If it is, then please refer readers to the Mineral Support Forum, but I have to make an observation.
Calcium storage is a big problem in the West. Forms of calcium in supplements vary, but I believe most would agree that some forms are less soluble than others. The problem that I have with the recent discussions of this mineral, is that much of what has been referenced, like most western research, is looking at calcium consumption in isolation. Calcium consumed in large quantities minus adequate complementary nutrients is not much different than Iodine
consumed in large quantities without adequate complementary nutrients. It shouldn't be done. And when those nutrients are added, the functioning of iodine/calcium is vastly different in the body.
I agree that food sources are much more acceptable to the body, and effective at nourishing. However, there are many who either have a much greater need for nutrients than they can attain in food alone, or who may have intestinal damage and malabsorption issues that require a not-so-raw diet(review writings by Andreas). Either way, to condemn calcium, IMO, is no different than condemning Iodine
because both have been studied historically in isolation of the nutrients that they need to be properly metabolized in the body. In fact, the negative effects of calcium that have been noted so much in research, could very well stem from the Iodine
deficiency epidemic. Calcium needs iodine, and most people don't have enough.
I often look at the foods the Weston Price way. If a population subsists on say, fish, I consider what all may be true of that diet. For instance, they are likely a coastal community. So...they consume fish which is high in iodine, calcium, vitamins A & D (in the livers, other cultures are not strictly fillet eaters), and omega 3 oils. This list is not exhaustive, but is an example of some of the nutrients that would be a part of this meal. Many people do not have adequate levels of these nutrients, and do not understand why proper absorption of any one nutrient they add isn't helpful. Well, it may be because other vital nutrients are missing.
Calcium needs vitamin D, magnesium, boron and even vitamin A (I also believe iodine) to function properly in the body. Studies done just looking at the effect of calcium alone, tell nothing.
If a person has a healthy digestive tract, and can handle a majority raw diet, understanding the balance of foods may be all they will need. But for those who either can not, or will not conform to such a diet, adequate alternatives are important, and balance is still the key. Most of the people on this forum are not on all raw diets, I don't believe. So to dismiss what may be an important nutrient for them is unfair and unsafe especially in the light of massive detoxing.
And as to calcium that has bound to fluoride finding a home in other parts of the body, the chances are just as high that free-flowing fluoride will do the same. Fortunately, if sufficient complementary nutrients for both calcium and iodine are being used, the likelihood of either happening is greatly reduced. Until studies are performed with complete nutrient profiles, a lot of questions will remain. Hopefully, in the meantime, we can find the best alternatives to nutrition available.
Also, if anyone can find the explanation by the main research doctors(Flechas, Abraham, etc.) as to calcium being less necessary during iodine therapy, and post it here that would be helpful. I have wondered about the lack of calcium usage, and wondered what was the root of that. I have tended to be low in calcium, and high in magnesium, likely due to the variations in damaged areas of my intestinal tract that affected absorption, but realize that others tend to be just the opposite, and run high in calcium. So, insight into their reasoning would be helpful for all, I would think.