Re: Question on when introducing ALA

[Guest guest]

The rule to wait until 3 months after amalgam removal or recent

exposure before starting ALA is absolute. Omitting that rule in the

general suggestions was probably just an oversight. Thanks for

pointing that out and I'll correct it when I get a chance.

J

>

> I though the rule of waiting to start ALA at least three months after

> amalgam removal was quite absolute. However, reading TK's suggestions

> for oral chelation he considers the possibility of introducing ALA

> just on round 4. Nothing is said about waiting three months.

>

> So either I have misunderstood TK's suggestions or the absolute

> character of the 3-months rule. If starting ALA in the 4th round is

> consider a safe protocol I would be willing to consider this option.

> If not, probably it would be a good idea to modify the file explaining

> this with more detail.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

The rule to wait until 3 months after amalgam removal or recent

exposure before starting ALA is absolute. Omitting that rule in the

general suggestions was probably just an oversight. Thanks for

pointing that out and I'll correct it when I get a chance.

J

>

> I though the rule of waiting to start ALA at least three months after

> amalgam removal was quite absolute. However, reading TK's suggestions

> for oral chelation he considers the possibility of introducing ALA

> just on round 4. Nothing is said about waiting three months.

>

> So either I have misunderstood TK's suggestions or the absolute

> character of the 3-months rule. If starting ALA in the 4th round is

> consider a safe protocol I would be willing to consider this option.

> If not, probably it would be a good idea to modify the file explaining

> this with more detail.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In regards to the 3 month rule, I've come across one exception from

Cutler for a specific case:

http://onibasu.com/archives/fdc/13643.html

Jay

> >

> > I though the rule of waiting to start ALA at least three months after

> > amalgam removal was quite absolute. However, reading TK's suggestions

> > for oral chelation he considers the possibility of introducing ALA

> > just on round 4. Nothing is said about waiting three months.

> >

> > So either I have misunderstood TK's suggestions or the absolute

> > character of the 3-months rule. If starting ALA in the 4th round is

> > consider a safe protocol I would be willing to consider this option.

> > If not, probably it would be a good idea to modify the file explaining

> > this with more detail.

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

In regards to the 3 month rule, I've come across one exception from

Cutler for a specific case:

http://onibasu.com/archives/fdc/13643.html

Jay

> >

> > I though the rule of waiting to start ALA at least three months after

> > amalgam removal was quite absolute. However, reading TK's suggestions

> > for oral chelation he considers the possibility of introducing ALA

> > just on round 4. Nothing is said about waiting three months.

> >

> > So either I have misunderstood TK's suggestions or the absolute

> > character of the 3-months rule. If starting ALA in the 4th round is

> > consider a safe protocol I would be willing to consider this option.

> > If not, probably it would be a good idea to modify the file explaining

> > this with more detail.

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

The " wait 3 months after amalgam removal before starting ALA rule "

still holds, until I hear different from Andy......

> > >

> > > I though the rule of waiting to start ALA at least three months

after

> > > amalgam removal was quite absolute. However, reading TK's

suggestions

> > > for oral chelation he considers the possibility of introducing ALA

> > > just on round 4. Nothing is said about waiting three months.

> > >

> > > So either I have misunderstood TK's suggestions or the absolute

> > > character of the 3-months rule. If starting ALA in the 4th round is

> > > consider a safe protocol I would be willing to consider this option.

> > > If not, probably it would be a good idea to modify the file

explaining

> > > this with more detail.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

The " wait 3 months after amalgam removal before starting ALA rule "

still holds, until I hear different from Andy......

> > >

> > > I though the rule of waiting to start ALA at least three months

after

> > > amalgam removal was quite absolute. However, reading TK's

suggestions

> > > for oral chelation he considers the possibility of introducing ALA

> > > just on round 4. Nothing is said about waiting three months.

> > >

> > > So either I have misunderstood TK's suggestions or the absolute

> > > character of the 3-months rule. If starting ALA in the 4th round is

> > > consider a safe protocol I would be willing to consider this option.

> > > If not, probably it would be a good idea to modify the file

explaining

> > > this with more detail.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

,

This person's post was less than 2 months after the amalgams were

removed (not 4 months), and Andy replied less than a week after that

post (see the date of the posts). Hence the confusion on my part.

I was curious about Cutler's thinking behind the 3 month

recommendation. Upon further reading, I found that Cutler said any

increase in mercury levels in the brain (by introducing ALA earlier

than the decline in blood levels) isn't a lot of mercury, happens in

some but not most people, and would be reversed with further

chelation. He also explained how to time the introduction of ALA more

precisely using urinary mercury levels if someone was able to measure it.

It's a good rule of thumb but I think his more detailed explanations

are helpful and comforting for those that are curious.

I have updated the wiki with more detailed information:

http://onibasu.com/wiki/Cutler_protocol#The_3_month_rule

http://onibasu.com/wiki/Cutler_protocol#Starting_chelation

Jay

> > > >

> > > > I though the rule of waiting to start ALA at least three months

> after

> > > > amalgam removal was quite absolute. However, reading TK's

> suggestions

> > > > for oral chelation he considers the possibility of introducing ALA

> > > > just on round 4. Nothing is said about waiting three months.

> > > >

> > > > So either I have misunderstood TK's suggestions or the absolute

> > > > character of the 3-months rule. If starting ALA in the 4th

round is

> > > > consider a safe protocol I would be willing to consider this

option.

> > > > If not, probably it would be a good idea to modify the file

> explaining

> > > > this with more detail.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

>

> ,

>

> This person's post was less than 2 months after the amalgams were

> removed (not 4 months), and Andy replied less than a week after that

> post (see the date of the posts). Hence the confusion on my part.

>

Sorry, I missed that part

I didn't get time to go through all of the posts you linked to below

(I will soon). It is great to have them organized like this for

people who want to review them - much better to read through what the

Big Guy actually said in the context that he actually said it. Thanks

for doing this.

J

> I was curious about Cutler's thinking behind the 3 month

> recommendation. Upon further reading, I found that Cutler said any

> increase in mercury levels in the brain (by introducing ALA earlier

> than the decline in blood levels) isn't a lot of mercury, happens in

> some but not most people, and would be reversed with further

> chelation. He also explained how to time the introduction of ALA more

> precisely using urinary mercury levels if someone was able to

measure it.

>

> It's a good rule of thumb but I think his more detailed explanations

> are helpful and comforting for those that are curious.

>

> I have updated the wiki with more detailed information:

> http://onibasu.com/wiki/Cutler_protocol#The_3_month_rule

> http://onibasu.com/wiki/Cutler_protocol#Starting_chelation

>

> Jay

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> ,

>

> This person's post was less than 2 months after the amalgams were

> removed (not 4 months), and Andy replied less than a week after that

> post (see the date of the posts). Hence the confusion on my part.

>

Sorry, I missed that part

I didn't get time to go through all of the posts you linked to below

(I will soon). It is great to have them organized like this for

people who want to review them - much better to read through what the

Big Guy actually said in the context that he actually said it. Thanks

for doing this.

J

> I was curious about Cutler's thinking behind the 3 month

> recommendation. Upon further reading, I found that Cutler said any

> increase in mercury levels in the brain (by introducing ALA earlier

> than the decline in blood levels) isn't a lot of mercury, happens in

> some but not most people, and would be reversed with further

> chelation. He also explained how to time the introduction of ALA more

> precisely using urinary mercury levels if someone was able to

measure it.

>

> It's a good rule of thumb but I think his more detailed explanations

> are helpful and comforting for those that are curious.

>

> I have updated the wiki with more detailed information:

> http://onibasu.com/wiki/Cutler_protocol#The_3_month_rule

> http://onibasu.com/wiki/Cutler_protocol#Starting_chelation

>

> Jay

>

>

>