Vaccination & epidemic

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The "range" given is for people not taking chelation drugs.

The range Doctor's Data references is for people not taking chelation drugs. Your article referenced a "well-designed" study that gave a mercury range for people who had taken chelation drugs: 7.8 ug/g, or 2.8 ug/g higher than the acceptable range according to Doctor's Data. And that's fine, I find it very plausible that the drug merely moves out the mercury faster and harder, when the normally-processing body would have gotten to it shortly after, and for people within that 7.8 range, there is no need to treat, even though the Doctor's Data lab results would call that range "elevated."

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? 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. There are quacks out there who believe that everyone is suffering from some sort of overall toxic stress from our big bad industrial society, and I don't agree with them. But I do believe that there are certain individuals who do have severely abnormal levels, and those individuals should be treated, especially if they show severely abnormal neurological symptoms that one might expect to see with heavy metal poisoning.

Originally Posted by skysidhe

When you say elevated levels of lead you do not mean lead poisoning correct?

By technical definition, yes, too much lead in the blood is lead poisoning. I do not know in my son's case whether it came from a specific large source (i.e., chewing on a lead-painted toy,) which is what one usually would consider to be a "poisoning" incident, or perhaps is just buildup from years of drinking unfiltered tap water and being unable to remove it like a normal person's body would.

Originally Posted by skysidhe

and as far as this article I found, lead levels are naturally higher at the age of two.

My son is almost 4.

Originally Posted by skysidhe

and a well balanced diet helps eliminate lead

This assumes one is absorbing the nutrients from their well-balanced diet. People with chronic digestive diseases suffer from malabsorption, and can become undersized and underweight for their age (among other symptoms of malnutrition,) because they are not actually getting any of the nutrients that their body needs for all its processes, no matter how well they eat.

Originally Posted by skysidhe

the effects of lead poisoning do not appear until the age of 6 according to this article.

No, the proof of lead poisoning cannot be fully tested for until the age of six. According to your article (bold mine,)

What a parent might know before that might well be some common complaints such as speech delay, hyperactivity, not being able to sit/listen/learn in school, and not being able to focus. Those observations may be the result of earlier childhood lead poisoning.

Originally Posted by skysidhe

Have your children had blood tests for lead poisoning?

No, because the theory is that this is not some coincidentally recent source, this is long-term lead that my son's body has been unable to remove over time. As your article notes,

Most ingested lead is stored in the bones and leaches back into the bloodstream -- and brain -- over time.

So we would expect his current blood level to be low. But your article seems to indicate that chelation drugs only pull lead out of the blood, not other stores, and that is not correct. This study from the NIH indicates that DMSA pulls lead from soft tissue and some types of bone as well. That same study also notes, UT, that

DMSA-chelatable lead excreted in the 24-h portion correlated well with the excretion in the 6-h portion.

That study suggests that a "cortical Bone-Pb" would be a more valid test to determine the level of long-term stores in the body, but I don't think that the trauma and risk of a bone biopsy is in my son's best interest, compared to cautiously examining ongoing lead levels and whether they plummet dramatically in another treatment or two, thus indicating that the store has been depleted. If one were to accept the idea that this kind of elevated number is completely normal following a chelation dose, then one would have to expect that the high numbers would never go down, because the chelation drug would produce the same result every time.

[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.