Re: Provocative Challenge test question??

[Guest guest]

> provocative challenge test to check for mercury.

> ... snip ...

>

> I am interested in opinions on the usefulness of this test.

It has no diagnostic utility.

>Would

> every kid on the face of the earth receive a recommendation to

> proceed with chelation therapy after taking this test?

Depends on the doctor. With most alternative doctors, yes.

A few are intellectually honest enough that they do actually have a

number they use to decide, but it is totally random and this simply

means they deny therapy to some people who would benefit from it but

happen to score low.

>Is there some

> level of mercury in the post test that triggers concern and is

> clearly abnormal?

No.

>If I administered the test to my typical four year

> old son and said the urine was my 2 year old's would I still receive

> a recommendation for chelatin therapy?

Yes.

> We are also paying for 20 hours a week of home based ABA therapy.

> Our son has made improvements but it is certainly not clear if he

> will be one of those magical recovery cases.

Well, chelation can be pretty magic. So it is probably worth a try.

Using a reasonable protocol, not the ones the chelation doctors often

prescribe.

Also, chelation is CHEAP if you do it sensibly (no iv's, no frivolous

testing) and if you cut your ABA back to 18 or 19 hours a week that

would more than cover the cost of chelation supplies.

> Will the challenge test

> truly be of any use in our decision on chelation therapy?

No, but if you DO want something useful, go to

/files/HOW_TO_hair_test

and read about one test that is genuinely diagnostic. A lot cheaper

than the challenge test, too.

Another really cheap test is to just get some alpha lipoic acid and

try chelation. Most people report noticeable changes in a cycle or

two. 10-20 mg alpha lipoic acid every 3 hours (day and night, 4 is OK

at night but getting up at night is VERY IMPORTANT) for 3 days. If

you decide to chelate him you get to do that a lot of times.

You also want to give him some vitamin C 4 or more times a day while

you try the chelation. If you like what it does you will want to add

in more supplements later.

Andy . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .

[Guest guest]

Have you had a DDI hair analysis done and applied counting rules? If so, what

did it show? That's generally more useful than a challenge test. If you choose

to do a challenge please read the FAQ of this list regarding dosing and dose

schedule and seriously consider to the challenge as part of the first actual

" low and slow " round of chelation. S

From: st_haney [mailto: st_haney@...]To:

@...: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 01:55:48 -0000Subject:

[ ] Provocative Challenge test question??Recently it was

recommended that our 2.3 Autistic Spectrum Disorder son have a provocative

challenge test to check for mercury. Most here are probably familiar but

basically the idea is collect urine for some time period then give 100 mg DMSA

and collect urine again. The amounts of mercury and other heavy metals pre and

post test are compared.I am interested in opinions on the usefulness of this

test. Would every kid on the face of the earth receive a recommendation to

proceed with chelation therapy after taking this test? Is there some level of

mercury in the post test that triggers concern and is clearly abnormal? If I

administered the test to my typical four year old son and said the urine was my

2 year old's would I still receive a recommendation for chelatin therapy? Has

anybody with autistic kids out there not proceeded with chelation therapy

because of the results of this test?I am on the fence about chelation therapy

(probably obvious). We are currently CFGF, giving epson salt baths,

supplementing cod liver oil, Kirkmans everyday and companion, DMG, iron,

acidophilus and bifidus. We are also paying for 20 hours a week of home based

ABA therapy. Our son has made improvements but it is certainly not clear if he

will be one of those magical recovery cases. Will the challenge test truly be

of any use in our decision on chelation therapy?

[Guest guest]

--- In @y..., " Shepard " <_Shepard@e...>

wrote:

> Have you had a DDI hair analysis done and applied counting rules?

If so, what did it show?

We had a hair analysis done at another lab. I think it was Great

Smokies. We need to get the doctor to fax us a copy of the results

so I can see if I can translate the counting rules to this different

format. What I remember was high readings for bismuth (when I look

up bismuth on the internet I see lots of stuff saying it is not

toxic, is it toxic?), aluminum, and antimony among the toxic group.

For other minerals zinc and calcium were low but I think the rest

were actually fairly well clustered around the midrange. Again I

need to review the results and the counting rules again but from my

quick read it seems this is not strongly pointing to a mercury

problem.

I actually read the FAQ after my first post and saw the section on

the challenge test.

My wife may use veto power but I have decided the challenge test is

probably a waste of money and effort. I was leaning this way and the

FAQ and response I received from Andy helped gel this opinion.

I am more sympathetic to some low dose/slow trial rounds to see if

there are noticeable improvements. Why use ALA instead of DMSA for

an initial trial (as Andy suggested)? Is this safer? Thanks.

[Guest guest]

,What I remember was high readings for bismuth (when I look up bismuth on

the internet I see lots of stuff saying it is not toxic, is it toxic?),

(my understanding is that it can cause problems but I don't have much useful

info, know it's in Pepto Bismol and some make-up and can in some cases cause a

bluish discoloration of the gums similar to amalgam " tattoos " , but not much

more)

aluminum,

***Have you identified and reduced/eliminated exposure to these?...fluoridated

tap water, cookware, baking powder, soda cans, etc.

and antimony

***sleepwear, bedding, stain resistance agents

among the toxic group. For other minerals zinc and calcium were low but I

think the rest were actually fairly well clustered around the midrange. Again I

need to review the results and the counting rules again but from my quick read

it seems this is not strongly pointing to a mercury problem.I actually read the

FAQ after my first post and saw the section on the challenge test.My wife may

use veto power but I have decided the challenge test is probably a waste of

money and effort. I was leaning this way and the FAQ and response I received

from Andy helped gel this opinion.I am more sympathetic to some low dose/slow

trial rounds to see if there are noticeable improvements. Why use ALA instead

of DMSA for an initial trial (as Andy suggested)?

Perhaps because it's OTC and you can get it w/o a doc.

Is this safer? Thanks.

[Guest guest]

> We had a hair analysis done at another lab. I think it was Great

> Smokies. We need to get the doctor to fax us a copy of the results

> so I can see if I can translate the counting rules to this different

> format.

sorry, but it does not " translate " . The general PRINCIPLE

applies: that is, that " skewed " mineral levels all over the

place are an indicator of likely mercury poisoning. However,

the number of essential elements shown and the way the

percentiles are represented (what % = red) differ from test

to test. The DDI " rules " don't apply to GSDL tests. In

fact if you look in the counting rules file, you'll find

a note about that GSDL changed the format of the test results

(about Aug 2001???) and since that time there are no

" counting rules " for their test.

With that said, I will admit that I got a hair test from

a different lab and so the counting rules did NOT apply---

but, just looking at the test, the minerals looked pretty

messed up. (This was before I knew about DLS!) So, I am

not saying that looking to see if it " just looks odd "

may not be some help. I never say that this test failed

the counting rules BTW--- there aren't any. After several

months of chelation, however, I got a DDI test, and the

actual numbers had changed a lot---- which to me is ALSO

an indicator that the 1st test had impaired mineral

transport.

best wishes,

Moria

p.s. I am about 3 or 4 days behind on answering posts.

[Guest guest]

,

you wrote - Why use ALA instead of DMSA for

an initial trial (as Andy suggested)? Is this safer?

I believe and someone can correct me if I am mistaken - the reason

Andy suggests this is because ALA removes Mercury from the brain and

body tissues and DMSA doesn't. The brain mercury is what you are

ultimately after to remove (along with any body mercury). Doing a

trial runs with the ALA will give you an indication of mercury

toxicity, if it is present and if chelation will help.

TK

> > Have you had a DDI hair analysis done and applied counting

rules?

> If so, what did it show?

>

> We had a hair analysis done at another lab. I think it was Great

> Smokies. We need to get the doctor to fax us a copy of the results

> so I can see if I can translate the counting rules to this

different

> format. What I remember was high readings for bismuth (when I look

> up bismuth on the internet I see lots of stuff saying it is not

> toxic, is it toxic?), aluminum, and antimony among the toxic

group.

> For other minerals zinc and calcium were low but I think the rest

> were actually fairly well clustered around the midrange. Again I

> need to review the results and the counting rules again but from my

> quick read it seems this is not strongly pointing to a mercury

> problem.

>

> I actually read the FAQ after my first post and saw the section on

> the challenge test.

>

> My wife may use veto power but I have decided the challenge test is

> probably a waste of money and effort. I was leaning this way and

the

> FAQ and response I received from Andy helped gel this opinion.

>

> I am more sympathetic to some low dose/slow trial rounds to see if

> there are noticeable improvements. Why use ALA instead of DMSA for

> an initial trial (as Andy suggested)? Is this safer? Thanks.

>

>

[Guest guest]

It will also remove the mercury from the body first so that it does not renter

or redistribute to the brain.Body first then brain,those are the rules.HA<HA

Seriously though, if you do follow Andy's words of wisdom your child will

probably do a whole lot better.

R

[Guest guest]

Regarding my question about using ALA for an initial chelation trial

instead of DMSA...

My main reason for asking is that I have seen several protocols that

recommend using DMSA to remove mercury from the body for a time

before adding ALA. It makes intuitive (which I realize is not always

right) sense to me that if there was a higher concentration of

mercury in the body than in the brain that an initial trial of ALA

might result in more mercury settling into the brain than was there

previously.

It sure looks like DMSA can be obtained without going through a

doctor. Then again I don't have the capsules in front of me to prove

it.

Thanks for all the responses.