < or = 250 mg/kg) were without effect on the male reproductive system or liver. A kidney effect was demonstrated in males by a decrease in urinary N-acetyl glucosaminidase. The ability of females to become pregnant was unaffected. However, fetal development was adversely affected, manifested as increased intrauterine deaths in the presence of reduced maternal weight gain. A developmental toxicity study identified no increase in fetal malformations, but verified the increased fetal deaths, in the absence of effects on adjusted maternal body weight. In vitro toxicity studies showed that the embryolethality was at least in part a result of direct toxicity to the conceptus, with effective doses in the low micromolar range. A limited disposition study showed that fetuses contained low micromolar concentrations of indium, more indium than maternal liver, and comparable to levels that were toxic in vitro. Although studies of greater exposure duration are required for risk assessment, these data indicate that fetal development is likely to be more affected by indium than female or male reproduction, with adverse effects occurring at low micromolar levels in vivo and at exposures that may or may not affect body weight.

Developmental toxicity of indium in cultured rat embryos
Mikio Nakajima 1 *, Masanori Sasaki 1, Youshiro Kobayashi 1, Yasuo Ohno 2, Makoto Usami 2
1Laboratory for Toxicological Research, Institute for Life Science Research, Asahi Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., Shizuoka, Japan
2Division of Pharmacology, National Institute of Health Sciences, Tokyo, Japan

email: Mikio Nakajima (a8586381@ut.asahi-kasei.co.jp)

*Correspondence to Mikio Nakajima, Laboratory for Toxicological Research, Institute for Life Science Research, Asahi Chemical Industry Co., Ltd., 632-1, Mifuku, Ohito-cho, Tagata-gun, Shizuoka 410-2321, Japan

Keywords
rat; indium trichloride; developmental toxicity; embryo culture; toxicokinetics


Abstract
Developmental toxicity of indium was examined using rat embryo culture with reference to toxicokinetics. Rat embryos at day 9.5 of pregnancy were cultured for 48 h under various exposure conditions to indium trichloride. Indium was embryotoxic to cultured rat embryos at concentrations ranging from 25 to 50 M for 24 h exposure according to the embryonic age, and the exposure concentration was more critical than the exposure time. The embryotoxic concentrations were comparable to the serum concentration at a developmentally toxic dose by intravenous administration in an in vivo experiment. It was considered from these results that the developmental toxicity of indium is a direct effect on the embryo or yolk sac and that weak developmental toxicity of indium by oral administration was due to low exposure concentrations in the embryo. Teratogenesis Carcinog. Mutagen. 19:205-209, 1999. © 1999 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Title: Comparative pulmonary absorption, distribution, and toxicity of copper gallium diselenide, copper indium diselenide, and cadmium telluride in Sprague-Dawley rats.
Author: Morgan, D L : Shines, C J : Jeter, S P : Blazka, M E : Elwell, M R : Wilson, R E : Ward, S M : Price, H C : Moskowitz, P D
Citation: Toxicol-Appl-Pharmacol. 1997 Dec; 147(2): 399-410
Abstract: Copper gallium diselenide (CGS), copper indium diselenide (CIS), and cadmium telluride (CdTe) are novel compounds used in the photovoltaic and semiconductor industries. This study was conducted to characterize the relative toxicities of these compounds and to evaluate the pulmonary absorption and distribution after intratracheal instillation. Female Sprague-Dawley rats were administered a single equimolar dose (70 mM) of CGS (21 mg/kg), CIS (24 mg/kg), CdTe (17 mg/kg), or saline by intratracheal instillation. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) protein, fibronectin, inflammatory cells, lung hydroxyproline, and tissue distribution were measured 1, 3, 7, 14, and 28 days after instillation. Relative lung weights were significantly increased in CIS- and CdTe-treated rats at most time points. Inflammatory lesions in the lungs consisting of an influx of macrophages, lymphocytes, and PMNs were most severe in CdTe-treated rats, intermediate in CIS-treated rats, and minimal in rats receiving CGS. Hyperplasia of alveolar type 2 cells was present in CIS- and CdTe-treated rats and was greatest in CdTe-treated rats. Pulmonary interstitial fibrosis was observed in CdTe-treated rats at all time points. All three compounds caused marked increases in total BALF cell numbers, with the greatest increase observed in CIS-treated rats. BALF protein, fibronectin, and lung hydroxyproline were significantly increased in all treated animals and were highest in CdTe-treated animals. There was no apparent pulmonary absorption or tissue distribution of CGS. Indium levels increased in extrapulmonary tissues of CIS-treated rats, although Cu and Se levels remained unchanged. CdTe was absorbed from the lung to a greater extent than CGS and CIS. Cd and Te levels decreased in the lung and increased in extrapulmonary tissues. Of these compounds CdTe presents the greatest potential health risk because it causes severe pulmonary inflammation and fibrosis and because it is readily absorbed from the lung may potentially cause extrapulmonary toxicity.

S. A. Mangoura1, A. Strack1, W. Legrum1 and K. J. Netter1

(1) Institut für Pharmakologie und Toxikologie der Philipps-Universität, Lahnberge, D-3550 Marburg, Federal Republic of Germany

Received: 30 September 1988 Accepted: 15 February 1989

Summary Indium pretreatment of rats and mice has been reported to decrease the concentration of cytochrome P-450, thereby reducing the activity of some cytochrome P-450 dependent enzymatic reactions. The present study reveals that pretreatment of C57B1/6JHan mice of both sexes with one s. c. dose of 120 mg of In2(SO4)3 · 5 H2O per kg of body weight decreases the concentration of cytochrome P-450 to about 65% of control levels.
Neither cytochrome b5 nor NADPH-cytochrome P-450 reductase is affected. Hepatic microsomal ethoxyresorufin O-deethylase activity declines to about 75% of control values. In contrast, with coumarin substrates, a sex dependence in the direction of change is observed: in female mice indium decreases the activity to about 75%, whereas in males it enhances the activity to 140%. Moreover, with 7-(methoxy-14C)coumarin as substrate, indium-pretreated male mice exhale about 180% and females about 65% of 14C02 compared to the corresponding controls. A close correlation between the in vivo and in vitro effects of indium on the metabolism of the coumarin derivatives is suggested. After isolation and purification of cytochrome P-450, SDS-PAGE indicates in indium-pretreated male mice an intensification of a 48.5 kDa protein band which is decreased in females. Immunological studies using antibodies raised against control female cytochrome P-450 show cross reactivity among all microsomes used in these experiments. High percentages of inhibition occur in microsomes with high molecular activity towards coumarin derivatives. The in vitro kinetics of antibody-inhibited O-deethylation of 7-ethoxycoumarin seems to obey a non- or partial-competitive type of inhibition. Indium pretreatment of mice produces sex-dependent effects on the metabolism of coumarin derivatives.

Toxicity of indium arsenide, gallium arsenide, and aluminium gallium arsenide

Akiyo Tanaka,
Department of Hygiene, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan
Received 1 July 2003; accepted 8 October 2003. Available online 18 March 2004.

Abstract

Gallium arsenide (GaAs), indium arsenide (InAs), and aluminium gallium arsenide (AlGaAs) are semiconductor applications. Although the increased use of these materials has raised concerns about occupational exposure to them, there is little information regarding the adverse health effects to workers arising from exposure to these particles. However, available data indicate these semiconductor materials can be toxic in animals. Although acute and chronic toxicity of the lung, reproductive organs, and kidney are associated with exposure to these semiconductor materials, in particular, chronic toxicity should pay much attention owing to low solubility of these materials. Between InAs, GaAs, and AlGaAs, InAs was the most toxic material to the lung followed by GaAs and AlGaAs when given intratracheally. This was probably due to difference in the toxicity of the counter-element of arsenic in semiconductor materials, such as indium, gallium, or aluminium, and not arsenic itself. It appeared that indium, gallium, or aluminium was toxic when released from the particles, though the physical character of the particles also contributes to toxic effect. Although there is no evidence of the carcinogenicity of InAs or AlGaAs, GaAs and InP, which are semiconductor materials, showed the clear evidence of carcinogenic potential. It is necessary to pay much greater attention to the human exposure of semiconductor materials.

Author Keywords: Semiconductor materials; Indium arsenide; Gallium arsenide; Aluminium gallium arsenide; Pulmonary toxicity; Hamster; Intratracheal instillations

Other keywords: MOST TOXIC!

Comparative Toxicity and Pharmacodynamics of Ionic Indium Chloride and Hydrated Indium Oxide
Frank P. Castronovo, Jr. and Henry N. Wagner, Jr.
The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland

Correspondence: For reprints contact: F. P. Castronovo, Dept. of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass. 02114.

ABSTRACT

Interest in the toxicity and pharmacodynamics of indium compounds resulted from their use as diagnostic radiopharmaceuticals. Indium-113 (T1/2 1.7hr) is administered intravenously as ionic indium chloride, colloidal hydrated indium oxide, and macroaggregated 113In-iron hydroxide. Indium-111 (T1/2 2.8 days) is also used in clinical nuclear medicine. Studies included determination of the (LD50/4 days) of ionic and colloidal indium and a pharmacodynamic evaluation of tracer dose levels of these compounds using 114mIn (T1/2 50 days). Initial biological distribution, subsequent translocation, whole-body retention, and excretion were investigated. Colloidal hydrated indium oxide was found to be 40 times more toxic than ionic indium chloride, the principal damage being to the organs of the reticuloendothelial system. Ionic indium chloride caused acute tubular necrosis of the kidneys. Hydrated indium oxide accumulated primarily in the liver, spleen, and bone marrow and was mainly excreted in the feces. Ionic indium became protein bound after administration with subsequent translocation to the kidney and liver and was excreted mainly in the urine.

Most urine and feces...there goes the cost, but finding a home in the liver, spleen, kidneys and bone marrow. Awesome.


Title Long Term Pulmonary Toxicity of Indium Arsenide and Indium Phosphide Instilled Intratracheally in Hamsters

Author Koji YAMAZAKI1, 2, Akiyo TANAKA1, Miyuki HIRATA1, Minoru OMURA1, Yuji MAKITA1, Naohide INOUE1, Kenji SUGIO2, Keizo SUGIMACHI2

Organization 1Department of Hygiene and
2Department of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University

Keywords semiconductor materials, indium arsenide, indium phosphide, intratracheal instillation, pulmonary toxicity, proliferative activity

Correspondence K. Yamazaki, Department of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan

Abstract Long Term Pulmonary Toxicity of Indium Arsenide and Indium Phosphide Instilled Intratracheally in Hamsters: Koji YAMAZAKI, et al. Department of Hygiene, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University-We examined the long-term toxicological effects of III-V semiconductor particles on laboratory animals. Eight-week-old male Syrian golden hamsters were given 4 mg/kg indium arsenide (InAs) or 3 mg/kg indium phosphide (InP) particles, both containing 2.4 mg/kg as indium, intratracheally twice a week for 8 weeks. Control hamsters were given only a vehicle, phosphate buffer solution. Over a 2-yr period, these animals were euthanized serially and the biological effects were determined. Weight gain was significantly suppressed in both InAs and InP groups, compared to the control group, with greater suppression in the InAs group. The serum indium concentration in the InAs group was about twice as high as that in the InP group, in each period. Histopathologically, severe pulmonary inflammation and localized lesions with bronchiolo-alveolar cell hyperplasia were present in both InAs and InP groups from just after the last administration. The localized lesions gradually transformed to proteinosis-like lesions with periodic acid Schiff reagent positive exudation after 16 wk. By means of immunostaining of proliferating cell nuclear antigen and argyrophilic proteins associated with nucleolar organizer regions staining, proliferative activities were evidenced in the localized lesions at each time and were noticeable in their early stage. K-ras, a known oncogene, was not mutated in association with these lesions. In conclusion, InAs and InP particles caused severe systemic toxicity and pulmonary localized hyperplastic lesions with proliferative activity were derived via the respiratory route. Neoplastic change was nil even in a 2-yr observation period.

One PDF showed testicular damage to hampster exposed to Indium Tin Oxide.

Acute Oral Toxicity and Dermal Irritation Test of Indium Chloride
Éva Szakmáry1, Mária Mándy1, Márta Kovács2, Erzsébet Tátrai1, and György Ungváry2
1 National Institute of Occupational Health, József Fodor National Center for Public Health, Budapest, Hungary
2 József Fodor National Center for Public Health, Budapest, Hungary


Corresponding author: Prof. György Ungváry MD., PhD., DSc.
Fodor József National Center for Public Health
P.O. Box 22.
H-1450, Budapest, Hungary
Telephone: (+36) 1-215-5491
Fax number: (+36)1-215-6891
E-mail: ungvary@fjokk.hu


CEJOEM 2001, Vol.7. No.1.:60-65

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key words:
Indium chloride, acute oral toxicity, acute dermal irritation


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract:
Acute oral and dermal toxicity effects of indium chloride were studied on SPRD rats and New Zealand rabbits. The tests were performed according to OECD Guidelines for Test8ing of Chemicals. In acute oral toxicity study of indium chloride, the LD50 values amounted to 1983 mg/kg both in male and female rats. The confidence interval values were LD84–2283 mg/kg and LD16–1741 mg/kg, respectively. The dose level of 500 mg of indium chloride caused severe irreversible dermal damages, i.e., it proved to be irritative and corrosive. On the basis of our earlier and present studies, the toxicity and hazardousness of indium chloride can be classified as follows: Harmful. Danger symbol: Xn harmful, C corrosive. R numbers/phrases: 22-34-61, S numbers/phrases: 24/25-26-27/28-46.

Toxicity of a Low Level of Indium Phosphide (InP) in Rats after Intratracheal Instillation
Kenichi ODA1)
1) Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, School of Medicine, Keio University

[Received: 1996/09/30]
[Released: 2007/03/29]
Abstract:
To clarify the instillation toxicity of low level of indium phosphide (InP), 0, 1.2, 6.0 and 62.0μg/kg body weight of InP particles were instilled intratracheally in male Fischer 344 rats, and the effects of InP were examined on the following day (day 1) and on the 8th day (day 8) after instillation. Indium was measured but not detected in the serum, liver, kidney, spleen, thymus and brain. Dose-related mild elevation of superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) activity in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) were found on day 1 without increases of inflammatory cells and total protein (TP) in BALF, which suggested the response of neutrophils and alveolar macrophages to instilled InP, and/or the manifestation of a very early stage of inflammation. Only in the 62.0μg/kg-instilled group on day 8, were neutrophils, lymphocytes, TP, LDH, total phospholipid and total cholesterol in BALF increased, and desquamation of alveolar epithelial cells and amorphous exudate in alveolar lumen observed by histopathological examination. These results suggested that InP caused pulmonary inflammation and epithelial cell damage up to 8 days following instillation dose of 62.0μg/kg, but that its effect was considered irrelevant at instillation doses of 6.0 μg/kg or below in rat.
Keywords:

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#63 neogenic

  • Guest
  • 481 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 02 September 2007 - 06:26 PM

I went to google and typed "indium toxicity" and went straight on down the line. The above is an unaltered search. You tell me if you any reservations. As far as human studies, well....

Pulmonary fibrosis in an individual occupationally exposed to inhaled indium-tin oxide
S. Homma1, A. Miyamoto1, S. Sakamoto1, K. Kishi1, N. Motoi2 and K. Yoshimura1
Depts of Respiratory 1 Medicine, Respiratory Centre, and 2 Pathology, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo, Japan

CORRESPONDENCE: S. Homma, Dept of Respiratory Medicine, Toranomon Hospital, Toranomon 2-2-2, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 105-8470, Japan. Fax: 81 335827068. E-mail: sa-homma@toranomon.gr.jp

Keywords: Cholesterol granuloma, human, indium-tin oxide, lung injury, pulmonary fibrosis

Received: February 2, 2004
Accepted June 17, 2004

ABSTRACT

Despite the increasing industrial use of indium-tin oxide (ITO) to manufacture flat-panel displays, such as liquid-crystal displays or plasma display panels for televisions, little is known about the potential health hazard induced by occupational exposure to indium compounds.

The current study describes a case of fibrotic lung disease that developed after a 4-yr exposure to ITO. The pathology of the lung demonstrated pulmonary fibrosis with the presence of cholesterol granulomas.

In conclusion, more attention needs to be paid to the possible toxic effects of indium compounds, and maximum healthcare measures should be taken to protect industry workers from these toxicities.

Full study: http://www.erj.ersjo...t/full/25/1/200

How about human cells with research in a possible label:

1: J Lab Clin Med. 1985 May;105(5):608-12.Links
Indium 111 toxicity in the human lymphocyte.Silberstein EB, Watson S, Mayfield G, Kereiakes JG, Bullock W.
Indium-labeled lymphocytes were examined for response to a variety of mitogens, ability to synthesize immunoglobulins, mitotic index, and presence of chromosome aberrations at a range of exposures from 0.2 to 500 muCi/10(8) cells. Results of all four tests were found to be abnormal when the lymphocytes were labeled with 111In activities well within those employed for diagnostic testing.

Indium may lead to anemia and play havoc systemically:

Study of the Binding of Iron and Indium to Human Serum Apo-Transferrin
Ali Asghar Moshtaghie*1 and Mohammad Ali Ghaffari2

1Dept. of Clinical Biochemistry, School of Pharmacy, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan; 2Dept. of Clinical Biochemistry, School of Medical, Ahwaz University of Medical Sciences, Ahwaz, Iran

ABSTRACT

Indium is a heavy metal belonging to group IIIa. It is believed that indium may interfere with iron metabolism from the sites of absorption, transportation, utilization and storage in the cells. The present investigation was established to study and compare the binding of iron and indium to human apo-transferrin (apo-tf). Pure human apo-tf was used and the binding activity of iron and indium, as a complex with citric acid (1:20), to apo-tf was studied. The binding of iron and indium to apo-tf in Tris-HCl buffer, pH 7.4 showed a maximum absorbance at 465 and 255 nm, respectively. The binding of both metals to apo-tf appears to be pH dependent. Using equilibrium dialysis technique, the binding of iron to apo-tf and the effect of indium on the binding process were also studied. Addition of indium to the outside of dialysis sac reduced iron uptake by 37%. The results indicate that indium competes with iron in binding to apo-tf. Although, the binding sites for these two ions seem to be similar, the binding of iron to apo-tf is more tightly than indium. Iran. Biomed. J. 7 (2): 73-77, 2003

The journal of occupational health in the above post stated it WILL increase risk of cancer with exposure.

I did both of these posts in 15 minutes time. Total. This is what came up. Nothing filtered. You decide if you have any doubts. I do.

#64 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 03 September 2007 - 03:00 AM

Indium-sulfate is difficult to find any information on. I'm not surprised you couldn't find anything out about it.

I'll take what you were able to find out about Indium under advisement. The Indiumease product that I use only has 1mg of Indium sulfate per drop. A daily dose is only 3 or 4 drops and I doubt I'll be ramping up to 250 mg/kg anytime soon.

You need to be careful what you take and how much. Even aspirin can harm you.

#65 neogenic

  • Guest
  • 481 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 03 September 2007 - 03:21 AM

Why would the sulfate have a radical difference on what is posted above? Magnesium - carbonate, gluconate, citrate, malate, orotate, whatever...they have different bioavailability/absorption/utilization differences, but its all magnesium. I find that argument weak at best. The salt may have some minor benefit of being an TCA intermediate or something, but at the amount used its completely inconsequential.

So sulfate is the key...or sulfate makes it safe?

Would arsenic sulfate be a good supplement?

Absolutely bizarre retort.

#66 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 03 September 2007 - 03:59 AM

neogenic, my advice for you is don't take Indium. You probably don't need it anyway.

It seems there are no reports of anyone being harmed. Did you find any? I think considering how many people work with Indium everyday without problems it's probably safe or safer than many other supplements. If I didn't think it was helping me in some way I'd stop spending money on it.

I appreciate your concern though.

#67 krillin

  • Guest
  • 1,516 posts
  • 60
  • Location:USA

Posted 03 September 2007 - 05:25 PM

neogenic, my advice for you is don't take Indium. You probably don't need it anyway.

It seems there are no reports of anyone being harmed. Did you find any? I think considering how many people work with Indium everyday without problems it's probably safe or safer than many other supplements. If I didn't think it was helping me in some way I'd stop spending money on it.

I appreciate your concern though.


People who work with indium don't eat it.

The indium fad might not have been going on long enough for something like kidney damage to be noticed. And who exactly is going to tell their doctor that they've been eating indium? I'd only report an adverse effect if it meant I could sue someone with deep pockets.

Have you given limonene a try? That would be a less risky heartburn therapy.

#68 neogenic

  • Guest
  • 481 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 03 September 2007 - 06:20 PM

neogenic, my advice for you is don't take Indium. You probably don't need it anyway.

It seems there are no reports of anyone being harmed. Did you find any? I think considering how many people work with Indium everyday without problems it's probably safe or safer than many other supplements. If I didn't think it was helping me in some way I'd stop spending money on it.

I appreciate your concern though.


I did find human studies of harm, yes. It's in the second post. No it is not Indium Sulfate, but its indium and causing harm. It did damage to lymphocytes, increased cancer rates, higher abnormalities with fetuses, blocked iron absorption (leading to anemia), did testicular damage (in human and animal) and caused pulmonary fibrosis (a horrible disease) in a human with exposure.

Seriously, I didn't even plug in "sulfate" as that is a non-factor to me. I was looking at the mineral itself and toxicity. I posted everything that came up. No editing. Nearly every single thing is negative, some considerably so. Of course, there's not a great deal of "1. oral 2. Human 3. Indium 4. Sulfate 5. At your specific dose" - studies, but really why would there be...umm, unless this wonder product had some studies done on it...by the people that make it. Patent it, if so...at least a use patent and grab data. Even in-house blood work on a 5 person sample set. Its viable for PAtrick Arnold with 6-oxo, Bill Llewelyn with X-factor, Benagene, etc. etc.

If this did what it said, really, there would be research on it. Biased research at least funded by those that profit from it, but research. Alas there is not. There's marketing claims and conjecture. As I stated, Lipokinetix, a popular supplement in the 90s that was hyped nearly killed me by shutting down my liver. I became a dietitian and researched supplements heavily after that incident. I am motivated to scrutinize broad claims, wild claims, etc. that have no research, conflicting research, etc.

I encourage you to reread through the data posted above and state you thoughts thereafter.

#69 simple

  • Guest
  • 258 posts
  • -0
  • Location:San Diego, CA

Posted 04 September 2007 - 11:57 AM

It seems that we are stock on the same route again!!

KRILLIN was carefull or careless enough to providea link to FDA'S food siupplements (jajajaja) let me clarify the following,

Indium is FDA approved as a GRAS element, that means generally recognized as safe. Indium 111 is currently used in the medical field, there are no reports of human toxicity at the "suggested levels", by oral ingestion.

Lipokinetix caused liver damage within a few months of usage, mainly in the bracket of 20 to 40 years old, FDA urged people to discontinue its use. I am very sorry that you had to go through all that pain just to shed a few pounds.

There are no reports of intoxication by Indium Sulfate , period!!!

I did the leg work on researching current and some not so current patents on Indium , that involved its ingestion, still the results are not always as clear as one would like, mainly because when an item has been labeled FDA approved, it does not necesarily means that is safe for human consumption, isn't it so??

More than once items that are poisonous even in minute quantities end up in your organism FDA approved!!!!

Lets talk for example about the amalgam in you teeth containing mercury, or the surprisingly higher numbers of kids that become (AND I DO SAY BECOME, NOT BORN) autistic in USA and England , compared to other countries, or why the congress suggested the pharmaceutical industry to stop using certain mercury based preservatives on childrens vaccines

( the congress "suggested" stop using mercury based chemicals, but they never requested pulling off the market FDA approved medicines, vaccines, amalgams, contact lens fluid etc...it was not economically viable!!)

As you mentioned

" I became a dietitian and researched supplements heavily after that incident. I am motivated to scrutinize broad claims, wild claims, etc. that have no research, conflicting research, etc.

I encourage you to reread through the data posted above and state you thoughts thereafter. "

I am seriously asking you, Do you care to scrutinize my above mentioned claims?

#70 simple

  • Guest
  • 258 posts
  • -0
  • Location:San Diego, CA

Posted 04 September 2007 - 12:05 PM

KRILLIN , Indium is not a fad, it has been in use since thearly 1900 as an homeopatic .

Please do your homework !!!

#71 krillin

  • Guest
  • 1,516 posts
  • 60
  • Location:USA

Posted 04 September 2007 - 07:28 PM

Indium is FDA approved as a GRAS element


Repeating a lie does not make it true.

Indium 111 is currently used in the medical field


For one-off imaging purposes or to kill cancer cells with radiation. Radiation therapy is not recommended for people who are not dying of cancer.

#72 neogenic

  • Guest
  • 481 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 05 September 2007 - 10:08 PM

Simple, you arguments are so weak. So pathetically stated and quite frankly unintelligent its not worth continuing. You're grossly biased, not at all open-minded and you pick a few words out of each well-thought out post negating you on a grand scale and whine. Indium sulfate...as discussed is pointless to discuss. Indium is worth discussing of which, I went right on down the line of google and found pages and pages of data.

Of which, you didn't quote this, "I did find human studies of harm, yes. It's in the second post. No it is not Indium Sulfate, but its indium and causing harm. It did damage to lymphocytes, increased cancer rates, higher abnormalities with fetuses, blocked iron absorption (leading to anemia), did testicular damage (in human and animal) and caused pulmonary fibrosis (a horrible disease) in a human with exposure."

There are no reports of "intoxication" with indium sulfate (can I quote you stating concerns of people becomig drunk of this).

Quite frankly, I don't know if there are benefits. I honestly don't care if there are. I look at risk and benefit ratios. There is too much unknown, which in and of itself is scary enough. Little data. What I did find after getting spurred on to, in less than 15 minutes without constraint or deletion was quite frankly disturbing. All I ask is...Is it worth a gamble? And for what? We see too much concern raised with supplements that have many studies, made from reputable companies, with high-quality control, tested by third party CoA's, with good shipping and bottling procedures to seriously waste time on something like this.

As I stated (and again not addressed) if it did all of these wonderful things there'd be a drive to do studies, to get a use patent, etc. There's no data, no confirmed claims, not even in animals...not even in-house basic labs. Nothing. A use patent is $750 to claim...that's it. The claims would hold up and those that used indium sulfate would owe this person (when marketed for the claims that are so desired) monies. The claims don't even require full-scale studies to be patented, just in house data. Full studies would push other manufacturer's to use your product ("your" being anyone) and pay for such claims and pay the owner the royalties.

None of that is there. Quite frankly to a discerning scientist, supplement industry insider, or shrewd-minded individual this is fully disreputable.

That's it. Simple...simple.

#73 simple

  • Guest
  • 258 posts
  • -0
  • Location:San Diego, CA

Posted 06 September 2007 - 10:31 AM

KRILL IN I really dont get you , Indium is a GRAS by FDA standards, pls dont ..... u oh ....

Brainbox: removed something for moderational purposes

#74 simple

  • Guest
  • 258 posts
  • -0
  • Location:San Diego, CA

Posted 06 September 2007 - 11:13 AM

NEOGENIC ,as mentioned,

I am very sorry that your weigth problems have lead you on this witch hunt.

I offer you the opportunity to discuss on this forum an item which was approved by the FDA, that have been used for many years , and that only lately has been found that is extremely dangerous for everybodys health. You have disregarded such, after you have mentioned that you ARE interested in correcting wrong doings
(jajaja)

For respect to my time and everybody's else patience, and so as not to go in circles.

I use Indium Sulfate and I have been using it for the las 5 years, more or less

I will continue using Indium Sulfate, since the benefits I have obtained from its use outweigths the "potential" risks.

I do not sell, manufacture, advertise or in any way profit from its use

I personally dont care if you or anybody else, uses it or not.

If anybody would like to share experiences about its use and its effects , they are more than welcome to get in touch with me, through this forum or to my email.

I have posted my email and full name to anybody, that cares to get in touch with me.

And by the way it is an excellent product for anybody that is chemically dependant and wants to get off the wagon (matter of speach)

#75 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 06 September 2007 - 03:17 PM

I personally dont care if you or anybody else, uses it or not.

That's not the impression you seem to make.... ;))

#76 starman

  • Guest
  • 1 posts
  • 0

Posted 09 September 2007 - 10:55 AM

Krillin, if you looked more carefully at the Indiumease website you will see it mentioned, as in the link below (the most comprehensive info I've been able to find yet is therein), that IndiumSulfate has been deemed GRAS. I respect your skepticism, but you seem to have your own biases as well. Do you seriously think that all compounds are the same, that Indium is just Indium? I really have to question your knowledge of chemistry if you think that way. If you want to talk about being open minded you have to be that way too.

http://www.patentsto...escription.html

Which answers in part your question about patents. But actually, think about it....if a simple, cheap, easy-to-obtain compound of Indium is readily available, why the need to patent it, when you can just sell it based on anecdotal evidence? I would LOVE to see some entrepreneur sponsor a real scientific study, but as you know these things cost money, and repeated trials, and there will still be skepticism. For the big chemical companies, there's no incentive to go into this when they can get a much bigger markup on expensive drugs...in fact, widespread knowledge of the benefits of Indium (IF it is as great as some are claiming -- I'm not saying it is) would cut into profit margins for anti-cancer and other drugs.

Please open your mind a little, and see the other side of this. Thanks for being skeptical though.

#77 simple

  • Guest
  • 258 posts
  • -0
  • Location:San Diego, CA

Posted 09 September 2007 - 02:11 PM

BRAINBOX,

[/quote]If anyone is interested in talking about their experience with this salts or would like
to inquire on first hand experience with people that currently uses Indium, you are more than welcome.

NO more, no less

I began talking about Indium because I found it to be a good mineral supplement, that could

perhaps aid on some of the maladies that affects our lifes, not to be personally attacked.

and , as you may or may not understand, I have the rigth to respond to such.

I am not the new "guru" of Indium, nor I am here to convert any one.

If you use Indium or not, is irrelevant to the fact of trying to turn this in to their own personal vendetta, isn it?

My thougths of Imminst was to be a forum where avant gard ideas, methods, treatments could be disscused, without been attacked or ridicule.
Am I wrong?

#78 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 09 September 2007 - 02:49 PM

My thougths of Imminst was to be a forum where avant gard ideas, methods, treatments could be disscused, without been attacked or ridicule.
Am I wrong?

You are right.

In case there are ad hominem remarks towards you or use of inappropriate wording, please point them out to me. In case I overlooked them, my sincere apologies!

#79 krillin

  • Guest
  • 1,516 posts
  • 60
  • Location:USA

Posted 09 September 2007 - 11:39 PM

Krillin, if you looked more carefully at the Indiumease website you will see it mentioned, as in the link below (the most comprehensive info I've been able to find yet is therein), that IndiumSulfate has been deemed GRAS.


Yes, they mention that indium sulfate is GRAS, but they are not proof that it is GRAS. How do you know that the Indiumease site isn't a complete pack of lies? As for the patent, patents are legal documents, not scientific documents. They just mean that the author has convinced an examiner that he has something novel. The examiner probably never bothered to fact-check the GRAS statement. Can any of you indium guys produce an actual FDA document to back up your claims? How can something be GRAS and yet be considered a health hazard by an MSDS? Remember, it's not just a 1 health hazard, it's a 2. There had to be a reason to give it such a high rating.

I respect your skepticism, but you seem to have your own biases as well. Do you seriously think that all compounds are the same, that Indium is just Indium? I really have to question your knowledge of chemistry if you think that way.


The soluble salts (chloride, sulfate, etc.) are all the same. The semiconductors and oxide probably have different effects. I object to your baseless claim that I think they are all the same. The MSDS I referred to was for indium sulfate.

Which answers in part your question about patents.


When did I ask a question about patents? Yours is not an auspicious first post. I highly recommend that you delete it and start over. You're not demonstrating the critical thinking skills and attention to detail that are required to be taken seriously here.

#80 neogenic

  • Guest
  • 481 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Charlotte, NC

Posted 10 September 2007 - 02:33 AM

Krillin, if you looked more carefully at the Indiumease website you will see it mentioned, as in the link below (the most comprehensive info I've been able to find yet is therein), that IndiumSulfate has been deemed GRAS. I respect your skepticism, but you seem to have your own biases as well. Do you seriously think that all compounds are the same, that Indium is just Indium? I really have to question your knowledge of chemistry if you think that way. If you want to talk about being open minded you have to be that way too.

http://www.patentsto...escription.html

Which answers in part your question about patents. But actually, think about it....if a simple, cheap, easy-to-obtain compound of Indium is readily available, why the need to patent it, when you can just sell it based on anecdotal evidence? I would LOVE to see some entrepreneur sponsor a real scientific study, but as you know these things cost money, and repeated trials, and there will still be skepticism. For the big chemical companies, there's no incentive to go into this when they can get a much bigger markup on expensive drugs...in fact, widespread knowledge of the benefits of Indium (IF it is as great as some are claiming -- I'm not saying it is) would cut into profit margins for anti-cancer and other drugs.

Please open your mind a little, and see the other side of this. Thanks for being skeptical though.

Strong "first" post.

Sorry, as mentioned this thread will decline quickly, so I am done. I am used to this stuff happening on other boards and IP checks having to be done routinely with posters popping into threads with 1 or 2 posts such as this one. And so it goes. This thread is more than dead for me. I've made my points. I do love "indiumease"...like its been translated into their marketing babble. Muscletech really is 886% percent for creatine! Ahhh. Whatever. At this point if people use it, so be it. There's every reason to be skeptical. Skepticism and the drive for the truth should be at the core of science and this board. What is infiltrating this thread is not as...simple...as that.

Starman. Interesting movie.

Done.

#81 simple

  • Guest
  • 258 posts
  • -0
  • Location:San Diego, CA

Posted 12 September 2007 - 04:33 AM

ME TOO!

#82 rgvandewalker

  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • 0

Posted 02 June 2009 - 08:51 PM

I was interested enough to do some web research.
Indium Sulfate is not on the FDA's list of food additives.
I also could not find the FDA's GRAS notice for it; This leads me, personally, to doubt that it's GRAS, despite what's claimed in the patent application.
I did find an MSDS, and it's pretty scary, but admittedly it's based on inference from similar compounds, not clinical study.
MSDS writers usually do at least an automated literature search for clinical studies, so that implies, to me, that they didn't
find any in the standard literature. (I saw the earlier references, thanks. I haven't done an off-line literature search, I admit.)

MSDS for Indium Sulfate

Edited by rgvandewalker, 02 June 2009 - 08:52 PM.


#83 indium_user

  • Guest
  • 2 posts
  • 0

Posted 05 October 2009 - 10:10 PM

I have joined this post with great interest. I have been taken indium sulfate on and off for past few months. I weight 180lbs but only take one drop. I am 61 years old and almost everybody tells me I look much younger. I also take Germanium with wonderful results. My health has been so good, that I ahve not been seriously ill for over 10 years. No colds or flu. Just recently returned from Mexico in good health, except for slight stomach upset. Mineral supplements work!!!!!!

#84 seataka

  • Guest
  • 1 posts
  • 0

Posted 03 December 2009 - 04:49 AM

RE: The Cited by somebody who knows a little, previous "studies" of toxicity using Indium trichloride
1) Trichlorides IN GENERAL are corrosive, forming hydrochloric acid, BLEACH if you will, in contact with water, think chlorine!!

What is toxic here is the chlorine NOT the Indium..

2) The dose in the study cited is 250 mg per Kg -

OK so I weigh about 63 Kg .. Id have to eat 16 GRAMS of that stuff to replicate the study, thats 16 THOUSAND MILLIGRAMS...


(sigh)

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#85 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 03 December 2009 - 05:14 AM

RE: The Cited by somebody who knows a little, previous "studies" of toxicity using Indium trichloride
1) Trichlorides IN GENERAL are corrosive, forming hydrochloric acid, BLEACH if you will, in contact with water, think chlorine!!

What is toxic here is the chlorine NOT the Indium..

Chloride ion is pretty benign. Your body is full of it. If chloride was toxic, then table salt would be toxic, because it's half chloride. Trichlorides are only tri- because they are bound to an ion with a +3 charge. You are probably thinking of a different class of trichlorides; the nonmetal trichlorides. Some of them can be nasty.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users