Re: Mainstream Science vs. Anecdotal Evidence

[Guest guest]

dumb as it sounds, but just to get further ahead in your efforts, maybe you can mention the testing you did without going further into comments on chelation. Just a thought.

maurine

Subject: Mainstream Science vs. Anecdotal EvidenceTo: EOHarm , chelatingkids2 Date: Friday, November 21, 2008, 8:08 PM

Hi Everyone,I had sent a post a couple weeks ago about a cement plant in my community that is the largest mercury polluter in New York State. I've started reaching out to some experts on environmental health, toxicology, etc. and I'm very discouraged by what I'm hearing. As soon as I mention I did a provoked urine challenge test to determine my son's heavy metal levels and that we're starting chelation next month, this is usually proceeded by "Oh my God! Chelation?! Please don't do chelation on your child. All the science points to this being more harmful than good."I don't understand why these experts who know the science make these claims. And then there's so many parents who also claim chelation has done wonders for their child. So now, beside the fact that this makes my research difficult because everyone I talk to cannot seem to get over this fact, but I'm also starting to second guess myself that maybe this isn't the best

approach. Getting the metals out makes so much sense to me. Does anyone know why so many professionals are against chelation?Thanks,Elyse

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Maureen. Yeah, it usually starts with them asking me what his blood levels are, and I tell them his mercury blood levels are undetectable, but it's very elevated in his provoked urine challenge test. And then the next question is always -- what's a provoked urine challenge test? So I tell them you take a chelating agent... -- OMG!

I certainly hear you though. Maybe I'll just steer clear of the testing conversation all together. I'm wondering too though about why they're so against it.

From: Elyse <ecrocks23yahoo (DOT) com>Subject: Mainstream Science vs. Anecdotal EvidenceTo: EOHarmyahoogroups (DOT) com, chelatingkids2@ yahoogroups. comDate: Friday, November 21, 2008, 8:08 PM

Hi Everyone,I had sent a post a couple weeks ago about a cement plant in my community that is the largest mercury polluter in New York State. I've started reaching out to some experts on environmental health, toxicology, etc. and I'm very discouraged by what I'm hearing. As soon as I mention I did a provoked urine challenge test to determine my son's heavy metal levels and that we're starting chelation next month, this is usually proceeded by "Oh my God! Chelation?! Please don't do chelation on your child. All the science points to this being more harmful than good."I don't understand why these experts who know the science make these claims. And then there's so many parents who also claim chelation has done wonders for their child. So now, beside the fact that this makes my research difficult because everyone I talk to cannot seem to get over this fact, but I'm also starting to second guess myself that maybe this isn't the best

approach. Getting the metals out makes so much sense to me. Does anyone know why so many professionals are against chelation?Thanks,Elyse

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Maurine. Yeah, it usually starts with them asking me what his blood levels are, and I tell them his mercury blood levels are undetectable, but it's very elevated in his provoked urine challenge test. And then the next question is always -- what's a provoked urine challenge test? So I tell them you take a chelating agent... -- OMG!

I certainly hear you though. Maybe I'll just steer clear of the testing conversation all together. I'm wondering too though about why they're so against it.

From: Elyse <ecrocks23yahoo (DOT) com>Subject: Mainstream Science vs. Anecdotal EvidenceTo: EOHarmyahoogroups (DOT) com, chelatingkids2@ yahoogroups. comDate: Friday, November 21, 2008, 8:08 PM

Hi Everyone,I had sent a post a couple weeks ago about a cement plant in my community that is the largest mercury polluter in New York State. I've started reaching out to some experts on environmental health, toxicology, etc. and I'm very discouraged by what I'm hearing. As soon as I mention I did a provoked urine challenge test to determine my son's heavy metal levels and that we're starting chelation next month, this is usually proceeded by "Oh my God! Chelation?! Please don't do chelation on your child. All the science points to this being more harmful than good."I don't understand why these experts who know the science make these claims. And then there's so many parents who also claim chelation has done wonders for their child. So now, beside the fact that this makes my research difficult because everyone I talk to cannot seem to get over this fact, but I'm also starting to second guess myself that maybe this isn't the best

approach. Getting the metals out makes so much sense to me. Does anyone know why so many professionals are against chelation?Thanks,Elyse

[Guest guest]

I think it may be because one little boy was given the WRONG

medication during IV chelation and died. Also, in some chelation

studies, they did not replace the minerals that were pulled out along

with the heavy metals. I have not done chelation, but from what I

have read, you need to replace the beneficial minerals that are lost.

If you don't do this, there can be serious health consequences

resulting from the depleted mineral state. Reah Andy Cutler's book on

this.

C.

>

> From: Elyse <ecrocks23yahoo (DOT) com>

> Subject: Mainstream Science vs. Anecdotal Evidence

> To: EOHarmyahoogroups (DOT) com, chelatingkids2@ yahoogroups. com

> Date: Friday, November 21, 2008, 8:08 PM

>

>

>

>

> Hi Everyone,

>

> I had sent a post a couple weeks ago about a cement plant in my

community that is the largest mercury polluter in New York State.

I've started reaching out to some experts on environmental health,

toxicology, etc. and I'm very discouraged by what I'm hearing. As

soon as I mention I did a provoked urine challenge test to determine

my son's heavy metal levels and that we're starting chelation next

month, this is usually proceeded by " Oh my God! Chelation?! Please

don't do chelation on your child. All the science points to this

being more harmful than good. "

>

> I don't understand why these experts who know the science make

these claims. And then there's so many parents who also claim

chelation has done wonders for their child. So now, beside the fact

that this makes my research difficult because everyone I talk to

cannot seem to get over this fact, but I'm also starting to second

guess myself that maybe this isn't the best approach. Getting the

metals out makes so much sense to me.

>

> Does anyone know why so many professionals are against chelation?

>

> Thanks,

> Elyse

>

[Guest guest]

they just dont want to admit that chelation works because that would

be admitting that these kids are mercury poisoned.

I just started chelating my 7 yo asd son. I always tell myself its

more dangerous to have those metals in him than it is to pull it out!

>

> Hi Everyone,

>

> I had sent a post a couple weeks ago about a cement plant in my

community that is the largest mercury polluter in New York State.

I've started reaching out to some experts on environmental health,

toxicology, etc. and I'm very discouraged by what I'm hearing. As

soon as I mention I did a provoked urine challenge test to determine

my son's heavy metal levels and that we're starting chelation next

month, this is usually proceeded by " Oh my God! Chelation?! Please

don't do chelation on your child. All the science points to this

being more harmful than good. "

>

> I don't understand why these experts who know the science make

these claims. And then there's so many parents who also claim

chelation has done wonders for their child. So now, beside the fact

that this makes my research difficult because everyone I talk to

cannot seem to get over this fact, but I'm also starting to second

guess myself that maybe this isn't the best approach. Getting the

metals out makes so much sense to me.

>

> Does anyone know why so many professionals are against chelation?

>

> Thanks,

> Elyse

>

[Guest guest]

Read this it's on mercury poisoning from a historic epidemic and how chelation saved the children of the world, This should shut the mouths up of any Dr.'s or researchers because it proves chelation was used in industrial accidents besides it's on the CDC website if you get to much mercury it's necessary to chelate.

Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat history.

This is proof we had mercury sensitive children in the 1900's to 1950's.

it was not vaccines then it was in teething powders for children with mercury in them.

Hodan, this was sent to several people ignore the names

I sent this to a senator please take the time to read this, I took the time to hunt an peck it out and copy and paste. You can make history, on this so important subject and stop the needless mass poisoning of American children and the children of the world. And even better you could be an important link that helps get these kids better for they and the families are truly suffering. You will read this excerpt later "(In fact, only 1 in 500 children exposed to the teething powders developed the disease).

In 1950 authoritative British medical opinion was still cautious about the mercury hypothesis-an understandable caution, yet responsible, as it turned out, for the prolongation of the epidemic, with uncountable cost in human and financial terms, for several years later" 200 to 400 billion every year in the next 10 years for the life time care cost that was said 5 yr's ago. We just bailed out wall street to the tune of 700 billion one time bailout. lets use common sense here can we afford $200 to $400 billion every year? for the life time care of a lost generation. keep in mind they just announced they need 21 more years, but before that press release in another press release they are saying that they were canceling a chelation study on autism because it is to dangerous but when you read this Email you will soon learn they are lying.

Because it is very embarrassing every time a child is recovered from something that they say is not possible. Seems to me arrogancy is costing American children their lives and the US an astronomical amount of money sound familiar ? Pinks with uncountable cost in human and financial terms, for several years later" Don't you think we should learn by now from history ? and if the CDC is poisoning children should they not be accountable ? this also was sent to a reporter, this is on the history of mercury poisoning from teething powders and Pinks. Which also because of route of exposure is a much worse problem vaccineal induced autism and other childhood chronic disease by thimerosal exposure. Remember Pinks was ingested mercury, it goes through the body's defence

mechanisms, the filtering organs. Vaccineal goes full strength to the brain and the lining around the brain the reference on this truth is from a deposition by Sigma Aldrich, in it the executive explains very reluctantly that thimerosal targets the organs of the body especially the brain and the lining around the brain I have this in a video, the CDC is trying to defend the indefensible mercury is and according to1953 and way before is and always has been very toxic and this vaccineal mercury according to Dr. Burbacher NIH paid for studies is more the twice as toxic as the fish or AKA methyl mercury vaccineal is ethyl mercury. This was sent to another reporter I'm forwarding it to you Mrs Daues Tom I am fixing to tear apart your little world that there is no scientific studies linking Thimerosal to autism, just think of mitochondria dysfunction disorder, google it and find that the very cause is, toxins such as in vaccines.

"Vaccinations contain at least four neurotoxin: mercury, formaldehyde, MSG and aluminum hydroxide. Researchers at the University of British Columbia have been looking at the possible effects of the fourth item in this list. They injected mice with anthrax vaccine containing aluminum hydroxide. After 20 weeks studying the mice, the team found statistically significant increases in anxiety (38 percent); memory deficits (41 times more errors than the sample group); and allergic skin reaction (20 percent).On autopsy, brain tissue samples showed that 35 percent of the cells were in the process of destroying themselves. According to Shaw, lead researcher for the project, his research shows a link between aluminum hydroxide and symptoms of Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and Lou Gehrig's

disease. "No one in my lab wants to get vaccinated," he said. Just a thought the HPV for little girls has by the time they receive the three doses 700 micrograms of aluminum with what Shaw found you know a little thing like neuron cell death it does appear we are assaulting their little brain with neuron warfare what do you want to bet it will show up later in Oh! I don't know maybe early onset Parkinson's, or Alzheimer's the FOOLS never learn"This totally creeped us out. We weren't out there to poke holes in vaccines. But all of a sudden, oh my God-we've got neuron death!" (www.straight.com/content/cfm?id=16717). According to Shaw; lead researcher, his

research shows a link between aluminum hydroxide and symptoms of Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and Lou Gehrig's disease. "No one in my lab wants to get vaccinated. Just a thought, we could learn from this statement From scientist's that know, and not just those spouting CDC propaganda as most are. Who try to defend putting toxic chemicals in our children's vaccines. A NIH study from Burbacher on Thimerosal and primates, if it works the same turns into ethyl mercury then it enters the brain of the child and it metabolizes into inorganic mercury. And research has shown that the most damaging to the mitochondria that depletes the glutathione is, inorganic mercury and monosodium glutamate (MSG, added to many Asian foods) I will bet MSG in children's vaccines is far worse than indicated MSG may also exacerbate a mitochondrial disorder. So Tom it seems that we may have

stumbled upon what autism really is and maybe the much worshipped FLU vaccine is causing the symptoms of Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and Lou Gehrig's disease. And I would be willing to bet that's where chronic fatigue syndrome is coming from. For you see we have always had a subset group that cannot dump heavy metals just do a google on Pinks disease it was one in five hundred children that contracted the disease Pinks which turned out to be mercury poisoning through teething powders the next statements are from history and you could exchange the word pinks for autism and you would have today's headlines but these are from history pinks was affecting one in five hundred children. It seems we had as the CDC puts it, a subset group that was vulnerable even back then. It seems we are repeating history. But unlike those children who got better and recovered,after the doctor.s reported the drug of choice was chelating. Today our

children aren't given the same chance to get better. The cure that was once used is now conveniently called anecdotal evidence. If it worked then, it will work now. If it was not dangerous then, it's not dangerous now. Please look at this historical document entitled "The rise and fall of Pink Disease". And please keep in mind that pink disease was contracted through oral ingestion of Mercury. Where as our children today are injected with Mercury. Oral ingestion travels through the bodies organs that filters out Mercury. And injected Mercury by-passes those filtering organs. It seems the opponents and sceptics that grew old and disappeared from the scene are back and repeating history . . . In the article below just remove the word Pinks and insert the word Autism and you will have today's disaster in a man made disease just like Pinks was and today it is a very well accepted as to the origin of the disease is being mercury

poisoning. This document is from history Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, London.This paper explores the social and medical history and context of pink disease (acrodynia), a serious disease of infants and young children that baffled the medical world during the first half of the twentieth century until it was shown to be caused by mercury poisoning. In the English-speaking world the commonest source of the mercury was teething powders, which were widely available and advertised with increasing sophistication. Efforts to control them (such as the BMJ's campaign against 'Secret Remedies') were as yet unsuccessful. The article discusses the social conditions that influenced the existence and recognition of pink disease, the delay in finding its cause, the way in which it was

explained as a virus infection or nutritional deficiency and why it seldom occurred outside the teething period. It discusses both professional and lay attitudes to health and diseases during the early twentieth century. and provides a model of how the disease developed in a specific social setting and how the medical profession attempted to deal with it within the limitations of contemporary professional thought. The resistance to the evidence of mercury poisoning is typical of resistance to new medical knowledge and declined only when the opponents and sceptics grew old and disappeared from the scene. Meanwhile, the cause having been identified and accepted, pink disease disappeared, but its consequences emerged much later, in an unexpected quarter, as a cause of male infertility.Publication Types: Historical

ArticlePMID: 11619497 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE Here's proof of the history of chelation working to stop an epidemic and the stupidity of the mainstream medical at large back then, It does appear that they have not gotten any brighter or maybe there just as greedy.[05/28/2000 1:44:08 AM](In fact, only 1 in 500 children exposed to the teething powders developed the disease). In 1950 authoritative British medical opinion was still cautious about the mercury hypothesis-an understandable caution, yet responsible, as it turned out, for the prolongation of the epidemic, with uncountable cost in human and financial terms, for several years later We in the autism community are always told, chelation is dangerous and voodoo science at best anecdotal evidence. Also don't look for mercury in your kid it's probably not in there anyway and it is very

expensive. It cost $90 dollars to test my son for mercury toxicity my sons levels were high in mercury he has a inability to excrete heavy metals and he has low glutathione the same as Hanah Poling. But the CDC could learn from these next lines.from history. It doe's appear that what the CDC and the AAP has been saying is dangerous, was the standard of care for industrial mercury poisoning and stopped the pinks disease epidemic, and in their own words from history "Several physicians gave their pink disease patients dimercaprol with gratifying cures"If you research why they are saying chelation is dangerous It's is because a child named adama was killed in a chelation therapy accident. But what they will not tell you is that when it happened that week a person from the CDC said (it was an accident they used the wrong chelation drug it

was for heart patients it stripped out the boys calcium and that killed the boy it had happened twice before and had it been regular chelation it would have been fine for it usually is harmless). Also it is on the CDCs own website if you get to much mercury it's necessary to chelate But slowly the evidence was stacking up against mercury. Dimercaprol (British anti-ite; BAL) is a chelating agent developed for military use against possible gas attacks and in the 1950s was the standard treatment for industrial mercury poisoning. Several physicians gave their pink disease patients dimercaprol with gratifying cures. (The drug was never tested in a proper controlled clinical trial as the disease disappeared before such a trial could be organized.) Why dangerous now, when we can see it clearly wasn't then could it be the children getting better if

chelated at an early age (like Christian from autism speaks who began to speak after chelation again for the first time since the vaccines took the child's voice away the grand son of the CEO of NBC and GE,) Proves this is a revisiting of mercury toxicity, And that is embarrassing to the CDC not to mention that this could end careers and send people to prison. Also destroying documents from the Vaccine Safety Data link is a felony. I wish reporters would do their own leg work and stop asking the fox if he ate the eggs, Just what do you expect the answer to be ?? I believe these Emails obtained through the FOIA puts this in perspective This email was from a senior FDA officer or CDC officer This was not rocket science this was 9th grade math how could this have happened CDC to another

CDC agent whats in the vaccines! how could the FDA approve a preservative with out knowing how much mercury it contains what else is lurking that we don't know aboutAS read at a congressional hearing on vaccines

And it is no longer going to wash, that their is no evidence of a risk AS read at a congerssional hearing on vaccines FDA officer to an FDA officer"were afraid the public will perceive us asleep at the switch for decades for allowing this dangerous compound to remain in the vaccines" notice he did not say perceivable dangerous compound These are the same people that you trust to tell you the truth about the flu vaccines containing mercury. All you have to do is dig, and you get to the truth. Isn't that your job? Warkany and Hubbard's reports of an association between mercury exposure and the disease was confirmed by several other workers, though these later reports also noted that urinary mercury levels were often high in healthy children too. In the rare

cases of industrial mercury poisoning that occurred, astute clinicians noted that in the recovery phase after the acute illness, a condition indistinguishable from pink disease could be seen for a few weeks. We in the autism community are always told, my child was vaccinated and he is fine. and I think this explains why. These below are from history on pinks aka mercury poisoning

Clearly, if mercury was responsible for the disease, it could not be simple poisoning, or all exposed children would suffer in a dose related manner; the children who became ill must be excessively sensitive to the poison (idiosyncrasy). In fact, only 1 in 500 children exposed to the teething powders developed the disease

You could change Parliament to CDC in the next lines and have today's thimerosal Autism delima And there the matter rested at impasse between the mercury hypothesis and the manufacturers of mercurials. In the absence of decisive evidence, Parliament declined repeated calls to ban the products (although several states in USA and Australia did so), and the disease remained a chronic and fearful curse. The impasse was finally broken in 1953 by Dr J G Dathan of Stokes-on-Trent. Upset and incensed by the miserable deaths of 2 of his young patients and refusing to certify the deaths as due to natural causes, he referred the cases to the coroner. The scientific cases for and against the mercury hypothesis were arrayed against each other in an English court of law-surely an unusual setting for a scientific debate. The jury found that the deaths were caused by mercury poisoning from

Steedman's teething powder-in one case by frank overdose and in the other because of unusual sensitivity of the child-and fearing litigation or Parliamentary action the manufacturers immediately removed the mercury from their preparations and recalled all old stocks. The other manufacturers gradually followed suit. 3 years later, in Sheffield, the intake of mercurials and the incidence of pink disease had both dropped sharply and by 1966 Warkany, the originator of the mercury hypothesis was able to write a final 'post mortem' article on pink disease in the "American Journal of Diseases of Children"-a rare, but deserved accolade for a dedicated (and lucky) medical scientist. The story illustrates the difficulty of achieving change when doctors are confronted by powerful commercial interests, and finds an echo in the 1980s in the continuing sagas of tobacco and lead. This is specially so when the

companies can muster 1 or 2 experts who will say that "the evidence is not yet decisive". In truth it is still not proven beyond doubt that mercury caused pink disease and it is still possible that an epidemic virus, now fortunately passed, caused it. Of course, that explanation is very implausible and now that the disease is departed no one is sufficiently interested to do more experiments. It is also true that had the world had waited for 100% proof of cause and effect, our children would probably still be ravaged by this dreadful, but preventable disease. It would be dishonest to close the pink disease story without one last remark, though as scientists we are embarrassed to have to make it. Warkany and Hubbard's original 1948 study on urinary mercury were drawn from Warkany's own practice in Cincinnati where the disease was rare and where teething powders were rarely used. Had the control

urines been taken from the geographical areas where patients came from, mercury would have been found in several apparently normal, healthy children, thus making the association far less striking. If Warkany and Hubbard had done a scientifically impeccable trial, the cause might never have been noticed.

Subject: Mainstream Science vs. Anecdotal EvidenceTo: EOHarm , chelatingkids2 Date: Friday, November 21, 2008, 7:08 PM

Hi Everyone,I had sent a post a couple weeks ago about a cement plant in my community that is the largest mercury polluter in New York State. I've started reaching out to some experts on environmental health, toxicology, etc. and I'm very discouraged by what I'm hearing. As soon as I mention I did a provoked urine challenge test to determine my son's heavy metal levels and that we're starting chelation next month, this is usually proceeded by "Oh my God! Chelation?! Please don't do chelation on your child. All the science points to this being more harmful than good."I don't understand why these experts who know the science make these claims. And then there's so many parents who also claim chelation has done wonders for their child. So now, beside the fact that this makes my research difficult because everyone I talk to cannot seem to get over this fact, but I'm also starting to second guess myself that maybe this isn't the best

approach. Getting the metals out makes so much sense to me. Does anyone know why so many professionals are against chelation?Thanks,Elyse

[Guest guest]

They don't know what they are talking about. It is commonly used as

a treatment for lead poisoning:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/lead-

poisoning/FL00068/DSECTION=treatments-and-drugs

or http://tinyurl.com/treat-lead

> >

> >

> > Hi Everyone,

> >

> > I had sent a post a couple weeks ago about a cement plant in my

> community that is the largest mercury polluter in New York State.

> I've started reaching out to some experts on environmental health,

> toxicology, etc. and I'm very discouraged by what I'm hearing. As

> soon as I mention I did a provoked urine challenge test to

determine

> my son's heavy metal levels and that we're starting chelation next

> month, this is usually proceeded by " Oh my God! Chelation?! Please

> don't do chelation on your child. All the science points to this

> being more harmful than good. "

> >

> > I don't understand why these experts who know the science make

> these claims. And then there's so many parents who also claim

> chelation has done wonders for their child. So now, beside the fact

> that this makes my research difficult because everyone I talk to

> cannot seem to get over this fact, but I'm also starting to second

> guess myself that maybe this isn't the best approach. Getting the

> metals out makes so much sense to me.

> >

> > Does anyone know why so many professionals are against chelation?

> >

> > Thanks,

> > Elyse

> >

>

[Guest guest]

This is from the 1991 Manufacturers Safety Data Sheet (MSDS)

for thimerosal

“Use of chelating agents may be needed to treat

ingestion of mercury”

Of course, one could argue that thimerosal is injected, not

ingested, and therefore this advisory is not pertinent, I suppose(!)

dk

[Guest guest]

--

Also very good for formaldehyde as well

Shirley Tenga, Bearda, Jalal Pourahmada, Majid Moridania,

Elaine Eassonb, Poonb and J. O'Brien, , a

a Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, 19 St., Toronto

Ont., Canada M5S 2S2

b Bureau of Chemical Hazards, Health Canada, Ottawa Ont., Canada

Available online 9 April 2001.

Abstract

The toxicity and carcinogenicity of formaldehyde (HCHO) has been

attributed to its ability to form adducts with DNA and proteins. A

marked decrease in mitochondrial membrane potential and inhibition of

mitochondrial respiration that was accompanied by reactive oxygen

species formation occurred when isolated rat hepatocytes were

incubated with low concentrations of HCHO in a dose-dependent manner.

Hepatocyte GSH was also depleted by HCHO in a dose-dependent manner.

At higher HCHO concentrations, lipid peroxidation ensued followed by

cell death. Cytotoxicity studies were conducted in which isolated

hepatocytes exposed to HCHO were treated with inhibitors of HCHO

metabolising enzymes. There was a marked increase in HCHO

cytotoxicity when either alcohol dehydrogenase or aldehyde

dehydrogenase was inhibited. Inhibition of GSH-dependent HCHO

dehydrogenase activity by prior depletion of GSH markedly increased

hepatocyte susceptibility to HCHO. In each case, cytotoxicity was

dose-dependent and corresponded with a decrease in hepatocyte HCHO

metabolism and increased lipid peroxidation. Antioxidants and iron

chelators protected against HCHO cytotoxicity. Cytotoxicity was also

prevented, when cyclosporine or carnitine was added to prevent the

opening of the mitochondrial permeability transition pore which

further suggests that HCHO targets the mitochondria. Thus, HCHO-

metabolising gene polymorphisms would be expected to have

toxicological consequences on an individual's susceptibility to HCHO

toxicity and carcinogenesis.

Author Keywords: Formaldehyde; Oxidative stress;

- In EOHarm , " thefitzenreiterfamily "

wrote:

>

> They don't know what they are talking about. It is commonly used

as

> a treatment for lead poisoning:

> http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/lead-

> poisoning/FL00068/DSECTION=treatments-and-drugs

>

> or http://tinyurl.com/treat-lead

>

> > >

> > >

> > > Hi Everyone,

> > >

> > > I had sent a post a couple weeks ago about a cement plant in my

> > community that is the largest mercury polluter in New York State.

> > I've started reaching out to some experts on environmental

health,

> > toxicology, etc. and I'm very discouraged by what I'm hearing. As

> > soon as I mention I did a provoked urine challenge test to

> determine

> > my son's heavy metal levels and that we're starting chelation

next

> > month, this is usually proceeded by " Oh my God! Chelation?!

Please

> > don't do chelation on your child. All the science points to this

> > being more harmful than good. "

> > >

> > > I don't understand why these experts who know the science make

> > these claims. And then there's so many parents who also claim

> > chelation has done wonders for their child. So now, beside the

fact

> > that this makes my research difficult because everyone I talk to

> > cannot seem to get over this fact, but I'm also starting to

second

> > guess myself that maybe this isn't the best approach. Getting the

> > metals out makes so much sense to me.

> > >

> > > Does anyone know why so many professionals are against

chelation?

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > > Elyse

> > >

> >

>