Re: Question on when introducing ALA

[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.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>