Guest guest Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 > If I understand correctly, that means the first year I'll remove 50%. The > second year, 50% of what remains, so after two years, 25% of the original > amount will be left. After 3 years, about 12.5% of the original amount > will > remain. After 4 years about 6% of the original amount will remain. Hi Dean, Since the dosage of chelators will remain the same or increase and the amount of mercury to chelate will decrease, I believe that it goes exponentially quicker towards the end at these higher dosages i.e a slow hard slog the first year, then a bit easier the second, and from then on much quicker. That is of course assuming that your adrenals and thyroid are up to the task of chelation. Smaller doses and iller metabolism makes for slow chelation. 50-100mg is huge for most of us. DeanSA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 > If I understand correctly, that means the first year I'll remove 50%. The > second year, 50% of what remains, so after two years, 25% of the original > amount will be left. After 3 years, about 12.5% of the original amount > will > remain. After 4 years about 6% of the original amount will remain. Hi Dean, Since the dosage of chelators will remain the same or increase and the amount of mercury to chelate will decrease, I believe that it goes exponentially quicker towards the end at these higher dosages i.e a slow hard slog the first year, then a bit easier the second, and from then on much quicker. That is of course assuming that your adrenals and thyroid are up to the task of chelation. Smaller doses and iller metabolism makes for slow chelation. 50-100mg is huge for most of us. DeanSA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 > If I understand correctly, that means the first year I'll remove 50%. The > second year, 50% of what remains, so after two years, 25% of the original > amount will be left. After 3 years, about 12.5% of the original amount > will > remain. After 4 years about 6% of the original amount will remain. Hi Dean, Since the dosage of chelators will remain the same or increase and the amount of mercury to chelate will decrease, I believe that it goes exponentially quicker towards the end at these higher dosages i.e a slow hard slog the first year, then a bit easier the second, and from then on much quicker. That is of course assuming that your adrenals and thyroid are up to the task of chelation. Smaller doses and iller metabolism makes for slow chelation. 50-100mg is huge for most of us. DeanSA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 > > Sometimes I'll take out my copy of AI and just skim through it, and every > now and then I come across some interesting tidbit I'd either forgotten or > hadn't seen. Here's one - on page 90 Andy writes that taking 50-100 mg dmsa > + 50-100 mg ala every 3-4 hours (I believe he since has come to insist on > every 3 hours for ala) will remove about 1/2 to 1% of the mercury in the > brain every day that you chelate. Thus in order to reduce brain mercury by > 50%, you have to chelate for 70-140 days. > Can someone help me understand why we should expect the amount of Hg removed to be a fixed percentage (1/2 to 1%), as opposed to a fixed absolute amount? For example, Person A is mildly Hg intoxicated with a total quantity of X stored in his/her tissues, glands, etc. Person B is severely intoxicated with 10X of mercury. Assume distribution of Hg among tissues and organs is similar in both cases - only the quantity differs greatly. Both take 75mg of a chelator every 3/4 hours, per high frequency schedule. Since they are both taking 75mg of the chelator, wouldn't we expect that roughly the same amount of mercury will be mobilized/chelated in Person A and Person B? Assuming similar excretory efficiency during chelation, the percentage reduction will be much greater in A relatively to B. (since denominator is much larger for Person Certain rules of thumb like this are difficult to accept at face value without further explanation. Perhaps the 1/2% to 1% " rule " is just an oversimplification, assuming some sort of " average " level of toxicity per person. But given the degree of toxicity varies tremendously from person to person, as AI describes elaborately, I'm not sure how useful this kind of rule of thumb is. Darren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 Hello Darren, I'm not certain what your point is. Dean has found a section of AI that gives a very general guesstimate of what the expected rate of mercury removal might be. Generally speaking, 2 to 3 years seems to be the typical time frame. It worked for me. Major breakthroughs in the return of photographic memory let me know it really was clearing my brain. I keep seeing small improvements with my current, random, 3 day sessions of 100mg ALA/ 100mg DMSA every 3 hours. (I just finished 3 days over this long weekend.) During this process we have to take multiple supplements to provide our bodies with the other nutrients that the chelator may latch onto if it cannot find any mercury, or only a minimal amount of mercury. This is not a simple one-to-one reaction between ALA, or DMSA and mercury. Part of this multiple reaction process is where the " Half-Life " of the chelator comes from. It doesn't enter our bodies and weaken from any aging affect. It enters our bodies and actively reacts chemically throughout our systems. This is why the protocol calls for equal time off from the chelation dosing. The continued supplements replace what the chelators latch onto. We find many people on this site who argue themselves into the mode of chelating for as long a period as they can handle. They want to speed everything up. Unfortunately they are pushing the envelope of how depeleted these other chemicals can become, before other organs begin to see problems. Andy has a very logical, sensible protocol that allows you to take control of the process. You are not at the mercy of some MD to prescribe a massive dose of chelator and declare that he has never had a patient complain of any problems. (No. 1, the patient has to make and pay for an appointment to let the doctor know that he/she is having problems. Because, No. 2, doctors do not perform any follow ups to check in on their patients, in this day and age. No. 3, the doctor had all interest in performing any kind of scientific testing eliminated from his thought process, during his years of medical school. That training was fundamentally how to translate a patient's physical symptoms into Latin; look up in the " Physician's Desk Reference " what the appropriate treatment is; prescribe that treatment and never look back. If a patient is harmed, or injured from this process, the doctor cannot even suggest an apology. That is banned by his mal-practice insurance provider. He can loose his insurance coverage if the corporations learn that he has cast doubt on the ultimate perfection of all of his medical decisions and prescriptions. This medical industry is working like a religion instead of a scientific endeavor that actually cures people.) Bottom line, relax. You have an opportunity to actually help yourself. 1/2 to 1% per day is a fairly rapid chelation rate. 3 days on chelation means we are removing 1.5 to 3% of the mercury remaining in our brain each chelation cycle. As the amount of mercury keeps dwindling it gets harder and harder for the chemical reactions with the ALA to occur. (There's the same amount of ALA, but there is less and less mercury to react with. Whatever, amount there is, 1.5 to 3% will be removed during a 3 day cycle.) At some point we will be down to such trace amounts that chelation doesn't seem to do anything. We have our brains down to background levels and our systems can handle it. I feel that I am in this mode with the ALA. I did my 2 years of chelation with ALA only. My current protocol has added DMSA (now that I seem to be able to tolerate its side effects). I think the DMSA may be responsible for my current perceived improvements, due to its ability to chelate lead. This process works. Don't get tangled up in microscopic details of the chemistry. Stay focused on your own chemistry and have the ultimate positive experience of discovering that this process works. Take it slow. You are in charge. Do not hurt yourself. It's wonderful to see all of the variety of effects from mercury disappear. It's frustrating to see that we have an industry and politicians that refuse to acknowledge how devastating this hazardous material is to human beings. Enjoy, Klipfel --- Darren xbluehens@...> wrote: > > > > > Sometimes I'll take out my copy of AI and just > skim through it, and > every > > now and then I come across some interesting tidbit > I'd either > forgotten or > > hadn't seen. Here's one - on page 90 Andy writes > that taking 50-100 > mg dmsa > > + 50-100 mg ala every 3-4 hours (I believe he > since has come to > insist on > > every 3 hours for ala) will remove about 1/2 to 1% > of the mercury in the > > brain every day that you chelate. Thus in order > to reduce brain > mercury by > > 50%, you have to chelate for 70-140 days. > > > > Can someone help me understand why we should expect > the amount of Hg > removed to be a fixed percentage (1/2 to 1%), as > opposed to a fixed > absolute amount? > > For example, Person A is mildly Hg intoxicated with > a total quantity > of X stored in his/her tissues, glands, etc. Person > B is severely > intoxicated with 10X of mercury. Assume > distribution of Hg among > tissues and organs is similar in both cases - only > the quantity > differs greatly. Both take 75mg of a chelator every > 3/4 hours, per > high frequency schedule. Since they are both taking > 75mg of the > chelator, wouldn't we expect that roughly the same > amount of mercury > will be mobilized/chelated in Person A and Person B? > Assuming similar > excretory efficiency during chelation, the > percentage reduction will > be much greater in A relatively to B. (since > denominator is much > larger for Person > > Certain rules of thumb like this are difficult to > accept at face value > without further explanation. Perhaps the 1/2% to 1% > " rule " is just an > oversimplification, assuming some sort of " average " > level of toxicity > per person. But given the degree of toxicity varies > tremendously from > person to person, as AI describes elaborately, I'm > not sure how useful > this kind of rule of thumb is. > > Darren > > ________________________________________________________________________________\ ____ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 > > > > > > Sometimes I'll take out my copy of AI and just > > skim through it, and > > every > > > now and then I come across some interesting tidbit > > I'd either > > forgotten or > > > hadn't seen. Here's one - on page 90 Andy writes > > that taking 50-100 > > mg dmsa > > > + 50-100 mg ala every 3-4 hours (I believe he > > since has come to > > insist on > > > every 3 hours for ala) will remove about 1/2 to 1% > > of the mercury in the > > > brain every day that you chelate. Thus in order > > to reduce brain > > mercury by > > > 50%, you have to chelate for 70-140 days. > > > > > > > Can someone help me understand why we should expect > > the amount of Hg > > removed to be a fixed percentage (1/2 to 1%), as > > opposed to a fixed > > absolute amount? > > > > For example, Person A is mildly Hg intoxicated with > > a total quantity > > of X stored in his/her tissues, glands, etc. Person > > B is severely > > intoxicated with 10X of mercury. Assume > > distribution of Hg among > > tissues and organs is similar in both cases - only > > the quantity > > differs greatly. Both take 75mg of a chelator every > > 3/4 hours, per > > high frequency schedule. Since they are both taking > > 75mg of the > > chelator, wouldn't we expect that roughly the same > > amount of mercury > > will be mobilized/chelated in Person A and Person B? > > Assuming similar > > excretory efficiency during chelation, the > > percentage reduction will > > be much greater in A relatively to B. (since > > denominator is much > > larger for Person > > > > Certain rules of thumb like this are difficult to > > accept at face value > > without further explanation. Perhaps the 1/2% to 1% > > " rule " is just an > > oversimplification, assuming some sort of " average " > > level of toxicity > > per person. But given the degree of toxicity varies > > tremendously from > > person to person, as AI describes elaborately, I'm > > not sure how useful > > this kind of rule of thumb is. > > > > Darren > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________\ ____ > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 Thanks you sooo much for posting this. I printed it out so I can read it when I feel like I am getting nowhere. It is a slow process, I also dont want to increase side effects. Patience is a virtue. Vivian > > Sometimes I'll take out my copy of AI and just skim through it, and every > now and then I come across some interesting tidbit I'd either forgotten or > hadn't seen. Here's one - on page 90 Andy writes that taking 50-100 mg dmsa > + 50-100 mg ala every 3-4 hours (I believe he since has come to insist on > every 3 hours for ala) will remove about 1/2 to 1% of the mercury in the > brain every day that you chelate. Thus in order to reduce brain mercury by > 50%, you have to chelate for 70-140 days. > > It's interesting and useful to see it quantified that way. At the lower > dosages most of us use here, it's probably at the 1/2% per day or even less > (I use 25 mg ala every 2.5-3 hours). So as a rough rule of thumb, since I'm > usually chelating about half the time (4 days on and 3 days off or vice > versa), I'm probably removing 50% of my mercury every year or so. > > If I understand correctly, that means the first year I'll remove 50%. The > second year, 50% of what remains, so after two years, 25% of the original > amount will be left. After 3 years, about 12.5% of the original amount will > remain. After 4 years about 6% of the original amount will remain. > > I find this very helpful in understanding why progress is sometimes so > maddeningly slow, why I should expect to heal slowly, and why I should be > patient and confident that good things are happening even if it seems I've > plateau'd. > > Dean > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 I totally agree. This are great posts. It's hard to be patient without proper understanding of why to be patient. And I can't believe how much I was agreeing and nodding my head through Darren's post! We are the tortoise --- not the hare : Donna >>Thanks you sooo much for posting this. I printed it out so I can read >>it when I feel like I am getting nowhere. It is a slow process, I >>also dont want to increase side effects. Patience is a virtue. >>Vivian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2008 Report Share Posted February 18, 2008 I totally agree. This are great posts. It's hard to be patient without proper understanding of why to be patient. And I can't believe how much I was agreeing and nodding my head through Darren's post! We are the tortoise --- not the hare : Donna >>Thanks you sooo much for posting this. I printed it out so I can read >>it when I feel like I am getting nowhere. It is a slow process, I >>also dont want to increase side effects. Patience is a virtue. >>Vivian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.