Guest guest Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 , thank you for this explanation. I already know I'm mercury toxic (although I supposedly got it all out years ago with IV chelation. It never made me feel better, and in some ways worse. After reading things you're all saying, I'd be pretty willing to bet the EDTA made me worse. I certainly have all the conditions, the only thing alleviating anything are the glyconutrients I take, but the brain fog and chemical sensitivities are worse than ever. Initially I figured to do chelation through my doc again and wanted to do the urine testing (which did show I was very mercury toxic back then) to get started. I simultaneously started coming onto these lists and you're all helping me learn a lot. I'm going to probably do the hair testing to see what does or doesn't show, but will be acting on the mercury toxicity either way because I know this is still a problem. Thank you! : Donna > > > > , if " false negatives " are not uncommon, how can we rely on > > any of the results? *sigh* I'm thinking to do the hair analysis, but > > this makes me wonder why... > > : Donna > > > > Tests of any kind have error rates (false positives, false negatives). > The counting rules have extremely few false positives - so if you > meet them, you can rely on that result. Even if you don't meet the > rules, there are a number of features of the test that raise > suspicion. > > There are some false negatives - I am not saying it is common, but > it does happen. Andy says it can happen when a person is doing > things to help their body work better (such as taking a lot of > supplements), when the exposure is very old or when the mercury > is mostly in the brain. (I supplemented heavily for several > years, my exposure was mostly old, and a lot of my metals are > likely to be in the brain, and I still met the counting rules. > So these factors do not preclude meeting the rules.) > > You don't need to do the test. If you feel your symptoms are > consistent with the description of mercury poisoning that Andy > describes in his books, then a trial of chelation is a good idea > and will settle the question of whether you are toxic. > > -- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 , thank you for this explanation. I already know I'm mercury toxic (although I supposedly got it all out years ago with IV chelation. It never made me feel better, and in some ways worse. After reading things you're all saying, I'd be pretty willing to bet the EDTA made me worse. I certainly have all the conditions, the only thing alleviating anything are the glyconutrients I take, but the brain fog and chemical sensitivities are worse than ever. Initially I figured to do chelation through my doc again and wanted to do the urine testing (which did show I was very mercury toxic back then) to get started. I simultaneously started coming onto these lists and you're all helping me learn a lot. I'm going to probably do the hair testing to see what does or doesn't show, but will be acting on the mercury toxicity either way because I know this is still a problem. Thank you! : Donna > > > > , if " false negatives " are not uncommon, how can we rely on > > any of the results? *sigh* I'm thinking to do the hair analysis, but > > this makes me wonder why... > > : Donna > > > > Tests of any kind have error rates (false positives, false negatives). > The counting rules have extremely few false positives - so if you > meet them, you can rely on that result. Even if you don't meet the > rules, there are a number of features of the test that raise > suspicion. > > There are some false negatives - I am not saying it is common, but > it does happen. Andy says it can happen when a person is doing > things to help their body work better (such as taking a lot of > supplements), when the exposure is very old or when the mercury > is mostly in the brain. (I supplemented heavily for several > years, my exposure was mostly old, and a lot of my metals are > likely to be in the brain, and I still met the counting rules. > So these factors do not preclude meeting the rules.) > > You don't need to do the test. If you feel your symptoms are > consistent with the description of mercury poisoning that Andy > describes in his books, then a trial of chelation is a good idea > and will settle the question of whether you are toxic. > > -- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 , thank you for this explanation. I already know I'm mercury toxic (although I supposedly got it all out years ago with IV chelation. It never made me feel better, and in some ways worse. After reading things you're all saying, I'd be pretty willing to bet the EDTA made me worse. I certainly have all the conditions, the only thing alleviating anything are the glyconutrients I take, but the brain fog and chemical sensitivities are worse than ever. Initially I figured to do chelation through my doc again and wanted to do the urine testing (which did show I was very mercury toxic back then) to get started. I simultaneously started coming onto these lists and you're all helping me learn a lot. I'm going to probably do the hair testing to see what does or doesn't show, but will be acting on the mercury toxicity either way because I know this is still a problem. Thank you! : Donna > > > > , if " false negatives " are not uncommon, how can we rely on > > any of the results? *sigh* I'm thinking to do the hair analysis, but > > this makes me wonder why... > > : Donna > > > > Tests of any kind have error rates (false positives, false negatives). > The counting rules have extremely few false positives - so if you > meet them, you can rely on that result. Even if you don't meet the > rules, there are a number of features of the test that raise > suspicion. > > There are some false negatives - I am not saying it is common, but > it does happen. Andy says it can happen when a person is doing > things to help their body work better (such as taking a lot of > supplements), when the exposure is very old or when the mercury > is mostly in the brain. (I supplemented heavily for several > years, my exposure was mostly old, and a lot of my metals are > likely to be in the brain, and I still met the counting rules. > So these factors do not preclude meeting the rules.) > > You don't need to do the test. If you feel your symptoms are > consistent with the description of mercury poisoning that Andy > describes in his books, then a trial of chelation is a good idea > and will settle the question of whether you are toxic. > > -- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 11, 2007 Report Share Posted March 11, 2007 Donna, The high chelator doses given in your IV chelation stirred up a lot of mercury, but it's likely only some of that mercury got excreted. The amount of mercury stirred up probably exceeded your body's ability to excrete it. In that case, the mercury just gets moved from one part of the body and dropped in another part, including into your brain. I don't think you got it all out, I think you just got it in new places. Hair analysis will not reflect the amount of mercury in the brain or in certain other storage areas in the body. It is possible in those situations to be mercury toxic but not have it show up in a hair analysis. Urine testing will only show what is in the kidneys, not the body burden. Lynn > I already know I'm > mercury toxic (although I supposedly got it all out years ago with IV > chelation. It never made me feel better, and in some ways worse. > After reading things you're all saying, I'd be pretty willing to bet > the EDTA made me worse. I certainly have all the conditions, the > only thing alleviating anything are the glyconutrients I take, but > the brain fog and chemical sensitivities are worse than ever. > > Initially I figured to do chelation through my doc again and wanted > to do the urine testing (which did show I was very mercury toxic back > then) to get started. I simultaneously started coming onto these > lists and you're all helping me learn a lot. > > I'm going to probably do the hair testing to see what does or doesn't > show, but will be acting on the mercury toxicity either way because I > know this is still a problem. Thank you! > : Donna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.