Re: Re: What the NAC studies actually show.

[Guest guest]

<< I have to question your comment that nobody on this list or their children

have significant amounts of ethyl mercury at this time or ever did. I know

for a fact my son did! This has been documented by hair analysis and his

immunization record, where he received 237.5 mcg of ethyl mercury. Please

explain your comment. >>

I didn't say he NEVER had ANY ethylmercury. In fact all his mercury may have

gone into him as ethylmercury. But the ethylmercury converted to inorganic

form over (not too much) time, so he was not sitting there with most of his

mercury in the form of ethylmercury at any given instant in except for the

first round of vaccinations - and even then it is not at all clear how much

mercury he got from you before being born.

One of the most dangerous misconceptions among " witch doctors " is that people

who got organic mercury poisoning still have organic mercury in them and are

suffering from the ill effects of organic mercury. In fact, they are

suffering from the ill effects of INORGANIC mercury, and you have to remove

the INORGANIC mercury, unless they had a single acute exposure to organic

mercury AND you caught them within a month or two of it - in which case you

do want to do some things to remove the organic stuff too.

So your son currently is poisoned by inorganic mercury, and needs his

inorganic mercury removed, even if 100% of that mercury originally went in

as ethylmercury. Doing things to him that remove ethylmercury may be

completely ineffective at this point.

Andy Cutler

[Guest guest]

Andy,

I have to question your comment that nobody on this list or their children

have significant amounts of ethyl mercury at this time or ever did. I know

for a fact my son did! This has been documented by hair analysis and his

immunization record, where he received 237.5 mcg of ethyl mercury. Please

explain your comment.

Lyn

[ ] Re: What the NAC studies actually show.

> << According to a couple of the following studies, NAC is very effective

> for increasing mercury excretion. >>

>

> You should actually read the studies, Bernie. None of them have data

that

> indicates such.

>

> You also cite Balch and Balch " prescription for nutritional killing, "

which

> as you see from my pet name for it is neither related to reality nor is it

> anything that qualifies as a " research study. "

>

> NAC increases intracellular glutathione.

>

> NAC increases the amount of methylmercury in urine.

>

> Nobody on this list nor their kids have significant amounts of methyl (or

> ethlyl) mercury in them at this point in time. Most of them never did.

>

> NAC does NOT increase the excretion of inorganic mercury.

>

> Neither NAC nor glutathione remove any mercury from the brain - but they

do

> make whatever mercury is there a lot more toxic if administered in

excessive

> amounts.

>

> Andy Cutler

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Old school buds here:

> 1/5536/9/_/705339/_/963115493/

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

Lyn,

When you mention the amount of mercury your son received, is this a

cumulative amount? Over what time period?

Thanks,

Ed DeCelie

" Lyn Redwood " <autism treatment@...> on 07/09/2000 09:08:33 AM

Please respond to egroups

egroups

cc: (bcc: Decelie/CHASE)

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: What the NAC studies actually show.

Andy,

I have to question your comment that nobody on this list or their children

have significant amounts of ethyl mercury at this time or ever did. I know

for a fact my son did! This has been documented by hair analysis and his

immunization record, where he received 237.5 mcg of ethyl mercury. Please

explain your comment.

Lyn

[ ] Re: What the NAC studies actually show.

> << According to a couple of the following studies, NAC is very effective

> for increasing mercury excretion. >>

>

> You should actually read the studies, Bernie. None of them have data

that

> indicates such.

>

> You also cite Balch and Balch " prescription for nutritional killing, "

which

> as you see from my pet name for it is neither related to reality nor is

it

> anything that qualifies as a " research study. "

>

> NAC increases intracellular glutathione.

>

> NAC increases the amount of methylmercury in urine.

>

> Nobody on this list nor their kids have significant amounts of methyl (or

> ethlyl) mercury in them at this point in time. Most of them never did.

>

> NAC does NOT increase the excretion of inorganic mercury.

>

> Neither NAC nor glutathione remove any mercury from the brain - but they

do

> make whatever mercury is there a lot more toxic if administered in

excessive

> amounts.

>

> Andy Cutler

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Old school buds here:

> 1/5536/9/_/705339/_/963115493/

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>