Guest guest Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 > > , 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...
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.