Re: MT promoter ingrediants

[Guest guest]

Like I said, Dr. Holmes stated that there's no NAC in the MT Promoter she is

prescribing. I asked her specifically. She's not giving out the ingredients.

G.I. Jo

Representative for Unlocking Autism in South Carolina

www.unlockingautism.org

In a message dated 3/29/02 9:45:40 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

Mum231ASD@... writes:

> Cut and paste from another list, perhaps there are different types, this one

>

> had NAC

>

> Here is the ingredients that

> Pfeiffer faxed me today. MT promoter is made up of amino acids and

> antioxidents:

> N-Acetyl-Cysteine 67.4 mg

> Serene 27.4 mg

> Lysine 35.7 mg

> Alanine 16.8 mg

> Glycine 11.6 mg

> Threonine 8.6 mg

> Proline 7.0 mg

> Aspartic Acid 8.5 mg

> Asparagine 5.5 mg

> Glutamic Acid 12.0 mg

> Methionine 6.3 mg

> Glutamine 4.4 mg

> Isoleucine 4.0 mg

> Valine 2.2 mcg

> Selenium 10 mcg

> Glutathione 150mg

[Guest guest]

What's in here that is suppose to do the chelating?

[Guest guest]

>What's in here that is suppose to do the chelating?

I believe the answer is " nothing " . I think it is not supposed

to chelate. It is supposed to improve MT functioning, which then

IN THOERY would lead to detox.

Andy says this rarely works out in practice.

Moria

[Guest guest]

> >What's in here that is suppose to do the chelating?

>

> I believe the answer is " nothing " . I think it is not supposed

> to chelate. It is supposed to improve MT functioning, which then

> IN THOERY would lead to detox.

Actually it doesn't even do it in theory. It simply creates more

inert storage space for mercury and other heavy metals so that the

amount present in the body is less bothersome.

>

> Andy says this rarely works out in practice.

Actually it is well known not to increase detox and not to clear the

brain, but increasing MT levels does result in symptomatic improvement

as long as MT levels remain elevated. That is why the zinc is

included in the supplement mix in my book - and the fact that mercury

impairs zinc absorption or retention is probably why mercury toxic

people show low in MT when tested. It is unlikely to be genetic.

>

> Moria

We continue to have the blind man and the elephant here. The doc's at

pfeiffer are feeling the zinc, copper and MT in all the elephants they

can find and keep talking about elephants (relevant disease

conditions) as being caused by zinc, MT etc. Much of the rest of

medicine is doing the same with some other part of the elephant.

Due to the lack of education (as opposed to training) in medical

schools, most doc's aren't adequately aware of the logical conundrum

regarding effects of a common cause. They infer causality when they

see A and B covary, without really considering whether changing A will

truly affect B, or whether both are controlled by something else and

changing A does nothing at all. One of the most recent examples that

is being bitterly fought over is cholesterol and heart disease. Both

are effects of homocysteine elevation, and doing things with

cholesterol aren't so helpful for preventing heart disease, while

homocysteine suppression works wonders (and cholesterol falls a lot

too).

Sorting out effects of a common cause from causal relationships is not

only something of philosophical interest to us logic choppers. It has

immediate and profound implications for your children. E. g. the doc

who screws around for a year trying to get your kid's yeast under

perfect control while putting off chelation as the clock ticks and the

ultimate prognosis for improvement on chelation gets dimmer and

dimmer. Yeast is a big problem. It makes developmental disorders

worse. It does not however cause them. In many cases toxic metals

cause both developmental disorders and yeast, and to really improve

both in the long term requires treating the toxins.

By all means do things to improve MT status. But vieww it like

treating yeast, the GFCF diet, or giving vitamins 4 times a day. It is

a stopgap until you address the underlying problem which will make all

these things less important

[Guest guest]

| > I believe the answer is " nothing " . I think it is not supposed

| > to chelate. It is supposed to improve MT functioning, which then

| > IN THOERY would lead to detox.

|

| Actually it doesn't even do it in theory. It simply creates more

| inert storage space for mercury and other heavy metals so that the

| amount present in the body is less bothersome.

Maybe this is a really good thing. Some kids have such injured guts that they

simply can not tolerate chelation. Let

me say that again - some kids can't tolerate the chelators! I know some have

started their kids on chelators and seen

great results, but others have had regressions. That's one reason why we have

(Andy's words) " the doc who screws

around for a year trying to get your kid's yeast under perfect control while

putting off chelation " . Perhaps

passivating some of the mercury boosts their systems enough to tolerate

everything, including chelation, better. Unlike

some, we don't have to view this as a black or white issue - either chelate or

use MT promotor. Should we discount this

MT approach out of hand based on theoretical concerns, or should we pay

attention to practitioners who are seeing

results?

| Actually it is well known not to increase detox and not to clear the

| brain, but increasing MT levels does result in symptomatic improvement

| as long as MT levels remain elevated. That is why the zinc is

| included in the supplement mix in my book - and the fact that mercury

| impairs zinc absorption or retention is probably why mercury toxic

| people show low in MT when tested. It is unlikely to be genetic.

Let's not trivialize symptomatic improvements! When I heard (Ph.D.) Dr. Walsh

speak the other day, he said that members

of his staff who were the first to take the MT promotor did experience detox

reactions (crabbiness). And he and others

are seeing positive results. I'm keeping my mind open.

| We continue to have the blind man and the elephant here. The doc's at

| pfeiffer are feeling the zinc, copper and MT in all the elephants they

| can find and keep talking about elephants (relevant disease

| conditions) as being caused by zinc, MT etc. Much of the rest of

| medicine is doing the same with some other part of the elephant.

|

| Due to the lack of education (as opposed to training) in medical schools,

| most doc's aren't adequately aware of the logical conundrum

| regarding effects of a common cause.... etc. etc...

Dr. Walsh is a Ph.D. chemist. Andy said he's heard the 'sales pitch'. Perhaps

he missed that detail. This cynicism

isn't helpful, especially from someone who is also selling something. I've

heard Dr. Walsh speak twice, and he comes

across as pragmatic and sincere. Don't forget that most of us care little who

gets credit for having the best, first,

whatever idea - we want our kids to get better, and if the MT promotor gives us

another means by which to do that, why

knock it?

K.

[Guest guest]

> | > I believe the answer is " nothing " . I think it is not supposed

> | > to chelate. It is supposed to improve MT functioning, which

then

> | > IN THOERY would lead to detox.

> |

> | Actually it doesn't even do it in theory. It simply creates more

> | inert storage space for mercury and other heavy metals so that the

> | amount present in the body is less bothersome.

>

> Maybe this is a really good thing.

It is. Which is why my supplement protocol in my book Amalgam Illness

(www.noamalgam.com) and those in all other books I have seen on the

subject are designed to increase MT expression.

>Some kids have such injured guts that they simply can not tolerate

chelation.

This is incorrect and one of those dangerous anti-health theories that

gives people permission to give up, let their kid stay sick, and feel

like they are doing their best by saving for a trust fund instead of

helping their child get healthier.

Inappropriate and harmful chelation is the problem.

Finding an appropriate and tolerable protocol for any given child can

be difficult, but there really aren't that many choices to try so it

is more a matter of wanting to do it than of it being impossibly hard.

Lack of appropriate supplement and medication protocols is also often

a problem.

>Let me say that again - some kids can't tolerate the chelators!

I have never heard of a case where anyone bothered to demonstrate this

by trying all the rational choices. I do not believe this is correct.

>I know some have started their kids on chelators and seen

> great results, but others have had regressions.

Yup. 90+% of those on inappropriate and harmful protocols, less than

10% on protocols you'd have some expectation might work.

> That's one reason why we have (Andy's words) " the doc who screws

> around for a year trying to get your kid's yeast under perfect

control while putting off chelation " .

Yup. The doc who gets you to do the wrong thing for your kid because

they don't understand enough of the relevant pharmacology to be able

to figure out how to proceed. The anti-yeast drugs as a rule are much

more dangerous than the chelators. The doc's simply know how to use

them properly so they don't get into trouble.

>Perhaps

> passivating some of the mercury boosts their systems enough to

tolerate everything, including chelation, better.

It definitely does. Which is why all supplement protocols developed

by people in the " mercury business " for a while specifically (and

often intentionally) boost MT levels.

>Unlike

> some, we don't have to view this as a black or white issue - either

chelate or use MT promotor.

Correct. It is not black and white as an either or. If you want your

toxic kid to permanently improve, you have 2 choices:

Chelate and use MT promoter;

Chelate and don't use MT promoter.

There is nothing wrong with using MT promoter and it may turn out to

be a very helpful palliative therapy. The error is in not chelating.

>Should we discount this

> MT approach out of hand based on theoretical concerns, or should we

pay attention to practitioners who are seeing

> results?

Please discuss their results. We may need to have some private

discussion of actual results versus stated results in a few of the

cases.

BTW, my definitions:

Cured = able to be mainstreamed INDEFNINTELY and to live independently

and support themselves as an adult without exceptional restrictions in

lifestyle.

In remission = able to be mainstreamed INDEFNINTELY and to live

independently and support themselves as an adult but requiring

significant restrictions in lifestyle (e. g. being GFCF).

Improved = substantial increase in ability to function, AND

substantial decrease in lifestyle restrictions.

Responding to therapy = substantial increase in ability to function,

while lifestyle restrictions and medical treatment continue.

My best understanding is that amongst the doc's who are publicizing

this a lot, their own family members at best are somewhere between

responding to therapy and improved.

>

> | Actually it is well known not to increase detox and not to clear

the

> | brain, but increasing MT levels does result in symptomatic

improvement

> | as long as MT levels remain elevated. That is why the zinc is

> | included in the supplement mix in my book - and the fact that

mercury

> | impairs zinc absorption or retention is probably why mercury toxic

> | people show low in MT when tested. It is unlikely to be genetic.

>

> Let's not trivialize symptomatic improvements! When I heard (Ph.D.)

Dr. Walsh speak the other day, he said that members

> of his staff who were the first to take the MT promotor did

experience detox reactions (crabbiness). And he and others

> are seeing positive results. I'm keeping my mind open.

I do NOT trivialize symptomatic improvements! I spend a lot of time

(mostly off list) crabbing about how breathtakingly CRIMINAL it is

that doc's blow off impaired children and sick adults whom they can't

cure with no real attempt to improve their lot. These people suffer A

LOT and it is incredibly important to do whatever we can to make their

lives better. These are real people with real lives! Even if the

best they can get out of life is to suffer and be impaired, it is VERY

IMPORTANT that their suffering and impairment be reduced as much as

possible!

This debate keeps getting mischaracterized. It is NOT that you have

to do it MY way or don't do anything. Do everything you can that

helps! If doing exactly the opposite of what I say helps the most,

then do it! The actual debate is how to do the BEST thing for these

children, not whether to do anything. I simply have some knowledge

and skills the " mainstream " trained health care people don't that lets

me make some specific suggestions in limited areas as to how to do it

better. If you've been on list very long, or look through the

archives, you will certainly see me repeatedly agreeing with people

who have tried it both ways and found that the way I think is USUALLY

a bad idea is what works for their kid that they should do what works

for their kid, not what is " theoretically beautiful. " The real issue

is one of statistics - if Doctor X prescribes DMSA/ALA every 8 hours

for ALL the kids, he is incompetent. If he prescibes it for 1 kid in

10 because after trying it both ways, that seems to work better, he is

practicing the art of medicine by letting science illuminate his work

so he finds the proper prescription for most people, then practicing

the art of medicine to find the correct prescription for the rest.

>

> | We continue to have the blind man and the elephant here. The

doc's at

> | pfeiffer are feeling the zinc, copper and MT in all the elephants

they

> | can find and keep talking about elephants (relevant disease

> | conditions) as being caused by zinc, MT etc. Much of the rest of

> | medicine is doing the same with some other part of the elephant.

> |

> | Due to the lack of education (as opposed to training) in medical

schools,

> | most doc's aren't adequately aware of the logical conundrum

> | regarding effects of a common cause.... etc. etc...

>

> Dr. Walsh is a Ph.D. chemist.

I am aware of his background and we have spoken before.

>Andy said he's heard the 'sales pitch'. Perhaps he missed that

detail.

I did not miss the detail. The detail is quite convincing that it is

a faddish rather than chemically based therapy.

>This cynicism

> isn't helpful, especially from someone who is also selling

something.

What am I selling that competes with MT promoter? This is even better

sophistry than the MT promoter sales pitch with the nonsense about how

the amino acids being in exactly the same proportion as in the

relevant protein is significant.

Please note that I have never said NOT to take MT promoter. Thus I am

not making ANY attempt to cut into their sales (though I did tell you

how to do it more cheaply). I am saying even if you do use MT

promoter you still have to chelate if you have a lead, mercury,

antimony or arsenic toxic kid. If copper is their ONLY problem, MT

promoter may be all they need.

>I've heard Dr. Walsh speak twice, and he comes

> across as pragmatic and sincere.

I believe he is pragmatic and sincere. I hope I have never given any

other impression. I simply don't agree with him on the relevant

biochemistry and pharmacology.

>Don't forget that most of us care little who gets credit for having

the best, first,

> whatever idea - we want our kids to get better, and if the MT

promotor gives us another means by which to do that, why

> knock it?

Because you can end up really screwing your kid up by not bothering to

use curative therapy -

[Guest guest]

BTW, if you have read andy's book he actually mentions pfeiffer

treatment center as a recommendation.

--- In @y..., " andrewhallcutler " <AndyCutler@a...>

wrote:

> --- In @y..., " The Kramer Family " <nmkramer@e...>

wrote:

> > | > I believe the answer is " nothing " . I think it is not supposed

> > | > to chelate. It is supposed to improve MT functioning, which

> then

> > | > IN THOERY would lead to detox.

> > |

> > | Actually it doesn't even do it in theory. It simply creates

more

> > | inert storage space for mercury and other heavy metals so that

the

> > | amount present in the body is less bothersome.

> >

> > Maybe this is a really good thing.

>

> It is. Which is why my supplement protocol in my book Amalgam

Illness

> (www.noamalgam.com) and those in all other books I have seen on the

> subject are designed to increase MT expression.

>

> >Some kids have such injured guts that they simply can not tolerate

> chelation.

>

> This is incorrect and one of those dangerous anti-health theories

that

> gives people permission to give up, let their kid stay sick, and

feel

> like they are doing their best by saving for a trust fund instead

of

> helping their child get healthier.

>

> Inappropriate and harmful chelation is the problem.

>

> Finding an appropriate and tolerable protocol for any given child

can

> be difficult, but there really aren't that many choices to try so

it

> is more a matter of wanting to do it than of it being impossibly

hard.

>

> Lack of appropriate supplement and medication protocols is also

often

> a problem.

>

> >Let me say that again - some kids can't tolerate the chelators!

>

> I have never heard of a case where anyone bothered to demonstrate

this

> by trying all the rational choices. I do not believe this is

correct.

>

> >I know some have started their kids on chelators and seen

> > great results, but others have had regressions.

>

> Yup. 90+% of those on inappropriate and harmful protocols, less

than

> 10% on protocols you'd have some expectation might work.

>

> > That's one reason why we have (Andy's words) " the doc who screws

> > around for a year trying to get your kid's yeast under perfect

> control while putting off chelation " .

>

> Yup. The doc who gets you to do the wrong thing for your kid

because

> they don't understand enough of the relevant pharmacology to be

able

> to figure out how to proceed. The anti-yeast drugs as a rule are

much

> more dangerous than the chelators. The doc's simply know how to use

> them properly so they don't get into trouble.

>

> >Perhaps

> > passivating some of the mercury boosts their systems enough to

> tolerate everything, including chelation, better.

>

> It definitely does. Which is why all supplement protocols

developed

> by people in the " mercury business " for a while specifically (and

> often intentionally) boost MT levels.

>

> >Unlike

> > some, we don't have to view this as a black or white issue -

either

> chelate or use MT promotor.

>

> Correct. It is not black and white as an either or. If you want

your

> toxic kid to permanently improve, you have 2 choices:

>

> Chelate and use MT promoter;

>

> Chelate and don't use MT promoter.

>

> There is nothing wrong with using MT promoter and it may turn out

to

> be a very helpful palliative therapy. The error is in not

chelating.

>

> >Should we discount this

> > MT approach out of hand based on theoretical concerns, or should

we

> pay attention to practitioners who are seeing

> > results?

>

> Please discuss their results. We may need to have some private

> discussion of actual results versus stated results in a few of the

> cases.

>

> BTW, my definitions:

>

> Cured = able to be mainstreamed INDEFNINTELY and to live

independently

> and support themselves as an adult without exceptional restrictions

in

> lifestyle.

>

> In remission = able to be mainstreamed INDEFNINTELY and to live

> independently and support themselves as an adult but requiring

> significant restrictions in lifestyle (e. g. being GFCF).

>

> Improved = substantial increase in ability to function, AND

> substantial decrease in lifestyle restrictions.

>

> Responding to therapy = substantial increase in ability to

function,

> while lifestyle restrictions and medical treatment continue.

>

> My best understanding is that amongst the doc's who are publicizing

> this a lot, their own family members at best are somewhere between

> responding to therapy and improved.

> >

> > | Actually it is well known not to increase detox and not to

clear

> the

> > | brain, but increasing MT levels does result in symptomatic

> improvement

> > | as long as MT levels remain elevated. That is why the zinc is

> > | included in the supplement mix in my book - and the fact that

> mercury

> > | impairs zinc absorption or retention is probably why mercury

toxic

> > | people show low in MT when tested. It is unlikely to be

genetic.

> >

> > Let's not trivialize symptomatic improvements! When I heard

(Ph.D.)

> Dr. Walsh speak the other day, he said that members

> > of his staff who were the first to take the MT promotor did

> experience detox reactions (crabbiness). And he and others

> > are seeing positive results. I'm keeping my mind open.

>

> I do NOT trivialize symptomatic improvements! I spend a lot of

time

> (mostly off list) crabbing about how breathtakingly CRIMINAL it is

> that doc's blow off impaired children and sick adults whom they

can't

> cure with no real attempt to improve their lot. These people

suffer A

> LOT and it is incredibly important to do whatever we can to make

their

> lives better. These are real people with real lives! Even if the

> best they can get out of life is to suffer and be impaired, it is

VERY

> IMPORTANT that their suffering and impairment be reduced as much as

> possible!

>

> This debate keeps getting mischaracterized. It is NOT that you

have

> to do it MY way or don't do anything. Do everything you can that

> helps! If doing exactly the opposite of what I say helps the most,

> then do it! The actual debate is how to do the BEST thing for

these

> children, not whether to do anything. I simply have some knowledge

> and skills the " mainstream " trained health care people don't that

lets

> me make some specific suggestions in limited areas as to how to do

it

> better. If you've been on list very long, or look through the

> archives, you will certainly see me repeatedly agreeing with people

> who have tried it both ways and found that the way I think is

USUALLY

> a bad idea is what works for their kid that they should do what

works

> for their kid, not what is " theoretically beautiful. " The real

issue

> is one of statistics - if Doctor X prescribes DMSA/ALA every 8

hours

> for ALL the kids, he is incompetent. If he prescibes it for 1 kid

in

> 10 because after trying it both ways, that seems to work better, he

is

> practicing the art of medicine by letting science illuminate his

work

> so he finds the proper prescription for most people, then

practicing

> the art of medicine to find the correct prescription for the rest.

> >

> > | We continue to have the blind man and the elephant here. The

> doc's at

> > | pfeiffer are feeling the zinc, copper and MT in all the

elephants

> they

> > | can find and keep talking about elephants (relevant disease

> > | conditions) as being caused by zinc, MT etc. Much of the rest

of

> > | medicine is doing the same with some other part of the elephant.

> > |

> > | Due to the lack of education (as opposed to training) in

medical

> schools,

> > | most doc's aren't adequately aware of the logical conundrum

> > | regarding effects of a common cause.... etc. etc...

> >

> > Dr. Walsh is a Ph.D. chemist.

>

> I am aware of his background and we have spoken before.

>

> >Andy said he's heard the 'sales pitch'. Perhaps he missed that

> detail.

>

> I did not miss the detail. The detail is quite convincing that it

is

> a faddish rather than chemically based therapy.

>

> >This cynicism

> > isn't helpful, especially from someone who is also selling

> something.

>

> What am I selling that competes with MT promoter? This is even

better

> sophistry than the MT promoter sales pitch with the nonsense about

how

> the amino acids being in exactly the same proportion as in the

> relevant protein is significant.

>

> Please note that I have never said NOT to take MT promoter. Thus I

am

> not making ANY attempt to cut into their sales (though I did tell

you

> how to do it more cheaply). I am saying even if you do use MT

> promoter you still have to chelate if you have a lead, mercury,

> antimony or arsenic toxic kid. If copper is their ONLY problem, MT

> promoter may be all they need.

>

> >I've heard Dr. Walsh speak twice, and he comes

> > across as pragmatic and sincere.

>

> I believe he is pragmatic and sincere. I hope I have never given

any

> other impression. I simply don't agree with him on the relevant

> biochemistry and pharmacology.

>

> >Don't forget that most of us care little who gets credit for

having

> the best, first,

> > whatever idea - we want our kids to get better, and if the MT

> promotor gives us another means by which to do that, why

> > knock it?

>

> Because you can end up really screwing your kid up by not bothering

to

> use curative therapy -