Vaccination & epidemic

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

But at some point, there is inarguably a level at which the patient does pee out more mercury than is acceptable, and should continue to be treated. What do you believe that level to be?

I'm saying the levels after chelation treatment don't tell you very much of interest.

The Wikipedia article on diagnosis of mercury poisoning says it too: "It is difficult or impossible to interpret urine samples of patients undergoing chelation therapy, as the therapy itself increases mercury levels in the samples.[27]"

It's kind of funny because, from one standpoint, the answer to this question is "No amount of mercury in the urine is unacceptable", because that's where the body gets rid of it. I mean, if I drank an entire bottle of it, I would hope my pee an hour later would be 100%, shimmering silver.

(next is the boring part)

Certainly 7.8 ug/g is too low, and your article seems to indicate that maybe even 2-3 times that, or 15.6-23.4, would be acceptable, since they seem to think a 6-hour urine test will be more concentrated than a 24-hour. (My understanding is this is not the case, that the 6-hour vs. 24-hour tests are accounted for to put the results on comparable footing. I have a link later in the post stating that this is the case for lead, but I don't know about mercury.) But what about a mercury level in the 30s? That's definitively higher than your article indicates is even possibly normal for a patient who has taken chelation drugs.

7.8 ug/g was an average for this one particular group of factory workers, not for everybody. So, if the average was 7.8 ug/g but the measured numbers extend to 10.0 ug/g, there's your 30. If it extends to 13, there's your 40. Easily within the range of normal.

Not hard to believe the numbers could vary and still be normal. Your boy measured changes in metals not affected by DMSA. Here we have evidence of wide ranges of normal.

The statistic for those graphs uses creatinine levels as a denominator; but what's strange about that is, creatinine levels vary greatly from person to person. Creatinine levels in your boy will be greatly less than the levels in those factory workers.

If creatinine is not a reliable denominator - the numbers could be off the charts and still not tell us anything interesting at all.

There is so much missing here.

The levels measured in that study were for workers regularly exposed. What if the exposure is sudden? (Did somebody inhale near a broken fluorescent light bulb? Did somebody eat an ashtray? Did somebody have tuna for dinner?)

The Wikipedia entry on mercury poisoning notes that even pre-chelation urine levels are only interesting if the exposure is chronic.

Does the body process sudden exposure differently than long-term consistent exposure? Is the elimination of mercury into the urine consistent over time, or is it "here and there"? Do certain meals encourage it? Does exercise?

Do certain people react differently to chelation? Are some more resistant than others? Do obese people give off more mercury during chelation because it's stored in fat and not in the bloodstream? Or do they give off less? Are these factors relevant in children?

So many missing pieces for us, because we have not studied medicine in detail.