gluten, mercury and allergies ( was. RE: FW: RE: Please Help...)

[Guest guest]

> Re: FW: RE: Please Help...Looking for nutrition for

>Autistic Son...Using soy now...

>

>

>

>

>>Conversely, mercury (and other metals) throw off the enzyme systems in the

>>body and make it difficult to digest foods that a person would normally be

>>able to digest if there were no mercury in their system. As well, mercury

>>often causes candida overgrowth, which in turn causes digestion issues, as

>>you know. I keep hearing reports from some of the authors/health

>>professionals that deal with mercury poisoning, that their

>patients candida

>>issues clear up after their amalgams have been removed. I've also

>read in a

>>few places that candida is actually the body's " survival " response to

>>mercury overload because it binds it.

>>

>>Also, I'm not sure what you mean by IgA allergies throwing off metal

>>balances in the body, but I don't see how that's relevant to mercury

>>toxicity. Mercury simply needs to be *removed* not rebalanced.

>

>Well, mainly what I'm saying is it's a chicken and egg problem,

>and probably not one that can be resolved without a whole lot of

>studies. But in the Mad Cow writup by Purdey, he was saying that

>lack of copper causes another metal (I forget which) to be used

>in the nervous system, which causes prions (I'm probably misquoting

>badly, but that was the general gist). When one metal is misused, it

>tends to throw the others off.

Yes, plants tend to do this too, I believe. When the mineral that is

preferred is absent, some other mineral or metal gets substituted. So with

SADer's, you've probably got a body with several mineral deficiencies, and

due to the ubiquitous of mercury and the excessive amounts in amalgams,

seafood and childhood vaccines, probably the mercury molecules get

substituted for something else. But at the same time, the mercury that

doesn't get eliminated also gets stored *somewhere*. It seems to have an

affinity for the brain, liver, kidneys, and I believe the spleen.

>

>Now, no one knows exactly why, but folks with IgA issues tend to do

>weird things with calcium, magnesium, and other metals.

Same for folks with mercury intoxication. That's the whole point of the hair

elements test since mercury fairly reliably interrupts mineral transport in

predictable ways. I wonder if both mercury and IgA allergies mess up mineral

transport in *similar* ways?

Like, they get

>calcium deposits in their brains but don't have enough in their bones.

>I'm speculating that if those metals are thrown off, there will be

>empty spots

>where the mercury can 'glom' where it shouldn't, plus the detox chemicals

>that would normally remove it might not be functioning correctly.

Right.

>

>

>>No doubt food is elemental in all this. But my question is what turns a

>>*predisposition* into a reality?

>

>

>I'm unclear exactly of what we are discussing. I see 4

>possibilities:

>

>1. Is mercury a necessary requirement for gluten intolerance?

>2. Is mercury a sufficient requirement for gluten intolerance?

>3. Is mercury a factor in gluten intolerance?

>4. If you removed all the mercury from the world, would existing

>gluten intolerance go away?

Well, we DO know that mercury interferes with the enzyme that digests

gluten, and it does mess up one's gut flora and cause candida overgrowth, so

it CAN be a factor in gluten intolerance. But I don't see any reason to

believe that it's the sole cause of gluten intolerance. I'm not arguing that

at all. I think it's just one of a number of things that can cause or

trigger gluten intolerance. It may be that in recent times it plays much

more of a role in gluten intolerance because at least 80% of our population

has chronic mercury poisoning from amalgams, plus the fact that just about

every child is given well beyond the government's " safe dose " limit via

thimersol in vaccines. And then it's in thousands of common products from

paints, OTC medications so we're just being saturated with it. Maybe 300

years ago it wasn't a common trigger for gluten intolerance because most

folks didn't get exposed to it.

>So, if you are arguing that mercury causes people to become reactive

>to wheat, then either:

I'm only arguing that's a possibility given that we know it interferes with

the enzyme necessary to digest gluten and give that it's become a ubiquitous

poison, at least in the U.S.

>

>As to the question of " CAN mercury cause the allergy to

>develop " ... sure. And so can about 20 other factors, like

>I said. One biggie seems to be breastfeeding ... probably

>probiotic exposure in infants too, which mercury can

>affect (and so do a lot of other things).

I think we are pretty much on the same page, then. I think the fact that it

CAN cause an allergy to develop (and it DOES indeed cause many allergies to

develop) and the fact that it's so ubiquitous. simply makes it one common

trigger in recent times.

>

>2. Is mercury a sufficient requirement for gluten intolerance?

>

>I'd say again, clearly not, because in some places there is

>a high overall dosage of mercury but people seem to

>tolerate it or excrete it.

I don't think it's a requirement either, but can you explain what you mean

by this? Where is there a high overall dose of mercury where people are

tolerating or excreting it?

>>I agree, although they may be interrelated in ways we're not aware of. I

>>wonder if mercury or IgA allergies interfere with the parents' gene

>>expression?

>

>Absolutely I think they do. If not directly, then it seems to be clear

>that lack of absorption (of, say, zinc) does effect progeny for multiple

>generations. The problem with these things is that they affect so many

>of the body systems that it's hard to figure out the chain of causality.

>IgA intolerance doesn't cause many problems *directly* ... it's the lack

>of absorption and the formation of autoimmune antibodies and the

>dysbiosis that cause problems.

Right. And we've also got mercury getting deposited in fetuses via the

placenta, so it can affect the fetal development from the get-go, as well.

It could cause developmental abnormalities, cognitive abnormalities, and

maybe disrupt mineral transport systems in the developing fetus as it does

post birth.

>

>

>>But it already is among those who remove mercury from their kids! Parents

>>are removing mercury from their_kids and some of these kids are no longer

>>being classified as autistic. The whole mercury-autism connection is not

>>simply theoretical - mercury removal to cure autism is already being done

>>successfully. Again, I don't know what percent of kids are being

> " cured " by

>>mercury removal, but some are. In fact, I believe there are many people -

>>children AND adults whose chronic and degenerative diseases have

>disappeared

>>after mercury removal (I keep reading about it anyways, and it's

>the reason

>>I'm having my amalgams removed). I'm reading a book by Tom Warren now for

>>example, " Reversing Chronic Disease " , and he cured his Alzheimer's disease

>>by removing his amalgams and other sources of mercury in his environment

>

>But they are being " cured " by multiple other cures too.

Oh, I know. I was responding to something you wrote about it not being a

cure, IIRC. I was just pointing out that mercury removal and detox HAS cured

many, many folks of a variety of diseases from Autism to Alzheimer's. I

wasn't arguing that it's the ONLY cure though. I think that's been our

biggest miscommunication here.

However, the confounding factor is that a lot of these folks not only remove

the mercury from their body, but they also often do *other* things to get

better at the same time, like going GF/CF or, doing saunas and other detox

regimens, or add lots of antioxidants to their diet, and clean up their

lifestyle, etc. So, anecdotally, I think it's hard to separate out all these

factors. I DO think though, that there have been controlled studies on the

effects of mercury removal, that remove the other variables. I will have to

check for those results. But in any case, I think it's agreed that removing

the most toxic non-radioactive metal in the world from one's body,

generally tends to improve one's health ;-)

Again, it's not

>clear what is going on. A lot of people are taking a shotgun approach

>to getting themselves well ... for good reasons ... and it works in a lot

>of cases, but there isn't enough info to say exactly WHY it works.

I think that may be true for some cases but not others. In terms of mercury,

it's been well established that it causes " x " , " y " and " z " to happen, and

when it's removed, these things tend to clear up. There's really been

*extensive* research on mercury toxicity - over 14,000 studies according to

Tom Warren in " Reversing Chronic Disease " . So it's not always a guessing

game.

>Amalgams are likely on their way out anyway, for cosmetic reasons

>if nothing else. (It really is interesting that when vanity comes into

>play, people REALLY change fast, where they will often shrug off health

>benefits).

I don't think so. The ADA has been defending their use for about a century,

I believe. They are cheaper and quicker to set than alternatives (good

incentive for dentists to keep using them). There are literally thousands of

alternatives, but most dentists use the ADA recommended amalgams. Insurance

companies won't cover amalgam removal for cosmetic purposes and most people

don't know they are walking around with mercury in their mouths because they

were told they are " silver " fillings and were not told they contain over 50%

mercury. Maybe when there is greater public awareness, then the demand for

alternatives will become widespread.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------