Re: How to convince a doctor I am mercury poisoned?

[Guest guest]

>

> I have been very lucky because I have met the director of a

> pharmaceutical research lab in Spain. He has a PhD in medicine and I

> think he can understand very well this stuff. He is open minded,

> clever and I think he knows lots of medicine. I have met him thanks to

> a common friend of us and he has devoted me about two hours of his

> time listening carefully and asking clever questions.

>

> Convincing him of my mercury problem it is important for me, but not

> only. Of course, he can help me a lot.

> But if he realizes mercury is really a problem maybe he could do

> something good far beyond my particular case.

It sounds like a worthwhile effort to pursue the discussion of

this with him. It is wonderful that you have someone open and

willing to listen!

> I have given him a copy of AI and now I will like to convince him I am

> mercury poisoned using the results of my hair elements test. I think

> the two basic facts about this stuff are:

>

> 1. Mercury causes deranged mineral transport (DMT) and, conversely, if

> there is DMT it is very likely it is caused by mercury.

>

> 2. Counting rules measure the likelihood DMT has happened.

Yes, I think you've stated the core of it, the foundation.

> I have not read yet throughly Andy's book on hair testing, but from

> what I have read I think that (1) is supported mostly by Andy's

> experience and not by published references. Am I right about this?

I am not sure where the original insight to look for and then to try

to quantify deranged mineral transport in mercury toxic people came

from. Maybe it is something known in chemistry or biochemistry?

Or maybe it just comes from looking at hair tests of toxic people.

I'm not sure.

In any case, I think it is an observed fact that mercury toxic people

have DMT. In HTI, Andy talks about how the hair tests of people with

the type of health problems caused by mercury have DMT and those of

healthy people don't. I think that's right, I would have to go back

and read again to be sure.

> If this is the case the best I can do is to give him a copy of Hair

> Test Interpretation where many cases of mercury poisoning are

> described. The technical appendix in the book explaining the

> mathematics supporting counting rules is only about (2), not (1).

Well, I'm not sure about the support for mercury " causing " DMT.

The fact that there is an association is observed. I am not sure

if the " cause " part is only inferred or if it is some known basis

for this in the chemistry or biochemistry of mercury?

> But if there are published papers supporting (1) it will help me a lot

> in convincing him. In fact, a question he asked several times and I

> have not been able to answer is: if this stuff works so well, why has

> not been published? (in peer-reviewed journals).

> Suggestions to answer this question would be very useful too.

I think it will be hard to get the right studies done, and then

hard to get them published in peer-reviewed journals. I have a

little experience in this area. Science, at least the kind of

science that is done with high levels of funding from government

or private sources with political interests, is extremely political.

> Of course time will help. Probably I will keep in contact with him,

> since he said my case was " interesting " and he has kindly answered

> several emails of mine. So when I'll start chelation and I'll start

> excreting Hg and improving (as I hope to!) maybe that will be a good

> argument for him.

>

> Please note this is written by a person who honestly believes is

> mercury poisoned. My intention is not to open unhelpful criticism, but

> to collect as much sound support as possible.

I, for one, really appreciate your questions and your interest.

You might want to ask Andy to answer your post. You can send

him email privately with the post number and ask if he would

comment.

--

> Thank you in advance,

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Medicine, as with any religion, is based on faith and belief isn't something you

can reason

people into. Either he likes to think or it hurts his brain (most likely) which

will control

whether you have any hope of this.

It is true that you don't figure out how to interpret hair tests by searching

PubMed. So you

might want to get him to read a copy of the hair test book.

www.noamalgam.com/hairtestbook.html

The statistical argument should convince him (if thinking doesn't make his brain

hurt) that

SOMETHING must be going on, then the question is whether he can accept based on

experience that mercury is what does this, or if he will get sidetracked trying

to figure out

what else it must be.

Andy

>

> I have been very lucky because I have met the director of a

> pharmaceutical research lab in Spain. He has a PhD in medicine and I

> think he can understand very well this stuff. He is open minded,

> clever and I think he knows lots of medicine. I have met him thanks to

> a common friend of us and he has devoted me about two hours of his

> time listening carefully and asking clever questions.

>

> Convincing him of my mercury problem it is important for me, but not

> only. Of course, he can help me a lot.

> But if he realizes mercury is really a problem maybe he could do

> something good far beyond my particular case.

>

> I have given him a copy of AI and now I will like to convince him I am

> mercury poisoned using the results of my hair elements test. I think

> the two basic facts about this stuff are:

>

> 1. Mercury causes deranged mineral transport (DMT) and, conversely, if

> there is DMT it is very likely it is caused by mercury.

>

> 2. Counting rules measure the likelihood DMT has happened.

>

> I have not read yet throughly Andy's book on hair testing, but from

> what I have read I think that (1) is supported mostly by Andy's

> experience and not by published references. Am I right about this?

> If this is the case the best I can do is to give him a copy of Hair

> Test Interpretation where many cases of mercury poisoning are

> described. The technical appendix in the book explaining the

> mathematics supporting counting rules is only about (2), not (1).

>

> But if there are published papers supporting (1) it will help me a lot

> in convincing him. In fact, a question he asked several times and I

> have not been able to answer is: if this stuff works so well, why has

> not been published? (in peer-reviewed journals).

> Suggestions to answer this question would be very useful too.

>

> Of course time will help. Probably I will keep in contact with him,

> since he said my case was " interesting " and he has kindly answered

> several emails of mine. So when I'll start chelation and I'll start

> excreting Hg and improving (as I hope to!) maybe that will be a good

> argument for him.

>

> Please note this is written by a person who honestly believes is

> mercury poisoned. My intention is not to open unhelpful criticism, but

> to collect as much sound support as possible.

>

> Thank you in advance,

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Medicine, as with any religion, is based on faith and belief isn't something you

can reason

people into. Either he likes to think or it hurts his brain (most likely) which

will control

whether you have any hope of this.

It is true that you don't figure out how to interpret hair tests by searching

PubMed. So you

might want to get him to read a copy of the hair test book.

www.noamalgam.com/hairtestbook.html

The statistical argument should convince him (if thinking doesn't make his brain

hurt) that

SOMETHING must be going on, then the question is whether he can accept based on

experience that mercury is what does this, or if he will get sidetracked trying

to figure out

what else it must be.

Andy

>

> I have been very lucky because I have met the director of a

> pharmaceutical research lab in Spain. He has a PhD in medicine and I

> think he can understand very well this stuff. He is open minded,

> clever and I think he knows lots of medicine. I have met him thanks to

> a common friend of us and he has devoted me about two hours of his

> time listening carefully and asking clever questions.

>

> Convincing him of my mercury problem it is important for me, but not

> only. Of course, he can help me a lot.

> But if he realizes mercury is really a problem maybe he could do

> something good far beyond my particular case.

>

> I have given him a copy of AI and now I will like to convince him I am

> mercury poisoned using the results of my hair elements test. I think

> the two basic facts about this stuff are:

>

> 1. Mercury causes deranged mineral transport (DMT) and, conversely, if

> there is DMT it is very likely it is caused by mercury.

>

> 2. Counting rules measure the likelihood DMT has happened.

>

> I have not read yet throughly Andy's book on hair testing, but from

> what I have read I think that (1) is supported mostly by Andy's

> experience and not by published references. Am I right about this?

> If this is the case the best I can do is to give him a copy of Hair

> Test Interpretation where many cases of mercury poisoning are

> described. The technical appendix in the book explaining the

> mathematics supporting counting rules is only about (2), not (1).

>

> But if there are published papers supporting (1) it will help me a lot

> in convincing him. In fact, a question he asked several times and I

> have not been able to answer is: if this stuff works so well, why has

> not been published? (in peer-reviewed journals).

> Suggestions to answer this question would be very useful too.

>

> Of course time will help. Probably I will keep in contact with him,

> since he said my case was " interesting " and he has kindly answered

> several emails of mine. So when I'll start chelation and I'll start

> excreting Hg and improving (as I hope to!) maybe that will be a good

> argument for him.

>

> Please note this is written by a person who honestly believes is

> mercury poisoned. My intention is not to open unhelpful criticism, but

> to collect as much sound support as possible.

>

> Thank you in advance,

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Medicine, as with any religion, is based on faith and belief isn't something you

can reason

people into. Either he likes to think or it hurts his brain (most likely) which

will control

whether you have any hope of this.

It is true that you don't figure out how to interpret hair tests by searching

PubMed. So you

might want to get him to read a copy of the hair test book.

www.noamalgam.com/hairtestbook.html

The statistical argument should convince him (if thinking doesn't make his brain

hurt) that

SOMETHING must be going on, then the question is whether he can accept based on

experience that mercury is what does this, or if he will get sidetracked trying

to figure out

what else it must be.

Andy

>

> I have been very lucky because I have met the director of a

> pharmaceutical research lab in Spain. He has a PhD in medicine and I

> think he can understand very well this stuff. He is open minded,

> clever and I think he knows lots of medicine. I have met him thanks to

> a common friend of us and he has devoted me about two hours of his

> time listening carefully and asking clever questions.

>

> Convincing him of my mercury problem it is important for me, but not

> only. Of course, he can help me a lot.

> But if he realizes mercury is really a problem maybe he could do

> something good far beyond my particular case.

>

> I have given him a copy of AI and now I will like to convince him I am

> mercury poisoned using the results of my hair elements test. I think

> the two basic facts about this stuff are:

>

> 1. Mercury causes deranged mineral transport (DMT) and, conversely, if

> there is DMT it is very likely it is caused by mercury.

>

> 2. Counting rules measure the likelihood DMT has happened.

>

> I have not read yet throughly Andy's book on hair testing, but from

> what I have read I think that (1) is supported mostly by Andy's

> experience and not by published references. Am I right about this?

> If this is the case the best I can do is to give him a copy of Hair

> Test Interpretation where many cases of mercury poisoning are

> described. The technical appendix in the book explaining the

> mathematics supporting counting rules is only about (2), not (1).

>

> But if there are published papers supporting (1) it will help me a lot

> in convincing him. In fact, a question he asked several times and I

> have not been able to answer is: if this stuff works so well, why has

> not been published? (in peer-reviewed journals).

> Suggestions to answer this question would be very useful too.

>

> Of course time will help. Probably I will keep in contact with him,

> since he said my case was " interesting " and he has kindly answered

> several emails of mine. So when I'll start chelation and I'll start

> excreting Hg and improving (as I hope to!) maybe that will be a good

> argument for him.

>

> Please note this is written by a person who honestly believes is

> mercury poisoned. My intention is not to open unhelpful criticism, but

> to collect as much sound support as possible.

>

> Thank you in advance,

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> > 1. Mercury causes deranged mineral transport (DMT) and, conversely, if

> > there is DMT it is very likely it is caused by mercury.

> >

> > 2. Counting rules measure the likelihood DMT has happened.

> >

> > I have not read yet throughly Andy's book on hair testing, but from

> > what I have read I think that (1) is supported mostly by Andy's

> > experience and not by published references. Am I right about this?

I think that the fact that mercury causes deranged mineral transport

must be in the literature (in the form of descriptions in various

books/articles of what mercury does in the human body). If I had the

time I would start by looking at the references Andy has used in his

books. He does refer to several medical text books.

Taking it the step further from what mercury does in the body to how

it shows up in hair is what Andy has shown in " Hair Test Interpretation " .

Just guessing. If I wasn't fighting for my life, and caring for a

family, I would go to the local University medical library and look

for the references.

Andy is right about it being very difficult to change anyone's belief

system. If you can create a spark of interest, which you may do by

showing him the books to read, he (the PhD in medicine) has to be the

one to investigate or he still won't get it. Just having a PhD isn't

enough to know everything (I know 'cause I'm married to one)

J

> >

> > I have been very lucky because I have met the director of a

> > pharmaceutical research lab in Spain. He has a PhD in medicine and I

> > think he can understand very well this stuff. He is open minded,

> > clever and I think he knows lots of medicine. I have met him thanks to

> > a common friend of us and he has devoted me about two hours of his

> > time listening carefully and asking clever questions.

> >

> > Convincing him of my mercury problem it is important for me, but not

> > only. Of course, he can help me a lot.

> > But if he realizes mercury is really a problem maybe he could do

> > something good far beyond my particular case.

> >

> > I have given him a copy of AI and now I will like to convince him I am

> > mercury poisoned using the results of my hair elements test. I think

> > the two basic facts about this stuff are:

> >

> > 1. Mercury causes deranged mineral transport (DMT) and, conversely, if

> > there is DMT it is very likely it is caused by mercury.

> >

> > 2. Counting rules measure the likelihood DMT has happened.

> >

> > I have not read yet throughly Andy's book on hair testing, but from

> > what I have read I think that (1) is supported mostly by Andy's

> > experience and not by published references. Am I right about this?

> > If this is the case the best I can do is to give him a copy of Hair

> > Test Interpretation where many cases of mercury poisoning are

> > described. The technical appendix in the book explaining the

> > mathematics supporting counting rules is only about (2), not (1).

> >

> > But if there are published papers supporting (1) it will help me a lot

> > in convincing him. In fact, a question he asked several times and I

> > have not been able to answer is: if this stuff works so well, why has

> > not been published? (in peer-reviewed journals).

> > Suggestions to answer this question would be very useful too.

> >

> > Of course time will help. Probably I will keep in contact with him,

> > since he said my case was " interesting " and he has kindly answered

> > several emails of mine. So when I'll start chelation and I'll start

> > excreting Hg and improving (as I hope to!) maybe that will be a good

> > argument for him.

> >

> > Please note this is written by a person who honestly believes is

> > mercury poisoned. My intention is not to open unhelpful criticism, but

> > to collect as much sound support as possible.

> >

> > Thank you in advance,

> >

> >

> >

>