- --- In Autism-Mercury@y..., mball13@o... wrote:
> Prior to chelation, did any of you have test results that showed noMost of the people on this list, and this is also how most mercury
> mercury or mercury within "acceptable" levels?
poisoned adults test out.
> I am getting crazy toNo. This is a voodoo chant some witch doctors incant who got a
> try chelation but am hesitant as it will pull alot more out of him
> than heavy metals, correct?...all minerals and vitamins too?
courtesy C- in chemistry so they could to on to medical school. DMSA
has no significant effect on the body balance of essential elements or
> We are trying to get my son (5.5yrs) as strong and healthy (majorThis is a classic treatment mistake many inexperienced physicians also
> battle with yeast overgrowth) as possible before starting chelation.
make. While chelation provides some stress, if done properly the
stress is minimal. Chelation is what clears up his body's ability to
take care of itself and lets his natural defense mechanisms make him
healthy, just like they do for the kids next door (or his siblings, if
any) who are exposed to all the same noxiouis influences day in and
> Past tests from Great Smokies (urine) when he was 4.5yrs showedanalysis
> elevated lead, thallium, tin, magnesium and manganese....mercury was
> within the "acceptable" range. When he was 3yrs we did hair
> with DDI with a less than number for mercury registering thatprobably
> means not detected along with elevated aluminum, arsenic, bismuth,is
> uranium, silver and titanium.
> Are these other elements indicators that the mercury at this point
> bound within tissue?No. Read the 'counting rules' file in the files section to see how to
interpret the tests.
>My 3 year old tested slightly elevated levels scale 0-3--he tested 4 for
>mercury; after chelation he tested 11.
Are these levels for mercury? If so, I'm not sure what you are
concluding from this. Mercury levels are not a good was to tell
if someone is mercury poisoned, as a low reading does NOT indicate
a low level in the body. However, since your son tested 4, this
does indicate mercury toxicity. I would tend to conclude from your
tests that chelation is succeeding in getting the
mercury out of hiding.
For more info see:
Maybe you were answering someone else's question, and I just
"missed" the connection. Please feel free to ignore this etire
comment if it doesn't apply.
- | > try chelation but am hesitant as it will pull alot more out of him
| > than heavy metals, correct?...all minerals and vitamins too?
| No. This is a voodoo chant some witch doctors incant who got a
| courtesy C- in chemistry so they could to on to medical school. DMSA
| has no significant effect on the body balance of essential elements or
| of vitamins.
I wonder why my daughter has on three occasions now rejected her liquid zinc and copper during "on" days of chelation?
Up until now, she's needed both zinc and copper, based on taste tests, and pre-chelation blood tests indicated a
reasonable balance between these minerals (after years of work!). I wonder why she suddenly doesn't tolerate the taste
(i.e. need) zinc and copper. I'm assuming that this zinc/copper change is due to the chelation. On her pre/post
urinalysis from the first round, her zinc values were the same pre/post but copper excretion was 10x post. I was able
to reintroduce the zinc (didn't try copper, as excretion was high) between cycles.
Can you explain this? It seems to contradict your statement that DMSA has no effect on minerals.
Does anyone else using the liquid minerals see this 'on' change in taste tolerance?
What's also interesting, for those who haven't used the liquid minerals is that years ago she had strong negative
reactions to the liquid manganese and chromium (bad taste = mineral not needed, don't supplemented them). On her
second and third urinalysis, she had lots of these two minerals showing up, indicating she's got way too much of them in
her body. So it looks like the taste test is valid, if you can get your child to cooperate.
Thanks, Mary K.
- | > We are trying to get my son (5.5yrs) as strong and healthy (major
| > battle with yeast overgrowth) as possible before starting chelation.
| This is a classic treatment mistake many inexperienced physicians also
| make. While chelation provides some stress, if done properly the
| stress is minimal. Chelation is what clears up his body's ability to
| take care of itself and lets his natural defense mechanisms make him
| healthy, just like they do for the kids next door (or his siblings, if
| any) who are exposed to all the same noxiouis influences day in and
| day out.
Perhaps we should reframe this issue - whether the gut needs to be in good shape for chelation - in grays instead of
black and white.
Should the child be chronically constipated before beginning chelation? I'd say no. If their bowels are distended and
guts leaky, and the stool hangs out in the gut for any length of time, you run the risk of metals reabsorption. Several
people have noticed their kids become quite agitated or ill just before having a BM. Some adults notice this too. This
may because the toxins in the stool are leaking back into the body. It makes sense for the kids to have at least one BM
a day before starting chelation. Should you hold up starting chelation forever to achieve this? It's yet another risk
factor to take into consideration. I was told you'd see more frequent BMs on the chelators, and have noticed a small
effect along these lines, so you could always hope for that effect.
Should the child have untreated yeast overgrowth for the many months chelation will take? I'd say no. Does this mean
you have to wait until the yeast overgrowth is 'cured' before chelation? I'd say no, and I'd agree that it may in fact
be impossible. Does that mean you shouldn't do anything to treat yeast before and during chelation? Heavens, no.
Living with a yeast-overgrowth child is tragic. I'd say their mental development is greatly impaired while yeast is
overgrown, and kids should be learning every day. At least try some yeast treatments before beginning chelation, if for
no other reason than to reduce the leaky gut effect and improve nutrient absorption. Then, having observed the
improvements that yeast treatment makes, and recalling the way things were before yeast treatment, you'll have some idea
of what's going on if the yeast problem worsens during chelation. And you'll be more likely to be able to tell if yeast
treatment is still required when chelation is 'done' and the body is theoretically using it's natural defense
mechanisms, and you do a trial removal. And in the meantime, the kid will function better.
Should the gut be minimally able to absorb the many supplements we chock into these kids? For cost reasons alone, I'd
say no. Also for other obvious reasons.
I wonder what happens in the leaky gut when oral chelators are introduced. Wouldn't a leaky gut yield a different
rate of absorption, or less effectively absorb the chelators? Might the different guts (extremely leaky vrs. somewhat
leaky vrs. OK) explain some of the differences we see in the amount and severity of side effects?
I wouldn't plunge into chelation, which will add 'minimal stress' to an already extremely stressed body, without doing
something to improve digestion. But I certainly wouldn't wait for these problems to be fully corrected before starting,