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.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

And what if your urine turned shimmering silver with mercury, and you hadn't drunk an entire bottle of mercury? Wouldn't that warrant further investigation? The conundrum you're describing is precisely why you must take both a "before" and "after" sample. It is not the raw levels which are important, but the comparison between the two. True, some discrepancy is to be expected. But the difference between .8 and 33? That's big enough to be relevant, because I spend 24 hours a day with my son and I can assure you he did not drink an entire bottle of lead that weekend.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

Only assuming that you're able to multiply the numbers by a factor of 2-3 to account for the difference between a 6-hour test and a 24-hour test. NIH says that's not a valid step when considering lead results, because lead in 6-hour and 24-hour samples is comparable. Are mercury levels in a 6-hour and 24-hour test comparable? I don't know--and I also don't really care, because my son didn't pee mercury. He peed lead.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

True. And the lab marked all of them as normal, or barely above it. Not concerned with those numbers, or those metals. I'm concerned with lead. Seriously, I'm done talking about mercury, because I haven't researched it, and don't have time to research things that aren't germane to my son's condition. If my daughter pees mercury, I'll come back to it. You want to talk lead, though, I'll talk lead.

The Wiki page on Lead Poisoning is a much better place to look anyway, because it's not steeped in controversy like mercury is. It says:

Chelation therapy is used in cases of acute lead poisoning,[18] severe poisoning, and encephalopathy,[116] and is considered for people with blood lead levels above 25 µg/dL.

My son has symptoms of encephalopathy, and had a post-provocation urine level of 33 µg/dL. That includes lead stored in soft tissues that would not be registered on a blood test; but nonetheless, he did the equivalent of peeing a non-shimmery, dull lead-colored stream of pee. But he didn't do it until he had a drug that made him do it, because apparently, his body does not process lead appropriately like a normal, non-encephalopathic person's body does.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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

Absolutely. That's why we have doctors to study medicine in detail for us. And I have at my disposal two types of doctors to listen to.

One type says a variety of things about my son's condition that I know to be completely false, including the notions that he never actually had chronic diarrhea, that he could not have shown improvement from mere dietary changes, and that he could not possibly have had nutritional deficiencies that lab tests confirmed he had. This same type of doctor outright refuses to run established, acceptable tests for heavy metal poisoning, on the sole grounds that my child is autistic, therefore it must be completely impossible that he has heavy metal poisoning, even as an entirely coincidental condition. This type of doctor is terrified to be caught testing an autistic child for metals, even if I told them I just watched him eat a fistful of lead paint with my own two eyes.

The other type of doctor knows the difference between bright green liquid and a brown log, not only believes but predicted all the ways I saw my son improve with dietary restrictions, and continues to successfully treat and improve his symptoms with established medications (that the first type of doctor acknowledges are quite effective at what they do, but merely meaningless to my son's condition.) This other type of doctor runs tests, and bases treatments on the results. He is very experienced in the administration and risks of chelation drugs, and knows that neither high-dose nor long-term treatments are appropriate.

The medical community is split on this issue, and I have to choose who to listen to. Misuse of chelation therapy is certainly a problem, just like the misuse of many other drugs. But when done appropriately, it is an established and accepted treatment for known symptoms and confirmable test results. So I'm going with the doctors who have a proven track record in my own personal experience.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Quackwatch

Are you a fan of Stephen Barrett?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

My son has symptoms of encephalopathy, and had a post-provocation urine level of 33 µg/dL.

I messed up my units, here. My son's reading was 33 µg/gram of creatinine, not by total volume the way blood is read.

His creatinine was 11.6, and the total volume peed in that six hours was 400 mL = 4 dL, which makes (33 µg)*(11.6)/4 = 95.7 µg/dL of urine.

I don't know if it was really that ridiculously high, or if urine concentration just can't be compared to blood concentration this way. But that looks to me to be how the units work out.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

My son didn't [pee lead] until he had a drug that made him do it, because apparently, his body does not process lead appropriately like a normal, non-encephalopathic person's body does.

Not true!! Go back and look at the chart; your son peed lead before the drug came along and made him pee more of it.

Wikipedia article on lead poisoning says "The chelate that is thus formed is nontoxic and can be excreted in the urine, initially at up to 50 times the normal rate."

50 times!

See, the reason the six hour number is more interesting is that most of the stuff is peed out during that time frame. After six hours, you're just peeing pee, ya follow?

So, now that we see that post-chelation urinary numbers for lead are not interesting, not informative, not indicative of anything, because they can be up to 50 times the amount found in the urine pre-chelation...

...the next most relevant question is, what are your son's blood lead levels?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by jinx

Are you a fan of Stephen Barrett?

Never heard of him before.

[xoxoxoBruce]

"The chelate that is thus formed is nontoxic and can be excreted in the urine, initially at up to 50 times the normal rate."

Not unless there's lead there to get, and if it's 50 times there has to be a shitload of it.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

your son peed lead before the drug came along and made him pee more of it.

Yes, he peed eight-tenths of a microgram. Normal pee levels are 2-3 micrograms according to Wiki. Take in 2, subtract .8. Tomorrow, take in another 2, subtract .8. This equals long-term buildup.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

See, the reason the six hour number is more interesting is that most of the stuff is peed out during that time frame. After six hours, you're just peeing pee, ya follow?

Right. This is why they give a reading in µg/gram of creatinine, because it gives a more accurate picture and accounts for dilution.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

50 times!

That was from the section of the page on Treatment; i.e., for people who had been found to have lead poisoning. It's a statement on how effective the drug is at removing lead from people with lead poisoning.

How come he didn't pee 50 times the normal amount of any other metal? Why would the NIH use urine collection for any of their research studies if it's so completely meaningless?

Originally Posted by Undertoad

...the next most relevant question is, what are your son's blood lead levels?

I don't know, and I don't care. He didn't eat a lead toy, he's been slowly accumulating for years. It's not in his blood.

Blood lead levels are an indicator mainly of recent or current lead exposure, not of total body burden.[106] Lead in bones can be measured noninvasively by X-ray fluorescence; this may be the best measure of cumulative exposure and total body burden.[21] However this method is not widely available and is mainly used for research rather than routine diagnosis.

When lead exposure has taken place over a long period, blood lead levels may rise after chelation is stopped because lead is leached into blood from stores in the bone;

You pull what you can from the soft tissues, opening space for more bone stores to leach out. Then you pull again a few weeks later. If one were being really anal, I suspect that one could take the drug, and then do a few blood tests in the minutes and hours immediately following, since by definition that newly-bound lead's going to take a turn around in the bloodstream before getting processed into the urine. But that's a little pointless, because you can test for the presence of that same lead in the urine just a short while later.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Normal pee levels are 2-3 micrograms according to Wiki.

link plz

How come he didn't pee 50 times the normal amount of any other metal?

Because that's the rate for lead.

Why would the NIH use urine collection for any of their research studies if it's so completely meaningless?

I dunno, what are they looking for?

(What's the level in his blood?) I don't know, and I don't care. He didn't eat a lead toy, he's been slowly accumulating for years. It's not in his blood.

By what magic, then, did it get into his pre-chelation pee?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead

Analysis of lead in whole blood is the most common and accurate method of assessing lead exposure in human. Erythrocyte protoporphyrin (EP) tests can also be used to measure lead exposure, but are not as sensitive at low blood lead levels (<0.2 mg/L). Lead in blood reflects recent exposure. Bone lead measurements are an indicator of cumulative exposure. While measurements of urinary lead levels and hair have been used to assess lead exposure, they are not reliable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning

Elevated lead in the body can be detected by the presence of changes in blood cells visible with a microscope and dense lines in the bones of children seen on X-ray. However, the main tool for diagnosis is measurement of the blood lead level; different treatments are used depending on this level.

An x-ray and a drop of blood on a slide. Those are the reliable tests, for decades. Proven, cheap and readily available.

But you prefer pseudoscience. So your evidence is a measurement known to be unreliable and inaccurate; and then you make major mistakes and generous leaps of logic in your interpretation of the results.

Without being rude, I urge you to change your thinking about this. Let's put it this way. If cheap, proven, reliable tests show long-term lead accumulation in your son, a battery of specialists will suddenly turn their attention to improving him. Covered by insurance -- probably using chelation to do it -- and you will be proven right. What do you have to lose?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Because that's the rate for lead.

According to you, at least 7.8 µg, and maybe as high as 30-40 µg, is "normal" for mercury. He didn't pee that. Why not?

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I dunno, what are they looking for?

Measuring the effectiveness of chelation drugs, among other things, which are widely accepted and prescribed for heavy metal poisoning. The drugs are not in question, their effects are not in question. The only thing you seem to be insisting is that anyone, absolutely anyone, could pee out as much lead as my son did when given the medications he was given. Except everyone doesn't. The only references you've found to people peeing out that much lead were individuals who were known to be exposed to lead.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

link plz

Sorry, I thought it was wiki but it was from somewhere else. Here's a study indicating that normal urinary lead levels for Japanese adults are between 1 and 4 µg for a 24-hour collection.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

By what magic, then, did it get into his pre-chelation pee?

You're being deliberately obtuse. A person takes in a couple micrograms a day from the average environment, and pees it back out again. My son takes in 2-3 micrograms just like everyone else, and pees out a fraction of that each day. Part comes out, part floats around in his blood until it gets stored in a bone, or soft tissue, or his brain. At any given time, I would expect his blood to show a slightly elevated amount, but not a shockingly high amount, because he is dutifully socking the extra away in his organs and bones.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

An x-ray and a drop of blood on a slide. Those are the reliable tests, for decades. Proven, cheap and readily available.

Actually, it's been noted here already (in the Wiki link, among others) that the fluorescence X-ray is neither cheap, nor readily available. It's used for research, not for diagnostic purposes. I cannot get one.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Without being rude, I urge you to change your thinking about this. Let's put it this way. If cheap, proven, reliable tests show long-term lead accumulation in your son, a battery of specialists will suddenly turn their attention to improving him. Covered by insurance -- probably using chelation to do it -- and you will be proven right. What do you have to lose?

Here's the funny thing--a battery of specialists will not turn their attention to improving him, even if we managed to get a fluorescence X-ray. Because he's autistic, no one will touch him. I can't even get a normal doctor to order a blood lead test on him. I've asked, and they won't do it, because they're terrified that colleagues will start pointing the pseudoscience accusations at them. There was another Dwellar with a child exposed to lead a few years ago, and not once did you call his claim into question. You jump on the pseudoscience bandwagon here because my son's autistic, and everyone knows there's just no cause for that, none at all.

Here is what I would need to do, to even get a blood test ordered: I would have to go to a completely new doctor, and lie and say that my son has only started showing these obviously autistic symtoms in the last few days, and gosh, I'm pretty sure I saw him picking at some paint on a building while we were out running errands. Of course, I'd also have to claim that he had no prior medical records, because any new patient is going to get their old records pulled from the previous doctor before their appointment, and he'd see the word "autism" and refuse the tests. But if I lied well enough, he would probably order them... and then what? Either the levels would be low because his exposure is chronic, not recent, and they would tell us nothing. Or the levels would be high, but not higher than 45 µg/dL, and they would say "not to worry, the body will naturally process it out, just give it time." Or the levels would be high enough to warrant chelation, at which point the doctor would attempt to prescribe some, and the jig would be up--I would have to admit that he's already taken a dose of chelation recently, and that I'm not interested in this new doctor overseeing a longer course of it because I already have a doctor doing that. And he would ask, "Why did you waste my time to get me to order these tests then?" and I would reply, "Because this guy on the internet didn't believe me."

Sorry, it's not worth the effort. If you can point me to a doctor who will give my son a fluorescence X-ray, I will definitely consider it, however. By the way, insurance already covers both the current doctor and the DMSA prescription.


I asked this in a different way before, and you didn't answer, so let me ask it again: if after a few more rounds of the drug, my son's lead levels go down and stay down, how will that fit into your theory that his current high levels are meaningless? Under your interpretation of the data, he should continue to have high levels no matter what I do, right?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

According to you, at least 7.8 µg, and maybe as high as 30-40 µg, is "normal" for mercury. He didn't pee that. Why not?

Either you didn't read or you didn't understand the original quote. You also have repeatedly failed to distinguish between the term normal and the term average.

Again, 7.8 micrograms per gram of creatinine was the average post-chelation amount measured on a 24-hour basis in adult factory workers repeatedly exposed to mercury.

Why didn't your son pee that? We don't have enough information, but perhaps a good start is that he isn't an adult factory worker repeatedly exposed to mercury.

Sorry, I thought it was wiki but it was from somewhere else. Here's a study indicating that normal urinary lead levels for Japanese adults are between 1 and 4 µg for a 24-hour collection.

OK, you've gotten your units confused again. This study finds a statistical measurement of micrograms of lead, not micrograms of lead per gram of creatinine, as is expressed in the other study.

Also, again, the Japanese study does not determine what is normal, only what is statistically significant.

You jump on the pseudoscience bandwagon here because my son's autistic, and everyone knows there's just no cause for that, none at all.

Oh goodness no! I call it pseudoscience because that's what it totally fucking is. I'm not jumping on the bandwagon in this case, I'm driving it.

Don't use my lack of participation in a thread as evidence of anything. Perhaps I did not care about that user as much.

Meanwhile, if you don't want my considered opinion, you should post it in "your" thread, where I have noted I will not seriously post. It might even be more appropriate, since there is no lead in any vaccines I know of.

[skysidhe]

When you go to the doctor just separate the autistic/lead thing.

Maybe the doctor sees the road you are attempting to go down and that is to your own ends of finding a cure of autism because I am sure if you asked for a blood test for lead because you are worried he has lead poisoning you would get a blood test.

A blood test for detecting blood for its own sake a doctor will do.

A blood test because of everything you have said here I agree he probably won't do.


From a blog I found this morning. It's the same kind of conversation that is going on here. It may be of interest to the both of you.
http://qw88nb88.wordpress.com/2008/0...cury-its-lead/


Like with any kind of therapy or treatment marketed for autism, we must remember that autism is a developmental disorder. The development of the child is slower or erratic compared to age-peers. However, that is not the same thing as developmental stasis. The continued acquisition of skills by autistic children are often attributed to the therapies given to them, rather than simply due to maturation. Autistic children who are not given the scores of dubious therapies also improve as they mature.

Put simply:

• Lead poisoning is detected through blood tests.
• Lead poisoning can cause learning difficulties, but is not the same thing as autism. The symptoms of lead poisoning and autism are very different.
• “Chelation challenge” tests are not accurate for assessing levels of heavy metals.
• Chelation can be used to remove heavy metals from the body, with intravenous EDTA reserved for high toxicity levels. However, removing those from the body does not undo all of the effects of severe heavy-metal poisoning.
• Chelation will not cure autism.
• Autistic children continue to grow and develop at their own rates, sometimes to the point that they do not require extra school services or therapies. At that point, they are autistic children who do not require extra school services or therapies. (Yeup, they’re still autistic.)

oh and by the way. If I thought my son had lead poisoning I would be fighting to get a test. I probably wouldn't leave the doctors office until I got one. I'd scratch someones eyes out if they told me no and I thought the lead was causing damage.

Being or having autism has nothing to do with providing medical services that are timely and necessary.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Again, 7.8 micrograms per gram of creatinine was the average post-chelation amount measured on a 24-hour basis in adult factory workers repeatedly exposed to mercury.

Why didn't your son pee that? We don't have enough information, but perhaps a good start is that he isn't an adult factory worker repeatedly exposed to mercury.

Okay. Here's a study of factory workers repeatedly exposed to lead. On the bottom half of page three, you will find a chart that graphs the actual data of these 177 factory workers, with micrograms per dL of urine on the left. I calculated my son's urine to be 95.7 ug/dL, which is more than twice what the highest factory worker's reading is. If you see a problem with my calculations there, please tell me.

On the one hand, these factory workers were not challenged with a chelation dose to get to their levels, so it's still not a completely direct comparison. But on the other hand, all but one of the factory workers with a urine level above 15 also had a blood level high enough to warrant chelation (45+). These are guys under heavy exposure, their bodies are presumably processing just as well as anyone's, and they still peed a fraction of what my son was able to pee with no known exposure. My son didn't pee mercury because there was no mercury in his body to pee. But the lead had to come from somewhere; where did it come from?

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Oh goodness no! I call it pseudoscience because that's what it totally fucking is. I'm not jumping on the bandwagon in this case, I'm driving it.

So just to clarify, the one thing that you specifically find to be pseudoscience is the urinary lab report, correct? Other types of lab tests (fluorescent X-rays) are science, and the chelation drugs used to treat those conditions are science, correct?

Science should have predictable results, or it isn't science. I have predicted future results based on my interpreation of the data: If after a few more rounds of the drug, my son's lead levels go down and stay down, how will that fit into your theory that his current high levels are meaningless? Under your interpretation of the data, he should continue to have high levels no matter what I do, right?

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Meanwhile, if you don't want my considered opinion, you should post it in "your" thread, where I have noted I will not seriously post. It might even be more appropriate, since there is no lead in any vaccines I know of.

I never suggested I don't want your opinion, just that I think it's wrong. I know exactly what I'm posting in this thread and that thread.

Of course there's no lead in vaccines. No one ever suggested there was. Once again, you are jumping back to your primary drum beat when it has nothing to do with the current discussion, which is treatments--which you indicated previously that you were not only interested in, but shocked that I hadn't mentioned them before. I told tw I would post my son's lab results (actually my daughter's, but we ended up testing my son first) for his consideration, and I did. Regardless of what breaks an autistic person's metabolic processes, be it vaccines or not, the resulting symptoms can be treated in their own right. One of those symptoms can be a chronic inability to process certain heavy metals that normal people don't have a problem with, and it can be treated the same way any heavy metal exposure would be.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Okay. Here's a study of factory workers repeatedly exposed to lead. On the bottom half of page three, you will find a chart that graphs the actual data of these 177 factory workers, with micrograms per dL of urine on the left. I calculated my son's urine to be 95.7 ug/dL, which is more than twice what the highest factory worker's reading is. If you see a problem with my calculations there, please tell me.

Step by step, mathematician folks follow:

You mentioned that your son's creatinine levels were 11.6. I'm assuming that's 11.6 ug of creatinine per dL, as the Dr Data report from Quackwatch reads, yes?

11.6 micrograms per dL means he peed 0.0116 grams of creatinine per dL...

He peed 33.0 micrograms of Pb per gram of creatinine.

Therefore, his Pb output is 33 * 0.0116, micrograms of Pb per dL.

Therefore he peed .38 micrograms of Pb per dL, or roughly six times lower after chelation than the lowest factory worker measured before chelation.

amidoinitrite?

So just to clarify, the one thing that you specifically find to be pseudoscience is the urinary lab report, correct? Other types of lab tests (fluorescent X-rays) are science, and the chelation drugs used to treat those conditions are science, correct?

Science should have predictable results, or it isn't science. I have predicted future results based on my interpreation of the data: If after a few more rounds of the drug, my son's lead levels go down and stay down, how will that fit into your theory that his current high levels are meaningless? Under your interpretation of the data, he should continue to have high levels no matter what I do, right?

At these miniscule levels? Probably hard to predict! Nevertheless, predictable results are certainly not the test of whether something is science.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You mentioned that your son's creatinine levels were 11.6. I'm assuming that's 11.6 ug of creatinine per dL, as the Dr Data report from Quackwatch reads, yes?

My chart says 11.6 milligrams of creatinine per dL, but that does equal .0116 grams.

The problem is, if that math is correct, then that would mean his original test, which measured at .8 micrograms lead/gram creatinine, would work out to (.8)(.025 creatinine level for before sample) = .02 micrograms/dL, which is well below the detectable range for lead. (The low end of the detectable range is .1 microgram/dL (mentioned on page 4.)) So either the lab completely falsified levels at ranges they couldn't even detect (and if you're going to falsify levels, why not just falsify high levels?), or this math is off somewhere.

Truthfully, I don't know the answer. But I can tell you that 1.) I trust the doctor who says he needs some additional, well-monitored treatment for this level of lead (but that none of the other "elevated" numbers are at all concerning,) in low-dose and non-intravenous format; 2.) about 75% of the autism parents I have talked to saw large gains with moderate chelation therapy; and 3.) I personally saw an improvement in my son following his initial chelation dose, despite not expecting him to have any toxicological problems. You are welcome to link to some of the studies that say there has been no confirmable cognitive improvement in lead-poisoned children even after chelation, only a possible behavioral improvement, but they mean about as much to me as the studies that show no improvement is possible with dietary changes. I have a sample size of 1, but I know my sample very, very well. I know the limited medical risks for short-term non-IV chelation (too much loss of calcium and zinc, primarily,) and how to mitigate them (treatments spaced weeks apart, supplementation of minerals in between.) The financial risks are nonexistent, as this particular lab test is cheap and the prescription is cheaper. And I have seen some evidence of gains with the initial treatment. Proceeding cautiously seems to me to be the right decision to make.

I promise you, I am far more terrified of making the wrong decisions in all of this than you are, and I weigh every choice very carefully. I have rejected at least a half a dozen other scam treatments that are often pushed upon parents of autistic children. Are some people scammed by the idea of intensive, long-term chelation as a cure-all, even when they show no symptoms? Yes. But I'm a smart lady, and I don't believe that to be what's happening here. You obviously believe otherwise, but hey, that just shows you care. I promise that the biggest risk here is that I will waste a small amount of energy and an even smaller amount of money and see no results, and that's a risk I'm willing to take.