Re: paper in the journal Toxicology

[Guest guest]

>

> For those who haven't seen this yet, it is a must-read!

>

You're right, this is a must-read. Very interesting.

The discussion about NAC/glutathione/zinc/selenium was particularly

intriguing, especially the possiblity that they--one or all--may be

counter-productive when taken with DMSA/DMPS.

I was also struck by the study that " reported that blood selenium

levels were significantly lower in subjects who claimed symptoms of

'mercury amalgam illness' than in healthy subjects with amalgam. "

Thanks for posting this link.

[Guest guest]

> For those who haven't seen this yet, it is a must-read!

Yes, a good read. It does say that the half-life of DMSA is 3.2 hours however?

What do we make of this?

Dean

__,_

Yes,._,___

[Guest guest]

> For those who haven't seen this yet, it is a must-read!

Yes, a good read. It does say that the half-life of DMSA is 3.2 hours however?

What do we make of this?

Dean

__,_

Yes,._,___

[Guest guest]

> For those who haven't seen this yet, it is a must-read!

Yes, a good read. It does say that the half-life of DMSA is 3.2 hours however?

What do we make of this?

Dean

__,_

Yes,._,___

[Guest guest]

>

> Hi, any chance for those of us who don't have access to the

Autism-Mercury

> list to be able to read this article?

>

It's easy to join autism mercury and set your status to no mail.

There are a couple of things in the files and links that are worth

reading.

Or, email me and I will reply and attach a copy (if you don't mind

receiving attachments - my computer is virus scanned by free internet

software)(offer extended to anyone who wants a copy).

I am going to write to the publisher and ask permission to put it in

the files here.

J

> thanks,

> NJ

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> > For those who haven't seen this yet, it is a must-read!

>

> Yes, a good read. It does say that the half-life of DMSA is 3.2

hours however?

> What do we make of this?

I would pay more attention to the fact that 4 hours is what

generally works for lots of people.

--

> Dean

> __,_

>

> Yes,._,___

>

[Guest guest]

>

> > For those who haven't seen this yet, it is a must-read!

>

> Yes, a good read. It does say that the half-life of DMSA is 3.2

hours however?

> What do we make of this?

I would pay more attention to the fact that 4 hours is what

generally works for lots of people.

--

> Dean

> __,_

>

> Yes,._,___

>

[Guest guest]

>

> > For those who haven't seen this yet, it is a must-read!

>

> Yes, a good read. It does say that the half-life of DMSA is 3.2

hours however?

> What do we make of this?

I would pay more attention to the fact that 4 hours is what

generally works for lots of people.

--

> Dean

> __,_

>

> Yes,._,___

>

[Guest guest]

>

> > For those who haven't seen this yet, it is a must-read!

>

> Yes, a good read. It does say that the half-life of DMSA is 3.2

hours however?

> What do we make of this?

In " Amalgam Illness " Andy doesn't say which papers he used to

calculate half life (at least I didn't find that).

The two papers that Rooney cites for DMSA half life (Aposhian et al

1992b and Frumkin et al 2001) weren't cited by Andy in " Amalgam

Illness " , so those weren't the ones that he used (the 2001 paper

hadn't been written yet). He must have used other sources.

Half life is different in different people. Some drugs have a broad

range - others a narrow, tight range. Different papers probably

report different results depending on how the studies were done.

Most people seem to be ok dosing at 4 h intervals. Andy always says

more frequently is ok. Taking DMSA and ALA together will be at 3 h

intervals anyway.

The other common dosing times found out there in the underground world

of chelation are once a day, once every 48 h, and every 8 h (the DAN

favorite). Those protocols are so wrong. Taking doses every 4 h is

way, way better than every 8, 24, or 48h. Maybe Rooney's paper will

get some people thinking.

J

> Dean

> __,_

>

> Yes,._,___

>

[Guest guest]

>

> > For those who haven't seen this yet, it is a must-read!

>

> Yes, a good read. It does say that the half-life of DMSA is 3.2

hours however?

> What do we make of this?

In " Amalgam Illness " Andy doesn't say which papers he used to

calculate half life (at least I didn't find that).

The two papers that Rooney cites for DMSA half life (Aposhian et al

1992b and Frumkin et al 2001) weren't cited by Andy in " Amalgam

Illness " , so those weren't the ones that he used (the 2001 paper

hadn't been written yet). He must have used other sources.

Half life is different in different people. Some drugs have a broad

range - others a narrow, tight range. Different papers probably

report different results depending on how the studies were done.

Most people seem to be ok dosing at 4 h intervals. Andy always says

more frequently is ok. Taking DMSA and ALA together will be at 3 h

intervals anyway.

The other common dosing times found out there in the underground world

of chelation are once a day, once every 48 h, and every 8 h (the DAN

favorite). Those protocols are so wrong. Taking doses every 4 h is

way, way better than every 8, 24, or 48h. Maybe Rooney's paper will

get some people thinking.

J

> Dean

> __,_

>

> Yes,._,___

>

[Guest guest]

>

> > For those who haven't seen this yet, it is a must-read!

>

> Yes, a good read. It does say that the half-life of DMSA is 3.2

hours however?

> What do we make of this?

In " Amalgam Illness " Andy doesn't say which papers he used to

calculate half life (at least I didn't find that).

The two papers that Rooney cites for DMSA half life (Aposhian et al

1992b and Frumkin et al 2001) weren't cited by Andy in " Amalgam

Illness " , so those weren't the ones that he used (the 2001 paper

hadn't been written yet). He must have used other sources.

Half life is different in different people. Some drugs have a broad

range - others a narrow, tight range. Different papers probably

report different results depending on how the studies were done.

Most people seem to be ok dosing at 4 h intervals. Andy always says

more frequently is ok. Taking DMSA and ALA together will be at 3 h

intervals anyway.

The other common dosing times found out there in the underground world

of chelation are once a day, once every 48 h, and every 8 h (the DAN

favorite). Those protocols are so wrong. Taking doses every 4 h is

way, way better than every 8, 24, or 48h. Maybe Rooney's paper will

get some people thinking.

J

> Dean

> __,_

>

> Yes,._,___

>

[Guest guest]

In writing the book, I did not play academic dweeb and cite tons of material,

even though I

used a lot of it. I mostly cited stuff that is worth reading and only played

academic dweeb

for the page 16-25 section. For example I did not cite the Leskova paper even

though it is

very important because it is in Russian and I thought it unlikely most people

who read my

book could read it.

My half life estimates are based on compilation of all data in the literature

available to me

(I'm a kineticist, I don't take the word of liberal arts majors like MD's for

what the rate

constant is without personally evaluating the data) which did include much of

this and

other information.

Also note that there is person to person variation, and also the effects of oral

administration on kinetics need to be considered so it isn't as simple as

selecting a

random paper, gullibly believing whatever the author says, and setting an alarm

clock for

1.000 X plasma halflife.

While Dr. Rooney chose to think and write a good paper, it seems unlikely it

will encourage

too many others to do so.

Data bias ( " Different papers probably report different results depending on how

the

studies were done) is a major issue and one as a kineticist I do know how to pay

attention

to. Liberal arts majors doing the trained monkey act of aping scientists mostly

pay

attention to pushing the numbers into a statistical package on a computer,

reporting what

it says and not even discussing what that means, much less considering the

reality that

while there are equations to handle random variation due to sampling, the real

issue in

almost all experimental research is the sampling bias (also known as systematic

error)

which can't be addressed mathematically.

Andy

> >

> > > For those who haven't seen this yet, it is a must-read!

> >

> > Yes, a good read. It does say that the half-life of DMSA is 3.2

> hours however?

> > What do we make of this?

>

>

>

>

> In " Amalgam Illness " Andy doesn't say which papers he used to

> calculate half life (at least I didn't find that).

>

> The two papers that Rooney cites for DMSA half life (Aposhian et al

> 1992b and Frumkin et al 2001) weren't cited by Andy in " Amalgam

> Illness " , so those weren't the ones that he used (the 2001 paper

> hadn't been written yet). He must have used other sources.

>

> Half life is different in different people. Some drugs have a broad

> range - others a narrow, tight range. Different papers probably

> report different results depending on how the studies were done.

>

> Most people seem to be ok dosing at 4 h intervals. Andy always says

> more frequently is ok. Taking DMSA and ALA together will be at 3 h

> intervals anyway.

>

> The other common dosing times found out there in the underground world

> of chelation are once a day, once every 48 h, and every 8 h (the DAN

> favorite). Those protocols are so wrong. Taking doses every 4 h is

> way, way better than every 8, 24, or 48h. Maybe Rooney's paper will

> get some people thinking.

>

> J

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> > Dean

> > __,_

> >

> > Yes,._,___

> >

>