Re: Doug--challenge test, was DMPS Chelation Side effects?

[Guest guest]

>

> I am going to do go to 25 mg next round to see if I tolerate the

> higher dose, then the following round I am going to " embed " a

> provocation dose (250 mg spaced over four doses/24 hours) and

urine

> sample for toxic metals analysis in the middle of a 7 day round

--------Doug, could you explain *exactly* what and how you plan on

doing this? And why you feel you need to do a provocation test?

They really aren't recommended, and if you do want to do one, then

it should just be part of a regular round.

If I understand what you mean above, is that you would start your

round taking 25mg every 6 hours, and then for one day you would

increase this to 250mg/4 or 62.5mg every 6 hours, for a 24 hour

period, and then go back down to 25mg again? This is not

recommended to be fluctuating dosages like this during a round, and

it will cause alot of redistribution. Personally, I would not do

it. If you want to do the urine test, just do it as part of your

normal chelation round.-------Jackie

>

> This seems the safest way to minimize side effect of a provocative

> urine test.

--------The safest way is to do it as part of a normal chelation

round, or not do it at all. So your doctor is the one who wants to

do this?-------Jackie

>

> Doug

>

[Guest guest]

To Jackie, TK, Ed ,

I appreciate your feedback, concern and thoughtful

questions/observations. Let me answer some questions and (possibly)

raise other questions.

" why you feel you need to do a provocation test? So your doctor is the

one who wants to do this? "

I do not feel a need, exactly, and the idea did not come from my

doctor, though I have discussed it with him. I am keen on charting

results. My simpletons notion of charting " progress " goes like this:

I chelate; I remove mercury from soft tissue. I provoke and test for

levels. I chelate some more, remove more mercury. I provoke and test

again(for discussions sake let's say the second provocation could be 8

rounds or about four months after the first). Assumming chelation is

having the desired result (lower body burden of HG) then each

subsequent provocation should show lower levels of Hg. I would repeat

the process when adding ALA.

I hope to share these results with my doctor and anyone else who is

curious about sub-acute or chronic low level Hg toxicity and the

efficacy of DMPS as a detoxification therapy. Do any of you see any

flaw in my thinking or methods?

I am, by nature, a person who is interested in quantification,

results. So I preceded chelation with an unprovoked toxic metals urine

test. Test results confirmed the presence of several heavy metals in

my body's cells.

I am, also a cautious person. I waited over three years after the

completion of my amaglam revisions to start chelation. Some of you

might say that is not cautious but foolish. I start chelating with a

dose of DMPS at or below that suggested for body weight. I have

completed two rounds of 12.5mg DMPS on the recommended 8 hour schedule

- 7 days " on " with 7 days off. I am reasonably certain that I can

tolerate 25 mg, especially in light of the fact that the acute phase

of my chronic Hg intoxication ended almost four years ago when my

amalgam revisions were completed. Still I am planning on completing

one more seven day round of 12.5 mg however, just to be sure.

Doug, could you explain *exactly* what and how you plan on

doing this? .... if you do want to do one, then

it should just be part of a regular round.

Yes, I agree, in general, that it should be part of a regular round or

integrated intelligently into a round of chelation. From what I read,

many negative experiences, symptoms of redistribution, backlash ,

organ failure etc... are caused by big, single doses of DMSA or DMPS.

This observation and empirical experiences led Andy to his hypothesis

of frequent, smaller doses predicated on half life of substance to

maintain consistent, safe levels of chelator and minimize redistribution.

If I understand what you mean above, is that you would start your

> round taking 25mg every 6 hours, and then for one day you would

> increase this to 250mg/4 or 62.5mg every 6 hours, for a 24 hour

> period, and then go back down to 25mg again?

Well, yes, at the moment, that is exactly what I am considering.

When Andy wrote the following it was 1999 " The other (way of

challenging with DMPS) is to take 300mg by mouth and is described int

the literature by Aposhian and others. It appears to have a higher

rate of side effects and adverse reactions than the DMSA test and is

not standardized... "

That was nine years ago! I want to know how many results based on the

300 mg oral dose level are available. Has DDI looked at enough test

results based on 300mg DMPS as a provoking agent to have developed

some statistical reference levels? If they have not then I might as

well just collect at the end of a round every 8 weeks once I have

ramped up to my highest tolerable dose.

> --------The safest way is to do it as part of a normal chelation

> round, or not do it at all. -------Jackie

I believe that what Andy said in 1999 about the DMSA challenge

procedure could also apply to a DMPS oral challenge...

" Now you do the challenge test. The textbook says take all the DMSA

at once. You won't do that. It is A LOT SAFER (my emphasis) and a lot

more comfortable to spread it out. "

Hoping to minimize redistribution of HG subsequent to a 300 mg DMPS

oral challenge I could begin a new round of chelation on a six hour

cycle immediately following the challenge. The round could be six days

instead of seven (I am currently doing 7 day cycles).

So what do you think of this modified proposal Jackie?

62.5 mg oral DMPS, four doses spaced six hours apart. Collect urine

for 24 hours beginning at first dose. Begin a round of chelation at

the very end of the collection period on the same six hour interval as

challenge dose. Chelation dose to be set at whatever my maximum

tolerable dose is at that time.

In response to my original post Jada wrote;

" These test in no way indicate your body burden of metals "

I'm not sure whether I agree with Jada or not.

If you mean that dmps/dmsa challenges don't give an accurate picture

of body burden because neither dmps or DMSA cross the BBB and so a

challenge not including ALA as a provocation agent would not result in

Hg stored in brain tissue being released then I guess I agree.

Probably there been studies that refute the usefulness of provocation

that I am not familiar with - if so I would appreciate your references.

Hey TK, I can't figure out where what you mean by this comment

" Urine Challenge tests are not recommended and not

informative. "

In Amalgam Illness (AI) by Hall Cutler, the author, (aka Andy)

discusses how to safely do a DMSA challenge, advises specifically

against a DMPS IV challenge and makes some observations about the

limits and cautions associated with the DMPS 300 mg oral challenge

described by Aphosian.

If Andy has posted more specific blanket comments against challenge

tests I would be grateful if you would post a link or reference.

Perhaps based on your own direct experience you are " not

recommending " challenge tests? But I see no basis for this statement

based on reading AI.

As to the notion that test results are not informative, that statement

qualifies as an oxymoron don't you think? I want to gauge how

effective chelation is as a means of removing Hg stored in my body. To

fully explore this subject I might chart the results of several

provoked heavy metal urinalyses done concurrently with a course of

chelation. The information (levels of heavy metals by volume and

compared to creatine) on these reports would, I think meet the

definition of " informative " - " Providing a lot of useful or

interesting information "

Whether useful or just interesting would depend, I think, upon the

person reading the report.

Thank you all for you comments.

[Guest guest]

To Jackie, TK, Ed ,

I appreciate your feedback, concern and thoughtful

questions/observations. Let me answer some questions and (possibly)

raise other questions.

" why you feel you need to do a provocation test? So your doctor is the

one who wants to do this? "

I do not feel a need, exactly, and the idea did not come from my

doctor, though I have discussed it with him. I am keen on charting

results. My simpletons notion of charting " progress " goes like this:

I chelate; I remove mercury from soft tissue. I provoke and test for

levels. I chelate some more, remove more mercury. I provoke and test

again(for discussions sake let's say the second provocation could be 8

rounds or about four months after the first). Assumming chelation is

having the desired result (lower body burden of HG) then each

subsequent provocation should show lower levels of Hg. I would repeat

the process when adding ALA.

I hope to share these results with my doctor and anyone else who is

curious about sub-acute or chronic low level Hg toxicity and the

efficacy of DMPS as a detoxification therapy. Do any of you see any

flaw in my thinking or methods?

I am, by nature, a person who is interested in quantification,

results. So I preceded chelation with an unprovoked toxic metals urine

test. Test results confirmed the presence of several heavy metals in

my body's cells.

I am, also a cautious person. I waited over three years after the

completion of my amaglam revisions to start chelation. Some of you

might say that is not cautious but foolish. I start chelating with a

dose of DMPS at or below that suggested for body weight. I have

completed two rounds of 12.5mg DMPS on the recommended 8 hour schedule

- 7 days " on " with 7 days off. I am reasonably certain that I can

tolerate 25 mg, especially in light of the fact that the acute phase

of my chronic Hg intoxication ended almost four years ago when my

amalgam revisions were completed. Still I am planning on completing

one more seven day round of 12.5 mg however, just to be sure.

Doug, could you explain *exactly* what and how you plan on

doing this? .... if you do want to do one, then

it should just be part of a regular round.

Yes, I agree, in general, that it should be part of a regular round or

integrated intelligently into a round of chelation. From what I read,

many negative experiences, symptoms of redistribution, backlash ,

organ failure etc... are caused by big, single doses of DMSA or DMPS.

This observation and empirical experiences led Andy to his hypothesis

of frequent, smaller doses predicated on half life of substance to

maintain consistent, safe levels of chelator and minimize redistribution.

If I understand what you mean above, is that you would start your

> round taking 25mg every 6 hours, and then for one day you would

> increase this to 250mg/4 or 62.5mg every 6 hours, for a 24 hour

> period, and then go back down to 25mg again?

Well, yes, at the moment, that is exactly what I am considering.

When Andy wrote the following it was 1999 " The other (way of

challenging with DMPS) is to take 300mg by mouth and is described int

the literature by Aposhian and others. It appears to have a higher

rate of side effects and adverse reactions than the DMSA test and is

not standardized... "

That was nine years ago! I want to know how many results based on the

300 mg oral dose level are available. Has DDI looked at enough test

results based on 300mg DMPS as a provoking agent to have developed

some statistical reference levels? If they have not then I might as

well just collect at the end of a round every 8 weeks once I have

ramped up to my highest tolerable dose.

> --------The safest way is to do it as part of a normal chelation

> round, or not do it at all. -------Jackie

I believe that what Andy said in 1999 about the DMSA challenge

procedure could also apply to a DMPS oral challenge...

" Now you do the challenge test. The textbook says take all the DMSA

at once. You won't do that. It is A LOT SAFER (my emphasis) and a lot

more comfortable to spread it out. "

Hoping to minimize redistribution of HG subsequent to a 300 mg DMPS

oral challenge I could begin a new round of chelation on a six hour

cycle immediately following the challenge. The round could be six days

instead of seven (I am currently doing 7 day cycles).

So what do you think of this modified proposal Jackie?

62.5 mg oral DMPS, four doses spaced six hours apart. Collect urine

for 24 hours beginning at first dose. Begin a round of chelation at

the very end of the collection period on the same six hour interval as

challenge dose. Chelation dose to be set at whatever my maximum

tolerable dose is at that time.

In response to my original post Jada wrote;

" These test in no way indicate your body burden of metals "

I'm not sure whether I agree with Jada or not.

If you mean that dmps/dmsa challenges don't give an accurate picture

of body burden because neither dmps or DMSA cross the BBB and so a

challenge not including ALA as a provocation agent would not result in

Hg stored in brain tissue being released then I guess I agree.

Probably there been studies that refute the usefulness of provocation

that I am not familiar with - if so I would appreciate your references.

Hey TK, I can't figure out where what you mean by this comment

" Urine Challenge tests are not recommended and not

informative. "

In Amalgam Illness (AI) by Hall Cutler, the author, (aka Andy)

discusses how to safely do a DMSA challenge, advises specifically

against a DMPS IV challenge and makes some observations about the

limits and cautions associated with the DMPS 300 mg oral challenge

described by Aphosian.

If Andy has posted more specific blanket comments against challenge

tests I would be grateful if you would post a link or reference.

Perhaps based on your own direct experience you are " not

recommending " challenge tests? But I see no basis for this statement

based on reading AI.

As to the notion that test results are not informative, that statement

qualifies as an oxymoron don't you think? I want to gauge how

effective chelation is as a means of removing Hg stored in my body. To

fully explore this subject I might chart the results of several

provoked heavy metal urinalyses done concurrently with a course of

chelation. The information (levels of heavy metals by volume and

compared to creatine) on these reports would, I think meet the

definition of " informative " - " Providing a lot of useful or

interesting information "

Whether useful or just interesting would depend, I think, upon the

person reading the report.

Thank you all for you comments.

[Guest guest]

To Jackie, TK, Ed ,

I appreciate your feedback, concern and thoughtful

questions/observations. Let me answer some questions and (possibly)

raise other questions.

" why you feel you need to do a provocation test? So your doctor is the

one who wants to do this? "

I do not feel a need, exactly, and the idea did not come from my

doctor, though I have discussed it with him. I am keen on charting

results. My simpletons notion of charting " progress " goes like this:

I chelate; I remove mercury from soft tissue. I provoke and test for

levels. I chelate some more, remove more mercury. I provoke and test

again(for discussions sake let's say the second provocation could be 8

rounds or about four months after the first). Assumming chelation is

having the desired result (lower body burden of HG) then each

subsequent provocation should show lower levels of Hg. I would repeat

the process when adding ALA.

I hope to share these results with my doctor and anyone else who is

curious about sub-acute or chronic low level Hg toxicity and the

efficacy of DMPS as a detoxification therapy. Do any of you see any

flaw in my thinking or methods?

I am, by nature, a person who is interested in quantification,

results. So I preceded chelation with an unprovoked toxic metals urine

test. Test results confirmed the presence of several heavy metals in

my body's cells.

I am, also a cautious person. I waited over three years after the

completion of my amaglam revisions to start chelation. Some of you

might say that is not cautious but foolish. I start chelating with a

dose of DMPS at or below that suggested for body weight. I have

completed two rounds of 12.5mg DMPS on the recommended 8 hour schedule

- 7 days " on " with 7 days off. I am reasonably certain that I can

tolerate 25 mg, especially in light of the fact that the acute phase

of my chronic Hg intoxication ended almost four years ago when my

amalgam revisions were completed. Still I am planning on completing

one more seven day round of 12.5 mg however, just to be sure.

Doug, could you explain *exactly* what and how you plan on

doing this? .... if you do want to do one, then

it should just be part of a regular round.

Yes, I agree, in general, that it should be part of a regular round or

integrated intelligently into a round of chelation. From what I read,

many negative experiences, symptoms of redistribution, backlash ,

organ failure etc... are caused by big, single doses of DMSA or DMPS.

This observation and empirical experiences led Andy to his hypothesis

of frequent, smaller doses predicated on half life of substance to

maintain consistent, safe levels of chelator and minimize redistribution.

If I understand what you mean above, is that you would start your

> round taking 25mg every 6 hours, and then for one day you would

> increase this to 250mg/4 or 62.5mg every 6 hours, for a 24 hour

> period, and then go back down to 25mg again?

Well, yes, at the moment, that is exactly what I am considering.

When Andy wrote the following it was 1999 " The other (way of

challenging with DMPS) is to take 300mg by mouth and is described int

the literature by Aposhian and others. It appears to have a higher

rate of side effects and adverse reactions than the DMSA test and is

not standardized... "

That was nine years ago! I want to know how many results based on the

300 mg oral dose level are available. Has DDI looked at enough test

results based on 300mg DMPS as a provoking agent to have developed

some statistical reference levels? If they have not then I might as

well just collect at the end of a round every 8 weeks once I have

ramped up to my highest tolerable dose.

> --------The safest way is to do it as part of a normal chelation

> round, or not do it at all. -------Jackie

I believe that what Andy said in 1999 about the DMSA challenge

procedure could also apply to a DMPS oral challenge...

" Now you do the challenge test. The textbook says take all the DMSA

at once. You won't do that. It is A LOT SAFER (my emphasis) and a lot

more comfortable to spread it out. "

Hoping to minimize redistribution of HG subsequent to a 300 mg DMPS

oral challenge I could begin a new round of chelation on a six hour

cycle immediately following the challenge. The round could be six days

instead of seven (I am currently doing 7 day cycles).

So what do you think of this modified proposal Jackie?

62.5 mg oral DMPS, four doses spaced six hours apart. Collect urine

for 24 hours beginning at first dose. Begin a round of chelation at

the very end of the collection period on the same six hour interval as

challenge dose. Chelation dose to be set at whatever my maximum

tolerable dose is at that time.

In response to my original post Jada wrote;

" These test in no way indicate your body burden of metals "

I'm not sure whether I agree with Jada or not.

If you mean that dmps/dmsa challenges don't give an accurate picture

of body burden because neither dmps or DMSA cross the BBB and so a

challenge not including ALA as a provocation agent would not result in

Hg stored in brain tissue being released then I guess I agree.

Probably there been studies that refute the usefulness of provocation

that I am not familiar with - if so I would appreciate your references.

Hey TK, I can't figure out where what you mean by this comment

" Urine Challenge tests are not recommended and not

informative. "

In Amalgam Illness (AI) by Hall Cutler, the author, (aka Andy)

discusses how to safely do a DMSA challenge, advises specifically

against a DMPS IV challenge and makes some observations about the

limits and cautions associated with the DMPS 300 mg oral challenge

described by Aphosian.

If Andy has posted more specific blanket comments against challenge

tests I would be grateful if you would post a link or reference.

Perhaps based on your own direct experience you are " not

recommending " challenge tests? But I see no basis for this statement

based on reading AI.

As to the notion that test results are not informative, that statement

qualifies as an oxymoron don't you think? I want to gauge how

effective chelation is as a means of removing Hg stored in my body. To

fully explore this subject I might chart the results of several

provoked heavy metal urinalyses done concurrently with a course of

chelation. The information (levels of heavy metals by volume and

compared to creatine) on these reports would, I think meet the

definition of " informative " - " Providing a lot of useful or

interesting information "

Whether useful or just interesting would depend, I think, upon the

person reading the report.

Thank you all for you comments.

[Guest guest]

>

> To Jackie, TK, Ed ,

> I appreciate your feedback, concern and thoughtful

> questions/observations. Let me answer some questions and (possibly)

> raise other questions.

>

> " why you feel you need to do a provocation test? So your doctor is the

> one who wants to do this? "

>

> I do not feel a need, exactly, and the idea did not come from my

> doctor, though I have discussed it with him. I am keen on charting

> results. My simpletons notion of charting " progress " goes like this:

> I chelate; I remove mercury from soft tissue. I provoke and test for

> levels. I chelate some more, remove more mercury. I provoke and test

> again(for discussions sake let's say the second provocation could be 8

> rounds or about four months after the first). Assumming chelation is

> having the desired result (lower body burden of HG) then each

> subsequent provocation should show lower levels of Hg. I would repeat

> the process when adding ALA.

> I hope to share these results with my doctor and anyone else who is

> curious about sub-acute or chronic low level Hg toxicity and the

> efficacy of DMPS as a detoxification therapy. Do any of you see any

> flaw in my thinking or methods?

>

The results will not be very useful or meaningful and a lot of money

will be wasted.

I did a hair test at first that met the counting rules, and then a

hair test after 1.5 years chelation no longer met the counting rules.

That shows that mercury has been removed from my body. I did the

test at www.amenclinic.com and plan to do that test after chelation to

show brain recovery.

> I am, by nature, a person who is interested in quantification,

> results. So I preceded chelation with an unprovoked toxic metals urine

> test. Test results confirmed the presence of several heavy metals in

> my body's cells.

>

> I am, also a cautious person. I waited over three years after the

> completion of my amaglam revisions to start chelation. Some of you

> might say that is not cautious but foolish. I start chelating with a

> dose of DMPS at or below that suggested for body weight. I have

> completed two rounds of 12.5mg DMPS on the recommended 8 hour schedule

> - 7 days " on " with 7 days off. I am reasonably certain that I can

> tolerate 25 mg, especially in light of the fact that the acute phase

> of my chronic Hg intoxication ended almost four years ago when my

> amalgam revisions were completed. Still I am planning on completing

> one more seven day round of 12.5 mg however, just to be sure.

>

> Doug, could you explain *exactly* what and how you plan on

> doing this? .... if you do want to do one, then

> it should just be part of a regular round.

>

> Yes, I agree, in general, that it should be part of a regular round or

> integrated intelligently into a round of chelation. From what I read,

> many negative experiences, symptoms of redistribution, backlash ,

> organ failure etc... are caused by big, single doses of DMSA or DMPS.

> This observation and empirical experiences led Andy to his hypothesis

> of frequent, smaller doses predicated on half life of substance to

> maintain consistent, safe levels of chelator and minimize

redistribution.

>

> If I understand what you mean above, is that you would start your

> > round taking 25mg every 6 hours, and then for one day you would

> > increase this to 250mg/4 or 62.5mg every 6 hours, for a 24 hour

> > period, and then go back down to 25mg again?

>

> Well, yes, at the moment, that is exactly what I am considering.

>

What you are doing is adding the risk of serious health deterioration

from using those doses without any gain.

> When Andy wrote the following it was 1999 " The other (way of

> challenging with DMPS) is to take 300mg by mouth and is described int

> the literature by Aposhian and others. It appears to have a higher

> rate of side effects and adverse reactions than the DMSA test and is

> not standardized... "

> That was nine years ago! I want to know how many results based on the

> 300 mg oral dose level are available. Has DDI looked at enough test

> results based on 300mg DMPS as a provoking agent to have developed

> some statistical reference levels? If they have not then I might as

> well just collect at the end of a round every 8 weeks once I have

> ramped up to my highest tolerable dose.

DDI wouldn't have bothered keeping track of who took how much

challenge dose of what agent before any of their tests.

>

> > --------The safest way is to do it as part of a normal chelation

> > round, or not do it at all. -------Jackie

>

> I believe that what Andy said in 1999 about the DMSA challenge

> procedure could also apply to a DMPS oral challenge...

>

> " Now you do the challenge test. The textbook says take all the DMSA

> at once. You won't do that. It is A LOT SAFER (my emphasis) and a lot

> more comfortable to spread it out. "

>

From what I remember Andy wrote to only consider challenge testing in

this manner IF results are needed for insurance purposes. In the case

of insurance, there could be substantial financial gain. I think he

also makes it clear that there still is risk with this safer way of

doing it.

In your case there is no gain and substantial risk.

> Hoping to minimize redistribution of HG subsequent to a 300 mg DMPS

> oral challenge I could begin a new round of chelation on a six hour

> cycle immediately following the challenge. The round could be six days

> instead of seven (I am currently doing 7 day cycles).

>

Starting a new round after your proposed challenge would do little to

reverse the damage that the challenge has already done, and it would

be recommended against because Andy recommends to stop rather than to

reduce chelator dose.

> So what do you think of this modified proposal Jackie?

> 62.5 mg oral DMPS, four doses spaced six hours apart. Collect urine

> for 24 hours beginning at first dose. Begin a round of chelation at

> the very end of the collection period on the same six hour interval as

> challenge dose. Chelation dose to be set at whatever my maximum

> tolerable dose is at that time.

>

I think that it is not a good idea at all and goes against everything

that we try to promote in this group, ie safe chelating.

> In response to my original post Jada wrote;

> " These test in no way indicate your body burden of metals "

>

> I'm not sure whether I agree with Jada or not.

I agree with her.

> If you mean that dmps/dmsa challenges don't give an accurate picture

> of body burden because neither dmps or DMSA cross the BBB and so a

> challenge not including ALA as a provocation agent would not result in

> Hg stored in brain tissue being released then I guess I agree.

>

> Probably there been studies that refute the usefulness of provocation

> that I am not familiar with - if so I would appreciate your

references.

>

Andy has discussed this in the autism mercury group. It would take

some searching to find posts from him.

> Hey TK, I can't figure out where what you mean by this comment

>

> " Urine Challenge tests are not recommended and not

> informative. "

>

> In Amalgam Illness (AI) by Hall Cutler, the author, (aka Andy)

> discusses how to safely do a DMSA challenge, advises specifically

> against a DMPS IV challenge and makes some observations about the

> limits and cautions associated with the DMPS 300 mg oral challenge

> described by Aphosian.

> If Andy has posted more specific blanket comments against challenge

> tests I would be grateful if you would post a link or reference.

> Perhaps based on your own direct experience you are " not

> recommending " challenge tests? But I see no basis for this statement

> based on reading AI.

>

If you read AI closely you will find that he says only to use for

insurance purposes, the way he says to do it is safer (but not without

risk by any means) and that the test results might fool the insurance

but they really are quite useless (my summary).

> As to the notion that test results are not informative, that statement

> qualifies as an oxymoron don't you think?

No it doesn't.

All tests have limitations. With any test a person has to think very

carefully what that test tells them. Many tests are misinterpreted

because of false assumptions. In the case of urine tests about all

they tell a person is that there are certain metals in that person's

body. They do not say anything about **how much** metal there is in

the body and whether or not that total amount has changed from the

last test.

I know it's difficult to grasp this because alternative doctors have

been misusing urine test results. A person really has to think about it.

I want to gauge how

> effective chelation is as a means of removing Hg stored in my body.

The occasion hair test might help. Alleviation of symptoms is the

best tracking tool.

To

> fully explore this subject I might chart the results of several

> provoked heavy metal urinalyses done concurrently with a course of

> chelation. The information (levels of heavy metals by volume and

> compared to creatine) on these reports would, I think meet the

> definition of " informative " - " Providing a lot of useful or

> interesting information "

>

They would be a waste of time and money.

Search the autism mercury forum and you will find posts from Andy.

> Whether useful or just interesting would depend, I think, upon the

> person reading the report.

>

and on how many false assumptions that person has made about how

chelators work and urine test results.

J

> Thank you all for you comments.

>

[Guest guest]

>

> To Jackie, TK, Ed ,

> I appreciate your feedback, concern and thoughtful

> questions/observations. Let me answer some questions and (possibly)

> raise other questions.

>

> " why you feel you need to do a provocation test? So your doctor is the

> one who wants to do this? "

>

> I do not feel a need, exactly, and the idea did not come from my

> doctor, though I have discussed it with him. I am keen on charting

> results. My simpletons notion of charting " progress " goes like this:

> I chelate; I remove mercury from soft tissue. I provoke and test for

> levels. I chelate some more, remove more mercury. I provoke and test

> again(for discussions sake let's say the second provocation could be 8

> rounds or about four months after the first). Assumming chelation is

> having the desired result (lower body burden of HG) then each

> subsequent provocation should show lower levels of Hg. I would repeat

> the process when adding ALA.

> I hope to share these results with my doctor and anyone else who is

> curious about sub-acute or chronic low level Hg toxicity and the

> efficacy of DMPS as a detoxification therapy. Do any of you see any

> flaw in my thinking or methods?

>

The results will not be very useful or meaningful and a lot of money

will be wasted.

I did a hair test at first that met the counting rules, and then a

hair test after 1.5 years chelation no longer met the counting rules.

That shows that mercury has been removed from my body. I did the

test at www.amenclinic.com and plan to do that test after chelation to

show brain recovery.

> I am, by nature, a person who is interested in quantification,

> results. So I preceded chelation with an unprovoked toxic metals urine

> test. Test results confirmed the presence of several heavy metals in

> my body's cells.

>

> I am, also a cautious person. I waited over three years after the

> completion of my amaglam revisions to start chelation. Some of you

> might say that is not cautious but foolish. I start chelating with a

> dose of DMPS at or below that suggested for body weight. I have

> completed two rounds of 12.5mg DMPS on the recommended 8 hour schedule

> - 7 days " on " with 7 days off. I am reasonably certain that I can

> tolerate 25 mg, especially in light of the fact that the acute phase

> of my chronic Hg intoxication ended almost four years ago when my

> amalgam revisions were completed. Still I am planning on completing

> one more seven day round of 12.5 mg however, just to be sure.

>

> Doug, could you explain *exactly* what and how you plan on

> doing this? .... if you do want to do one, then

> it should just be part of a regular round.

>

> Yes, I agree, in general, that it should be part of a regular round or

> integrated intelligently into a round of chelation. From what I read,

> many negative experiences, symptoms of redistribution, backlash ,

> organ failure etc... are caused by big, single doses of DMSA or DMPS.

> This observation and empirical experiences led Andy to his hypothesis

> of frequent, smaller doses predicated on half life of substance to

> maintain consistent, safe levels of chelator and minimize

redistribution.

>

> If I understand what you mean above, is that you would start your

> > round taking 25mg every 6 hours, and then for one day you would

> > increase this to 250mg/4 or 62.5mg every 6 hours, for a 24 hour

> > period, and then go back down to 25mg again?

>

> Well, yes, at the moment, that is exactly what I am considering.

>

What you are doing is adding the risk of serious health deterioration

from using those doses without any gain.

> When Andy wrote the following it was 1999 " The other (way of

> challenging with DMPS) is to take 300mg by mouth and is described int

> the literature by Aposhian and others. It appears to have a higher

> rate of side effects and adverse reactions than the DMSA test and is

> not standardized... "

> That was nine years ago! I want to know how many results based on the

> 300 mg oral dose level are available. Has DDI looked at enough test

> results based on 300mg DMPS as a provoking agent to have developed

> some statistical reference levels? If they have not then I might as

> well just collect at the end of a round every 8 weeks once I have

> ramped up to my highest tolerable dose.

DDI wouldn't have bothered keeping track of who took how much

challenge dose of what agent before any of their tests.

>

> > --------The safest way is to do it as part of a normal chelation

> > round, or not do it at all. -------Jackie

>

> I believe that what Andy said in 1999 about the DMSA challenge

> procedure could also apply to a DMPS oral challenge...

>

> " Now you do the challenge test. The textbook says take all the DMSA

> at once. You won't do that. It is A LOT SAFER (my emphasis) and a lot

> more comfortable to spread it out. "

>

From what I remember Andy wrote to only consider challenge testing in

this manner IF results are needed for insurance purposes. In the case

of insurance, there could be substantial financial gain. I think he

also makes it clear that there still is risk with this safer way of

doing it.

In your case there is no gain and substantial risk.

> Hoping to minimize redistribution of HG subsequent to a 300 mg DMPS

> oral challenge I could begin a new round of chelation on a six hour

> cycle immediately following the challenge. The round could be six days

> instead of seven (I am currently doing 7 day cycles).

>

Starting a new round after your proposed challenge would do little to

reverse the damage that the challenge has already done, and it would

be recommended against because Andy recommends to stop rather than to

reduce chelator dose.

> So what do you think of this modified proposal Jackie?

> 62.5 mg oral DMPS, four doses spaced six hours apart. Collect urine

> for 24 hours beginning at first dose. Begin a round of chelation at

> the very end of the collection period on the same six hour interval as

> challenge dose. Chelation dose to be set at whatever my maximum

> tolerable dose is at that time.

>

I think that it is not a good idea at all and goes against everything

that we try to promote in this group, ie safe chelating.

> In response to my original post Jada wrote;

> " These test in no way indicate your body burden of metals "

>

> I'm not sure whether I agree with Jada or not.

I agree with her.

> If you mean that dmps/dmsa challenges don't give an accurate picture

> of body burden because neither dmps or DMSA cross the BBB and so a

> challenge not including ALA as a provocation agent would not result in

> Hg stored in brain tissue being released then I guess I agree.

>

> Probably there been studies that refute the usefulness of provocation

> that I am not familiar with - if so I would appreciate your

references.

>

Andy has discussed this in the autism mercury group. It would take

some searching to find posts from him.

> Hey TK, I can't figure out where what you mean by this comment

>

> " Urine Challenge tests are not recommended and not

> informative. "

>

> In Amalgam Illness (AI) by Hall Cutler, the author, (aka Andy)

> discusses how to safely do a DMSA challenge, advises specifically

> against a DMPS IV challenge and makes some observations about the

> limits and cautions associated with the DMPS 300 mg oral challenge

> described by Aphosian.

> If Andy has posted more specific blanket comments against challenge

> tests I would be grateful if you would post a link or reference.

> Perhaps based on your own direct experience you are " not

> recommending " challenge tests? But I see no basis for this statement

> based on reading AI.

>

If you read AI closely you will find that he says only to use for

insurance purposes, the way he says to do it is safer (but not without

risk by any means) and that the test results might fool the insurance

but they really are quite useless (my summary).

> As to the notion that test results are not informative, that statement

> qualifies as an oxymoron don't you think?

No it doesn't.

All tests have limitations. With any test a person has to think very

carefully what that test tells them. Many tests are misinterpreted

because of false assumptions. In the case of urine tests about all

they tell a person is that there are certain metals in that person's

body. They do not say anything about **how much** metal there is in

the body and whether or not that total amount has changed from the

last test.

I know it's difficult to grasp this because alternative doctors have

been misusing urine test results. A person really has to think about it.

I want to gauge how

> effective chelation is as a means of removing Hg stored in my body.

The occasion hair test might help. Alleviation of symptoms is the

best tracking tool.

To

> fully explore this subject I might chart the results of several

> provoked heavy metal urinalyses done concurrently with a course of

> chelation. The information (levels of heavy metals by volume and

> compared to creatine) on these reports would, I think meet the

> definition of " informative " - " Providing a lot of useful or

> interesting information "

>

They would be a waste of time and money.

Search the autism mercury forum and you will find posts from Andy.

> Whether useful or just interesting would depend, I think, upon the

> person reading the report.

>

and on how many false assumptions that person has made about how

chelators work and urine test results.

J

> Thank you all for you comments.

>

[Guest guest]

>

> To Jackie, TK, Ed ,

> I appreciate your feedback, concern and thoughtful

> questions/observations. Let me answer some questions and (possibly)

> raise other questions.

>

> " why you feel you need to do a provocation test? So your doctor is

the

> one who wants to do this? "

>

> I do not feel a need, exactly, and the idea did not come from my

> doctor, though I have discussed it with him. I am keen on charting

> results. My simpletons notion of charting " progress " goes like

this:

> I chelate; I remove mercury from soft tissue. I provoke and test

for

> levels. I chelate some more, remove more mercury. I provoke and

test

> again(for discussions sake let's say the second provocation could

be 8

> rounds or about four months after the first). Assumming chelation

is

> having the desired result (lower body burden of HG) then each

> subsequent provocation should show lower levels of Hg.

I would repeat

> the process when adding ALA.

> I hope to share these results with my doctor and anyone else who is

> curious about sub-acute or chronic low level Hg toxicity and the

> efficacy of DMPS as a detoxification therapy. Do any of you see any

> flaw in my thinking or methods?

TK--- unfortunately challenge testing only shows what is available in

the kidneys at that particular time which can be none or a lot which

is why it is not informative and why it can't be tracked. I would

suggest you do hair testing for more information and keep a log on

how you are doing to quantify results. DMPS has been studied for a

long time as to it's ability to chelate Hg, there is lots of

literature.

>

> I am, by nature, a person who is interested in quantification,

> results. So I preceded chelation with an unprovoked toxic metals

urine

> test. Test results confirmed the presence of several heavy metals

in

> my body's cells.

>

I start chelating with a

> dose of DMPS at or below that suggested for body weight. I have

> completed two rounds of 12.5mg DMPS on the recommended 8 hour

schedule

> - 7 days " on " with 7 days off. I am reasonably certain that I can

> tolerate 25 mg, especially in light of the fact that the acute phase

> of my chronic Hg intoxication ended almost four years ago when my

> amalgam revisions were completed. Still I am planning on completing

> one more seven day round of 12.5 mg however, just to be sure.

TK--- caution is good as chelation is rarely the same for each

individual and even though your revision was done that long ago, some

people still have a lot of problems chelating.

>

> Doug, could you explain *exactly* what and how you plan on

> doing this? .... if you do want to do one, then

> it should just be part of a regular round.

>

>

> If I understand what you mean above, is that you would start your

> > round taking 25mg every 6 hours, and then for one day you would

> > increase this to 250mg/4 or 62.5mg every 6 hours, for a 24 hour

> > period, and then go back down to 25mg again?

>

> Well, yes, at the moment, that is exactly what I am considering.

TK-- again, not safe to do and [can] cause very long lasting or

permanent side effects - not arguing with you but I have seen too

many people over the years hurt themselves, it is not necessary and

it does it provide any more information than collecting during a

regular round. You are trying to track progress, again I would

recommend hair testing and tracking your physical progress.

>

> When Andy wrote the following it was 1999 " The other (way of

> challenging with DMPS) is to take 300mg by mouth and is described

int

> the literature by Aposhian and others. It appears to have a higher

> rate of side effects and adverse reactions than the DMSA test and is

> not standardized... "

> That was nine years ago! I want to know how many results based on

the

> 300 mg oral dose level are available.

TK--- you would need to contact Andy

Has DDI looked at enough test

> results based on 300mg DMPS as a provoking agent to have developed

> some statistical reference levels? If they have not then I might as

> well just collect at the end of a round every 8 weeks once I have

> ramped up to my highest tolerable dose.

>

> > --------The safest way is to do it as part of a normal chelation

> > round, or not do it at all. -------Jackie

>

> I believe that what Andy said in 1999 about the DMSA challenge

> procedure could also apply to a DMPS oral challenge...

>

> " Now you do the challenge test. The textbook says take all the DMSA

> at once. You won't do that. It is A LOT SAFER (my emphasis) and a

lot

> more comfortable to spread it out. "

>

> Hoping to minimize redistribution of HG subsequent to a 300 mg DMPS

> oral challenge I could begin a new round of chelation on a six hour

> cycle immediately following the challenge. The round could be six

days

> instead of seven (I am currently doing 7 day cycles).

>

> So what do you think of this modified proposal Jackie?

> 62.5 mg oral DMPS, four doses spaced six hours apart. Collect urine

> for 24 hours beginning at first dose. Begin a round of chelation at

> the very end of the collection period on the same six hour interval

as

> challenge dose. Chelation dose to be set at whatever my maximum

> tolerable dose is at that time.

>

> In response to my original post Jada wrote;

> " These test in no way indicate your body burden of metals "

>

> I'm not sure whether I agree with Jada or not.

> If you mean that dmps/dmsa challenges don't give an accurate picture

> of body burden because neither dmps or DMSA cross the BBB and so a

> challenge not including ALA as a provocation agent would not result

in

> Hg stored in brain tissue being released then I guess I agree.

TK---- challenge tests only test what is currently in the kidneys

which is why it is not a good test, necessary or informative as the

level in the kidneys is not relative to that in the body.

>

> Probably there been studies that refute the usefulness of

provocation

> that I am not familiar with - if so I would appreciate your

references.

>

> Hey TK, I can't figure out where what you mean by this comment

>

> " Urine Challenge tests are not recommended and not

> informative. "

TK-- see above

>

> In Amalgam Illness (AI) by Hall Cutler, the author, (aka

Andy)

> discusses how to safely do a DMSA challenge

TK--- only if necessary to try and get INS to cover chelation - keep

reading and you will find they are not informative for what you are

trying to do.

, advises specifically

> against a DMPS IV challenge and makes some observations about the

> limits and cautions associated with the DMPS 300 mg oral challenge

> described by Aphosian.

> If Andy has posted more specific blanket comments against challenge

> tests I would be grateful if you would post a link or reference.

TK--- there are many and I have posted them many many times before.

At this point you will need to do some research as I do not have time

to look this all back up, sorry - I am only trying to prevent you

from possibly hurting yourself severely which is very easy to do with

chealtion.

> Perhaps based on your own direct experience you are " not

> recommending " challenge tests?

TK--- From Andy's information - the experiences of others over the

many years and my experience back before Andy had his protocol in

effect. The people here with experience and knowledge with the

protocol will also communicate not to do challenge tests for the same

reasons I have mentioned. We can't stop you but they are not

recommended, not informative, dangerous and have hurt many people

over the many years - we try to keep people from getting hurt more

than they already are.

But I see no basis for this statement

> based on reading AI.

TK--- keep reading - read all the posts in the ANdy index on the

subject, the omnibasu search site and AMC forum - it has been

discussed many times

>

> As to the notion that test results are not informative, that

statement

> qualifies as an oxymoron don't you think?

TK--- as far as body burden, toxicity level and tracking they do not

provide informative information.

I want to gauge how

> effective chelation is as a means of removing Hg stored in my body.

TK--- unfortunately there is currently no way to track body levels of

Hg.

To

> fully explore this subject I might chart the results of several

> provoked heavy metal urinalyses done concurrently with a course of

> chelation. The information (levels of heavy metals by volume and

> compared to creatine) on these reports would, I think meet the

> definition of " informative " - " Providing a lot of useful or

> interesting information "

>

> Whether useful or just interesting would depend, I think, upon the

> person reading the report.

>

> Thank you all for you comments.

>

[Guest guest]

>

> To Jackie, TK, Ed ,

> I appreciate your feedback, concern and thoughtful

> questions/observations. Let me answer some questions and (possibly)

> raise other questions.

>

> " why you feel you need to do a provocation test? So your doctor is

the

> one who wants to do this? "

>

> I do not feel a need, exactly, and the idea did not come from my

> doctor, though I have discussed it with him. I am keen on charting

> results. My simpletons notion of charting " progress " goes like

this:

> I chelate; I remove mercury from soft tissue. I provoke and test

for

> levels. I chelate some more, remove more mercury. I provoke and

test

> again(for discussions sake let's say the second provocation could

be 8

> rounds or about four months after the first). Assumming chelation

is

> having the desired result (lower body burden of HG) then each

> subsequent provocation should show lower levels of Hg.

I would repeat

> the process when adding ALA.

> I hope to share these results with my doctor and anyone else who is

> curious about sub-acute or chronic low level Hg toxicity and the

> efficacy of DMPS as a detoxification therapy. Do any of you see any

> flaw in my thinking or methods?

TK--- unfortunately challenge testing only shows what is available in

the kidneys at that particular time which can be none or a lot which

is why it is not informative and why it can't be tracked. I would

suggest you do hair testing for more information and keep a log on

how you are doing to quantify results. DMPS has been studied for a

long time as to it's ability to chelate Hg, there is lots of

literature.

>

> I am, by nature, a person who is interested in quantification,

> results. So I preceded chelation with an unprovoked toxic metals

urine

> test. Test results confirmed the presence of several heavy metals

in

> my body's cells.

>

I start chelating with a

> dose of DMPS at or below that suggested for body weight. I have

> completed two rounds of 12.5mg DMPS on the recommended 8 hour

schedule

> - 7 days " on " with 7 days off. I am reasonably certain that I can

> tolerate 25 mg, especially in light of the fact that the acute phase

> of my chronic Hg intoxication ended almost four years ago when my

> amalgam revisions were completed. Still I am planning on completing

> one more seven day round of 12.5 mg however, just to be sure.

TK--- caution is good as chelation is rarely the same for each

individual and even though your revision was done that long ago, some

people still have a lot of problems chelating.

>

> Doug, could you explain *exactly* what and how you plan on

> doing this? .... if you do want to do one, then

> it should just be part of a regular round.

>

>

> If I understand what you mean above, is that you would start your

> > round taking 25mg every 6 hours, and then for one day you would

> > increase this to 250mg/4 or 62.5mg every 6 hours, for a 24 hour

> > period, and then go back down to 25mg again?

>

> Well, yes, at the moment, that is exactly what I am considering.

TK-- again, not safe to do and [can] cause very long lasting or

permanent side effects - not arguing with you but I have seen too

many people over the years hurt themselves, it is not necessary and

it does it provide any more information than collecting during a

regular round. You are trying to track progress, again I would

recommend hair testing and tracking your physical progress.

>

> When Andy wrote the following it was 1999 " The other (way of

> challenging with DMPS) is to take 300mg by mouth and is described

int

> the literature by Aposhian and others. It appears to have a higher

> rate of side effects and adverse reactions than the DMSA test and is

> not standardized... "

> That was nine years ago! I want to know how many results based on

the

> 300 mg oral dose level are available.

TK--- you would need to contact Andy

Has DDI looked at enough test

> results based on 300mg DMPS as a provoking agent to have developed

> some statistical reference levels? If they have not then I might as

> well just collect at the end of a round every 8 weeks once I have

> ramped up to my highest tolerable dose.

>

> > --------The safest way is to do it as part of a normal chelation

> > round, or not do it at all. -------Jackie

>

> I believe that what Andy said in 1999 about the DMSA challenge

> procedure could also apply to a DMPS oral challenge...

>

> " Now you do the challenge test. The textbook says take all the DMSA

> at once. You won't do that. It is A LOT SAFER (my emphasis) and a

lot

> more comfortable to spread it out. "

>

> Hoping to minimize redistribution of HG subsequent to a 300 mg DMPS

> oral challenge I could begin a new round of chelation on a six hour

> cycle immediately following the challenge. The round could be six

days

> instead of seven (I am currently doing 7 day cycles).

>

> So what do you think of this modified proposal Jackie?

> 62.5 mg oral DMPS, four doses spaced six hours apart. Collect urine

> for 24 hours beginning at first dose. Begin a round of chelation at

> the very end of the collection period on the same six hour interval

as

> challenge dose. Chelation dose to be set at whatever my maximum

> tolerable dose is at that time.

>

> In response to my original post Jada wrote;

> " These test in no way indicate your body burden of metals "

>

> I'm not sure whether I agree with Jada or not.

> If you mean that dmps/dmsa challenges don't give an accurate picture

> of body burden because neither dmps or DMSA cross the BBB and so a

> challenge not including ALA as a provocation agent would not result

in

> Hg stored in brain tissue being released then I guess I agree.

TK---- challenge tests only test what is currently in the kidneys

which is why it is not a good test, necessary or informative as the

level in the kidneys is not relative to that in the body.

>

> Probably there been studies that refute the usefulness of

provocation

> that I am not familiar with - if so I would appreciate your

references.

>

> Hey TK, I can't figure out where what you mean by this comment

>

> " Urine Challenge tests are not recommended and not

> informative. "

TK-- see above

>

> In Amalgam Illness (AI) by Hall Cutler, the author, (aka

Andy)

> discusses how to safely do a DMSA challenge

TK--- only if necessary to try and get INS to cover chelation - keep

reading and you will find they are not informative for what you are

trying to do.

, advises specifically

> against a DMPS IV challenge and makes some observations about the

> limits and cautions associated with the DMPS 300 mg oral challenge

> described by Aphosian.

> If Andy has posted more specific blanket comments against challenge

> tests I would be grateful if you would post a link or reference.

TK--- there are many and I have posted them many many times before.

At this point you will need to do some research as I do not have time

to look this all back up, sorry - I am only trying to prevent you

from possibly hurting yourself severely which is very easy to do with

chealtion.

> Perhaps based on your own direct experience you are " not

> recommending " challenge tests?

TK--- From Andy's information - the experiences of others over the

many years and my experience back before Andy had his protocol in

effect. The people here with experience and knowledge with the

protocol will also communicate not to do challenge tests for the same

reasons I have mentioned. We can't stop you but they are not

recommended, not informative, dangerous and have hurt many people

over the many years - we try to keep people from getting hurt more

than they already are.

But I see no basis for this statement

> based on reading AI.

TK--- keep reading - read all the posts in the ANdy index on the

subject, the omnibasu search site and AMC forum - it has been

discussed many times

>

> As to the notion that test results are not informative, that

statement

> qualifies as an oxymoron don't you think?

TK--- as far as body burden, toxicity level and tracking they do not

provide informative information.

I want to gauge how

> effective chelation is as a means of removing Hg stored in my body.

TK--- unfortunately there is currently no way to track body levels of

Hg.

To

> fully explore this subject I might chart the results of several

> provoked heavy metal urinalyses done concurrently with a course of

> chelation. The information (levels of heavy metals by volume and

> compared to creatine) on these reports would, I think meet the

> definition of " informative " - " Providing a lot of useful or

> interesting information "

>

> Whether useful or just interesting would depend, I think, upon the

> person reading the report.

>

> Thank you all for you comments.

>

[Guest guest]

Doug -

Why are you doing this? Let's get that clear first, and then we can

discuss the best way to reach your objectives. As it stands, this is

something you really don't want to do - both because it can be very

unpleasant to you, it can also cause damage, and finally it will not be

in the least bit informative.

Dave.

Posted by: " Jackie " jtrunt@...

jtrunt@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Doug--challenge%20test%2C%20wa\

s%20%20DMPS%20Chelation%20Side%20effects%3F>

jackietutts http://profiles.yahoo.com/jackietutts>

Wed Apr 2, 2008 12:03 pm (PDT)

>

> I am going to do go to 25 mg next round to see if I tolerate the

> higher dose, then the following round I am going to " embed " a

> provocation dose (250 mg spaced over four doses/24 hours) and

urine

> sample for toxic metals analysis in the middle of a 7 day round

--------Doug, could you explain *exactly* what and how you plan on

doing this? And why you feel you need to do a provocation test?

They really aren't recommended, and if you do want to do one, then

it should just be part of a regular round.

If I understand what you mean above, is that you would start your

round taking 25mg every 6 hours, and then for one day you would

increase this to 250mg/4 or 62.5mg every 6 hours, for a 24 hour

period, and then go back down to 25mg again? This is not

recommended to be fluctuating dosages like this during a round, and

it will cause alot of redistribution. Personally, I would not do

it. If you want to do the urine test, just do it as part of your

normal chelation round.-------Jackie

>

> This seems the safest way to minimize side effect of a provocative

> urine test.

--------The safest way is to do it as part of a normal chelation

round, or not do it at all. So your doctor is the one who wants to

do this?-------Jackie

>

> Doug

[Guest guest]

Doug -

Why are you doing this? Let's get that clear first, and then we can

discuss the best way to reach your objectives. As it stands, this is

something you really don't want to do - both because it can be very

unpleasant to you, it can also cause damage, and finally it will not be

in the least bit informative.

Dave.

Posted by: " Jackie " jtrunt@...

jtrunt@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Doug--challenge%20test%2C%20wa\

s%20%20DMPS%20Chelation%20Side%20effects%3F>

jackietutts http://profiles.yahoo.com/jackietutts>

Wed Apr 2, 2008 12:03 pm (PDT)

>

> I am going to do go to 25 mg next round to see if I tolerate the

> higher dose, then the following round I am going to " embed " a

> provocation dose (250 mg spaced over four doses/24 hours) and

urine

> sample for toxic metals analysis in the middle of a 7 day round

--------Doug, could you explain *exactly* what and how you plan on

doing this? And why you feel you need to do a provocation test?

They really aren't recommended, and if you do want to do one, then

it should just be part of a regular round.

If I understand what you mean above, is that you would start your

round taking 25mg every 6 hours, and then for one day you would

increase this to 250mg/4 or 62.5mg every 6 hours, for a 24 hour

period, and then go back down to 25mg again? This is not

recommended to be fluctuating dosages like this during a round, and

it will cause alot of redistribution. Personally, I would not do

it. If you want to do the urine test, just do it as part of your

normal chelation round.-------Jackie

>

> This seems the safest way to minimize side effect of a provocative

> urine test.

--------The safest way is to do it as part of a normal chelation

round, or not do it at all. So your doctor is the one who wants to

do this?-------Jackie

>

> Doug

[Guest guest]

TK and ,

Thanks for your replies and sincere concerns. I'll keep you posted

if I learn anything useful in my discussions with DDI and my research

of other, older posts on the subject.

If there has been no significant accumulation of data, based on

the 300 mg oral DMPS test, against which individual results could be

compared and to which those results could be added then there would be

absolutely no benefit to me or anyone else in considering such a test.

However, I remain convinced that the data compiled in end-of-round or

start-of-round 24 urine samples taken over the course a person's

chelation would yield useful data with virtually no downside risk,

assumming, that is, that the provocation dose was consistent with what

that person had already been using in the normal course of their

individual chelation protocol.

Are your cautions about this test in part due to the use of DMPS vs DMSA?

Doug

[Guest guest]

TK and ,

Thanks for your replies and sincere concerns. I'll keep you posted

if I learn anything useful in my discussions with DDI and my research

of other, older posts on the subject.

If there has been no significant accumulation of data, based on

the 300 mg oral DMPS test, against which individual results could be

compared and to which those results could be added then there would be

absolutely no benefit to me or anyone else in considering such a test.

However, I remain convinced that the data compiled in end-of-round or

start-of-round 24 urine samples taken over the course a person's

chelation would yield useful data with virtually no downside risk,

assumming, that is, that the provocation dose was consistent with what

that person had already been using in the normal course of their

individual chelation protocol.

Are your cautions about this test in part due to the use of DMPS vs DMSA?

Doug

[Guest guest]

TK and ,

Thanks for your replies and sincere concerns. I'll keep you posted

if I learn anything useful in my discussions with DDI and my research

of other, older posts on the subject.

If there has been no significant accumulation of data, based on

the 300 mg oral DMPS test, against which individual results could be

compared and to which those results could be added then there would be

absolutely no benefit to me or anyone else in considering such a test.

However, I remain convinced that the data compiled in end-of-round or

start-of-round 24 urine samples taken over the course a person's

chelation would yield useful data with virtually no downside risk,

assumming, that is, that the provocation dose was consistent with what

that person had already been using in the normal course of their

individual chelation protocol.

Are your cautions about this test in part due to the use of DMPS vs DMSA?

Doug

[Guest guest]

>

> However, I remain convinced that the data compiled in end-of-round

You can be very convinced, and still be very wrong.

> or start-of-round 24 urine samples taken over the course a person's

> chelation would yield useful data with virtually no downside risk,

That depends largely on how you define downside risk. I'm someone who

has personally been made significantly worse by using an improper

protocol. You risk worsening your health.

> assumming, that is, that the provocation dose was consistent with

> what that person had already been using in the normal course of

> their individual chelation protocol.

If you absolutely must measure yourself, then just collect urine for

24 hours DURING a round WITHOUT increasing the dose. Just using the

same regular, low, frequent dose that you use in a normal round,

WITHOUT increasing it. Compare this to a 24-hr collection when you

are not chelating and you should see that there are metals in it.

> Are your cautions about this test in part due to the use of DMPS vs

DMSA?

I don't think DMPS vs DMSA is in any way a concern. The issue is the

large doses. And the fact that what you are measuring and the results

you are getting do not indicate how far you've come or how far you

still have to go. As TK said, you are just measuring what is in your

kidneys during that 24-hr period, which has nothing to do with what is

in your muscles, organs, joints, brain, etc.

> Doug

>

I can really understand the compelling desire for quanitification, ie,

proof. But, trite as it may be, there are times that the " proof is in

the pudding " and no where else. Make a spreadsheet of your symptoms

and score them every day, then chart as they go down and disappear.

Do you really want to risk further degrading your health? I wouldn't.

[Guest guest]

>

> However, I remain convinced that the data compiled in end-of-round

You can be very convinced, and still be very wrong.

> or start-of-round 24 urine samples taken over the course a person's

> chelation would yield useful data with virtually no downside risk,

That depends largely on how you define downside risk. I'm someone who

has personally been made significantly worse by using an improper

protocol. You risk worsening your health.

> assumming, that is, that the provocation dose was consistent with

> what that person had already been using in the normal course of

> their individual chelation protocol.

If you absolutely must measure yourself, then just collect urine for

24 hours DURING a round WITHOUT increasing the dose. Just using the

same regular, low, frequent dose that you use in a normal round,

WITHOUT increasing it. Compare this to a 24-hr collection when you

are not chelating and you should see that there are metals in it.

> Are your cautions about this test in part due to the use of DMPS vs

DMSA?

I don't think DMPS vs DMSA is in any way a concern. The issue is the

large doses. And the fact that what you are measuring and the results

you are getting do not indicate how far you've come or how far you

still have to go. As TK said, you are just measuring what is in your

kidneys during that 24-hr period, which has nothing to do with what is

in your muscles, organs, joints, brain, etc.

> Doug

>

I can really understand the compelling desire for quanitification, ie,

proof. But, trite as it may be, there are times that the " proof is in

the pudding " and no where else. Make a spreadsheet of your symptoms

and score them every day, then chart as they go down and disappear.

Do you really want to risk further degrading your health? I wouldn't.

[Guest guest]

>

> However, I remain convinced that the data compiled in end-of-round

You can be very convinced, and still be very wrong.

> or start-of-round 24 urine samples taken over the course a person's

> chelation would yield useful data with virtually no downside risk,

That depends largely on how you define downside risk. I'm someone who

has personally been made significantly worse by using an improper

protocol. You risk worsening your health.

> assumming, that is, that the provocation dose was consistent with

> what that person had already been using in the normal course of

> their individual chelation protocol.

If you absolutely must measure yourself, then just collect urine for

24 hours DURING a round WITHOUT increasing the dose. Just using the

same regular, low, frequent dose that you use in a normal round,

WITHOUT increasing it. Compare this to a 24-hr collection when you

are not chelating and you should see that there are metals in it.

> Are your cautions about this test in part due to the use of DMPS vs

DMSA?

I don't think DMPS vs DMSA is in any way a concern. The issue is the

large doses. And the fact that what you are measuring and the results

you are getting do not indicate how far you've come or how far you

still have to go. As TK said, you are just measuring what is in your

kidneys during that 24-hr period, which has nothing to do with what is

in your muscles, organs, joints, brain, etc.

> Doug

>

I can really understand the compelling desire for quanitification, ie,

proof. But, trite as it may be, there are times that the " proof is in

the pudding " and no where else. Make a spreadsheet of your symptoms

and score them every day, then chart as they go down and disappear.

Do you really want to risk further degrading your health? I wouldn't.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> However, I remain convinced that the data compiled in end-of-round or

> start-of-round 24 urine samples taken over the course a person's

> chelation would yield useful data with virtually no downside risk,

> assumming, that is, that the provocation dose was consistent with what

> that person had already been using in the normal course of their

> individual chelation protocol.

>

Then some of the factors to consider are, can you compare the early

results of 12.5 mg per dose rounds to later results when you are up to

say 50 mg per dose. And also, when would you include ALA in the testing.

And then you need to think about the error involved in the whole urine

collection and sampling procedure. I really don't think one set of

results would be comparable to another.

When I inquired it cost $300.00 for one test. That might be because I

am in Canada (and the US dollar was high back then). It still seems

like a large amount of money to spend when I consider all of the other

expenses I have had to face starting with amalgam removal,

supplements, medications, advise from specialists..... maybe money is

not a limiting factor for you.

> Are your cautions about this test in part due to the use of DMPS vs

DMSA?

>

My cautions are mostly because of the high doses that you were

considering and some of the horror stories I have read from people who

have used high single chelator doses and regressed.

J

> Doug

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> However, I remain convinced that the data compiled in end-of-round or

> start-of-round 24 urine samples taken over the course a person's

> chelation would yield useful data with virtually no downside risk,

> assumming, that is, that the provocation dose was consistent with what

> that person had already been using in the normal course of their

> individual chelation protocol.

>

Then some of the factors to consider are, can you compare the early

results of 12.5 mg per dose rounds to later results when you are up to

say 50 mg per dose. And also, when would you include ALA in the testing.

And then you need to think about the error involved in the whole urine

collection and sampling procedure. I really don't think one set of

results would be comparable to another.

When I inquired it cost $300.00 for one test. That might be because I

am in Canada (and the US dollar was high back then). It still seems

like a large amount of money to spend when I consider all of the other

expenses I have had to face starting with amalgam removal,

supplements, medications, advise from specialists..... maybe money is

not a limiting factor for you.

> Are your cautions about this test in part due to the use of DMPS vs

DMSA?

>

My cautions are mostly because of the high doses that you were

considering and some of the horror stories I have read from people who

have used high single chelator doses and regressed.

J

> Doug

>

[Guest guest]

I had a challenge test done with 500mg dmps, the day I took it I felt pretty

good, now keep in mind the naturepath had me do this with a mouth LOADED with

old merc fillings, some leaking, cracked, even one buried in a root canal since

childhood we did not know about at the time. So that day I thought, gee, this

isn't bad, didn't know what all the fuss was about. A few days later I got so

brain fogged, and it got worse and worse for a week or two, I could barely

function anymore, couldn't even be on the internet (beleive me, thats next to

'death' for me!), it took me many many months to recover from that huge one time

dose. The results showed high tin, and significant mercury but nothing that

reflected how sick I was or how grossly exposed I was at the time and had been

for 40 yrs. My naturepath (as said) who is healthy had taken one years

before and said his mercury was 'higher' than mine. Well, that told me right

there how meaningless is was. He had his amalgams removed and chelated high

dose, but he was never sick with any symptoms in the first place. So in my

humble opinion that test was totally DANGEROUS and worthless.

Marcia

I don't think DMPS vs DMSA is in any way a concern. The issue is the

large doses. And the fact that what you are measuring and the results

you are getting do not indicate how far you've come or how far you

still have to go. As TK said, you are just measuring what is in your

kidneys during that 24-hr period, which has nothing to do with what is

in your muscles, organs, joints, brain, etc.

> Doug

>

I can really understand the compelling desire for quanitification, ie,

proof. But, trite as it may be, there are times that the " proof is in

the pudding " and no where else. Make a spreadsheet of your symptoms

and score them every day, then chart as they go down and disappear.

Do you really want to risk further degrading your health? I wouldn't.

[Guest guest]

I had a challenge test done with 500mg dmps, the day I took it I felt pretty

good, now keep in mind the naturepath had me do this with a mouth LOADED with

old merc fillings, some leaking, cracked, even one buried in a root canal since

childhood we did not know about at the time. So that day I thought, gee, this

isn't bad, didn't know what all the fuss was about. A few days later I got so

brain fogged, and it got worse and worse for a week or two, I could barely

function anymore, couldn't even be on the internet (beleive me, thats next to

'death' for me!), it took me many many months to recover from that huge one time

dose. The results showed high tin, and significant mercury but nothing that

reflected how sick I was or how grossly exposed I was at the time and had been

for 40 yrs. My naturepath (as said) who is healthy had taken one years

before and said his mercury was 'higher' than mine. Well, that told me right

there how meaningless is was. He had his amalgams removed and chelated high

dose, but he was never sick with any symptoms in the first place. So in my

humble opinion that test was totally DANGEROUS and worthless.

Marcia

I don't think DMPS vs DMSA is in any way a concern. The issue is the

large doses. And the fact that what you are measuring and the results

you are getting do not indicate how far you've come or how far you

still have to go. As TK said, you are just measuring what is in your

kidneys during that 24-hr period, which has nothing to do with what is

in your muscles, organs, joints, brain, etc.

> Doug

>

I can really understand the compelling desire for quanitification, ie,

proof. But, trite as it may be, there are times that the " proof is in

the pudding " and no where else. Make a spreadsheet of your symptoms

and score them every day, then chart as they go down and disappear.

Do you really want to risk further degrading your health? I wouldn't.

[Guest guest]

Hi Doug,

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this, but my understanding is that the

metals don't come out in any certain order and that you may excrete more during

one round and then less on the next, with no real rhyme or reason to it. So you

may dump mercury for awhile, and then maybe another metal for awhile, and then

maybe hardly nothing, and then maybe more again. I believe I probably read this

in the ANDY INDEX a long time ago, and probably from posts in A-M, because I

believe more parents did do some urine testing.

I agree that urine testing to see what is actually coming out would be somewhat

interesting, but from what I have read, and as mentioned, I have other

things to spend that money on and can't afford to do alot of it, so I just

haven't been able to justify doing it. If I had tons of money or if insurance

would pay for it, I would do it, just for curiosity sake, to see what is coming

out and when, but I would not use it to determine my treatment or how long I

chelated. JMO---------Jackie

In frequent-dose-chelation nhdougsimmons wrote:

TK and ,

Thanks for your replies and sincere concerns. I'll keep you posted

if I learn anything useful in my discussions with DDI and my research

of other, older posts on the subject.

If there has been no significant accumulation of data, based on

the 300 mg oral DMPS test, against which individual results could be

compared and to which those results could be added then there would be

absolutely no benefit to me or anyone else in considering such a test.

However, I remain convinced that the data compiled in end-of-round or

start-of-round 24 urine samples taken over the course a person's

chelation would yield useful data with virtually no downside risk,

assumming, that is, that the provocation dose was consistent with what

that person had already been using in the normal course of their

individual chelation protocol.

Are your cautions about this test in part due to the use of DMPS vs DMSA?

Doug

[Guest guest]

Hi Doug,

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this, but my understanding is that the

metals don't come out in any certain order and that you may excrete more during

one round and then less on the next, with no real rhyme or reason to it. So you

may dump mercury for awhile, and then maybe another metal for awhile, and then

maybe hardly nothing, and then maybe more again. I believe I probably read this

in the ANDY INDEX a long time ago, and probably from posts in A-M, because I

believe more parents did do some urine testing.

I agree that urine testing to see what is actually coming out would be somewhat

interesting, but from what I have read, and as mentioned, I have other

things to spend that money on and can't afford to do alot of it, so I just

haven't been able to justify doing it. If I had tons of money or if insurance

would pay for it, I would do it, just for curiosity sake, to see what is coming

out and when, but I would not use it to determine my treatment or how long I

chelated. JMO---------Jackie

In frequent-dose-chelation nhdougsimmons wrote:

TK and ,

Thanks for your replies and sincere concerns. I'll keep you posted

if I learn anything useful in my discussions with DDI and my research

of other, older posts on the subject.

If there has been no significant accumulation of data, based on

the 300 mg oral DMPS test, against which individual results could be

compared and to which those results could be added then there would be

absolutely no benefit to me or anyone else in considering such a test.

However, I remain convinced that the data compiled in end-of-round or

start-of-round 24 urine samples taken over the course a person's

chelation would yield useful data with virtually no downside risk,

assumming, that is, that the provocation dose was consistent with what

that person had already been using in the normal course of their

individual chelation protocol.

Are your cautions about this test in part due to the use of DMPS vs DMSA?

Doug