Re: Help pl. Should my husband still chelate (opposed to doc's view)?

[Guest guest]

In frequent-dose-chelation toowittybird wrote:

I am very confused and worried - my husband and I have both been

seeing a DAN doc to 'hold our hand' while we go thru the process of

chelation, which we have been trying to get to begin since we started

treatment a year and a half ago.

------------Now I'm probably going to sound like I'm bashing DAN doctors, and

I only met one, so probably shouldn't be projecting my image of him onto all

others, but here goes. The one I seen wouldn't even discuss Cutler's protocol

with me, and didn't seem to like it that I knew stuff. And as you state above,

I got the impression that he was going to have to *fix* a bunch of stuff before

*allowing* me to chelate. Now I got the impression from reading posts from Andy

in A-M, that you work on your problems *while* you chelate, otherwise, you may

never ever start. And, if you were to follow their chelation protocol, using

large infrequent doses, then you probably would have to do alot more *preparing*

for the damage its going to do. And the final straw for me was that this DAN

doctor I seen didn't get the adrenal thing, and gave me Armour thyroid, when I

desperately needed adrenal support first. So my experience wasn't very good, I

started chelating on my own, and I quit lining his pockets, when he wasn't very

helpful, in my case.----------Jackie

My husband never had any amalgams but could have been exposed to

mercury as a child (broken thermometer) and got some vaccinations a

couple of years ago. It was at my request that we got his hair

analysis done via Doctor's Data because I suspected mercury exposure.

Here is the dilemma --- both his hair tests (taken about a year apart)

showed abnormal mineral transport, though the number of counting rules

decreased in the second test result. BUT, the urine porphyrins test

done just recently (tested by Lab Philippe Auguste in Paris) shows no

mercury toxicity. His values are all normal.

--------------If his hair test still shows deranged mineral transport, then he

probably still has a mercury problem. If he has been taking supplements, etc.

then it would make sense that his hair test improved some. I have heard that

the porphyrins tests are very sensitive to mishandling, so I wouldn't bet my

life on them. I thought the Paris lab was supposed to be the best, but I

thought someone mentioned recently hearing about problems there too. It would

probably be discussed in Autism-Mercury more often than here. Searching their

archives or joining and asking in the group for more opinions might be

worthwhile.----------Jackie

The DAN doc has also been helping him with liver issues for the past

one year before any chelation was to be started. The suggestion was to

get the system strong enough to handle chelation. This doc is

insisting that the urine porphyrins test results are much more useful

and correct in showing presence of mercury toxicity, so since the

porphyrins are normal there is NO NEED TO DO ANY CHELATION. She has

noted that he is a good exrector of mercury (I believe based on the

hair test results -- Doctor's Data, where in the Toxic Elements

section his mercury value increased in the second test - 68th

percentile). His recent thyroid tests have come back normal. We also

did a neurotransmittors test with the same urine sample, which showed

'sharply increased dopaminergic activity' (5.1 mg where the range is

2.5 - 3.5). Also has 'sharply increased seratoninegic activity' (17.5

mg where the range is 3-4.5 mg). I do not know what the purpose of

this test is. The doc basically stopped the intake of the vitamin 'GS

Calm', based on the neurotransmitters test results. We are awaiting

amino acid values in the urine sample.

I was in a bit of a shock (even though a bit relieved too, naturally),

when we were told he should just come back in 6 months as a follow up,

with no chelation needed - his vits have been literally halved now.

Even though someone is a good exrector should they not still chelate

at least for a couple of months??? I am really confused and worried

that we may be wasting precious time doing the wrong thing, but then

again I don't wish to rock the boat.

------------I think in ambiguous cases, Andy usually recommends a trial of

chelation to help determine toxicity. Then you should know for sure. I think

5-10 rounds are recommended. If he has symptoms on or after ending a round,

then that should confirm it. My reaction to chelators sealed the deal for me,

and I felt no other need to *prove it* to anyone else that I was toxic. If I

were you, I would try DMSA or ALA in low doses on your husband, especially since

he doesn't have any amalgams. There's no need to have this doctor's blessing or

even tell him that you're doing it. If he says your husband is healthy enough

to not see him for 6 months, then I think he's healthy enough to try a low dose

of chelation. JMO. Of course, the final decision is up to

you.-----------Jackie

Sorry for such a long post.

Thank you for any inputs.

[Guest guest]

In frequent-dose-chelation toowittybird wrote:

I am very confused and worried - my husband and I have both been

seeing a DAN doc to 'hold our hand' while we go thru the process of

chelation, which we have been trying to get to begin since we started

treatment a year and a half ago.

------------Now I'm probably going to sound like I'm bashing DAN doctors, and

I only met one, so probably shouldn't be projecting my image of him onto all

others, but here goes. The one I seen wouldn't even discuss Cutler's protocol

with me, and didn't seem to like it that I knew stuff. And as you state above,

I got the impression that he was going to have to *fix* a bunch of stuff before

*allowing* me to chelate. Now I got the impression from reading posts from Andy

in A-M, that you work on your problems *while* you chelate, otherwise, you may

never ever start. And, if you were to follow their chelation protocol, using

large infrequent doses, then you probably would have to do alot more *preparing*

for the damage its going to do. And the final straw for me was that this DAN

doctor I seen didn't get the adrenal thing, and gave me Armour thyroid, when I

desperately needed adrenal support first. So my experience wasn't very good, I

started chelating on my own, and I quit lining his pockets, when he wasn't very

helpful, in my case.----------Jackie

My husband never had any amalgams but could have been exposed to

mercury as a child (broken thermometer) and got some vaccinations a

couple of years ago. It was at my request that we got his hair

analysis done via Doctor's Data because I suspected mercury exposure.

Here is the dilemma --- both his hair tests (taken about a year apart)

showed abnormal mineral transport, though the number of counting rules

decreased in the second test result. BUT, the urine porphyrins test

done just recently (tested by Lab Philippe Auguste in Paris) shows no

mercury toxicity. His values are all normal.

--------------If his hair test still shows deranged mineral transport, then he

probably still has a mercury problem. If he has been taking supplements, etc.

then it would make sense that his hair test improved some. I have heard that

the porphyrins tests are very sensitive to mishandling, so I wouldn't bet my

life on them. I thought the Paris lab was supposed to be the best, but I

thought someone mentioned recently hearing about problems there too. It would

probably be discussed in Autism-Mercury more often than here. Searching their

archives or joining and asking in the group for more opinions might be

worthwhile.----------Jackie

The DAN doc has also been helping him with liver issues for the past

one year before any chelation was to be started. The suggestion was to

get the system strong enough to handle chelation. This doc is

insisting that the urine porphyrins test results are much more useful

and correct in showing presence of mercury toxicity, so since the

porphyrins are normal there is NO NEED TO DO ANY CHELATION. She has

noted that he is a good exrector of mercury (I believe based on the

hair test results -- Doctor's Data, where in the Toxic Elements

section his mercury value increased in the second test - 68th

percentile). His recent thyroid tests have come back normal. We also

did a neurotransmittors test with the same urine sample, which showed

'sharply increased dopaminergic activity' (5.1 mg where the range is

2.5 - 3.5). Also has 'sharply increased seratoninegic activity' (17.5

mg where the range is 3-4.5 mg). I do not know what the purpose of

this test is. The doc basically stopped the intake of the vitamin 'GS

Calm', based on the neurotransmitters test results. We are awaiting

amino acid values in the urine sample.

I was in a bit of a shock (even though a bit relieved too, naturally),

when we were told he should just come back in 6 months as a follow up,

with no chelation needed - his vits have been literally halved now.

Even though someone is a good exrector should they not still chelate

at least for a couple of months??? I am really confused and worried

that we may be wasting precious time doing the wrong thing, but then

again I don't wish to rock the boat.

------------I think in ambiguous cases, Andy usually recommends a trial of

chelation to help determine toxicity. Then you should know for sure. I think

5-10 rounds are recommended. If he has symptoms on or after ending a round,

then that should confirm it. My reaction to chelators sealed the deal for me,

and I felt no other need to *prove it* to anyone else that I was toxic. If I

were you, I would try DMSA or ALA in low doses on your husband, especially since

he doesn't have any amalgams. There's no need to have this doctor's blessing or

even tell him that you're doing it. If he says your husband is healthy enough

to not see him for 6 months, then I think he's healthy enough to try a low dose

of chelation. JMO. Of course, the final decision is up to

you.-----------Jackie

Sorry for such a long post.

Thank you for any inputs.

[Guest guest]

In frequent-dose-chelation toowittybird wrote:

I am very confused and worried - my husband and I have both been

seeing a DAN doc to 'hold our hand' while we go thru the process of

chelation, which we have been trying to get to begin since we started

treatment a year and a half ago.

------------Now I'm probably going to sound like I'm bashing DAN doctors, and

I only met one, so probably shouldn't be projecting my image of him onto all

others, but here goes. The one I seen wouldn't even discuss Cutler's protocol

with me, and didn't seem to like it that I knew stuff. And as you state above,

I got the impression that he was going to have to *fix* a bunch of stuff before

*allowing* me to chelate. Now I got the impression from reading posts from Andy

in A-M, that you work on your problems *while* you chelate, otherwise, you may

never ever start. And, if you were to follow their chelation protocol, using

large infrequent doses, then you probably would have to do alot more *preparing*

for the damage its going to do. And the final straw for me was that this DAN

doctor I seen didn't get the adrenal thing, and gave me Armour thyroid, when I

desperately needed adrenal support first. So my experience wasn't very good, I

started chelating on my own, and I quit lining his pockets, when he wasn't very

helpful, in my case.----------Jackie

My husband never had any amalgams but could have been exposed to

mercury as a child (broken thermometer) and got some vaccinations a

couple of years ago. It was at my request that we got his hair

analysis done via Doctor's Data because I suspected mercury exposure.

Here is the dilemma --- both his hair tests (taken about a year apart)

showed abnormal mineral transport, though the number of counting rules

decreased in the second test result. BUT, the urine porphyrins test

done just recently (tested by Lab Philippe Auguste in Paris) shows no

mercury toxicity. His values are all normal.

--------------If his hair test still shows deranged mineral transport, then he

probably still has a mercury problem. If he has been taking supplements, etc.

then it would make sense that his hair test improved some. I have heard that

the porphyrins tests are very sensitive to mishandling, so I wouldn't bet my

life on them. I thought the Paris lab was supposed to be the best, but I

thought someone mentioned recently hearing about problems there too. It would

probably be discussed in Autism-Mercury more often than here. Searching their

archives or joining and asking in the group for more opinions might be

worthwhile.----------Jackie

The DAN doc has also been helping him with liver issues for the past

one year before any chelation was to be started. The suggestion was to

get the system strong enough to handle chelation. This doc is

insisting that the urine porphyrins test results are much more useful

and correct in showing presence of mercury toxicity, so since the

porphyrins are normal there is NO NEED TO DO ANY CHELATION. She has

noted that he is a good exrector of mercury (I believe based on the

hair test results -- Doctor's Data, where in the Toxic Elements

section his mercury value increased in the second test - 68th

percentile). His recent thyroid tests have come back normal. We also

did a neurotransmittors test with the same urine sample, which showed

'sharply increased dopaminergic activity' (5.1 mg where the range is

2.5 - 3.5). Also has 'sharply increased seratoninegic activity' (17.5

mg where the range is 3-4.5 mg). I do not know what the purpose of

this test is. The doc basically stopped the intake of the vitamin 'GS

Calm', based on the neurotransmitters test results. We are awaiting

amino acid values in the urine sample.

I was in a bit of a shock (even though a bit relieved too, naturally),

when we were told he should just come back in 6 months as a follow up,

with no chelation needed - his vits have been literally halved now.

Even though someone is a good exrector should they not still chelate

at least for a couple of months??? I am really confused and worried

that we may be wasting precious time doing the wrong thing, but then

again I don't wish to rock the boat.

------------I think in ambiguous cases, Andy usually recommends a trial of

chelation to help determine toxicity. Then you should know for sure. I think

5-10 rounds are recommended. If he has symptoms on or after ending a round,

then that should confirm it. My reaction to chelators sealed the deal for me,

and I felt no other need to *prove it* to anyone else that I was toxic. If I

were you, I would try DMSA or ALA in low doses on your husband, especially since

he doesn't have any amalgams. There's no need to have this doctor's blessing or

even tell him that you're doing it. If he says your husband is healthy enough

to not see him for 6 months, then I think he's healthy enough to try a low dose

of chelation. JMO. Of course, the final decision is up to

you.-----------Jackie

Sorry for such a long post.

Thank you for any inputs.

[Guest guest]

Fractionated urine porphyrins would not show mercury in the brain.

Also, until I hear Andy state otherwise, I assume his prior comments

on problems with sample handling and potential inaccuracy of this

test still apply. (I can't recall the details, see onibasu.)

I would suggest a trial of several rounds of chelation before

you make up your mind.

--

>

> I am very confused and worried - my husband and I have both been

> seeing a DAN doc to 'hold our hand' while we go thru the process of

> chelation, which we have been trying to get to begin since we started

> tratment a year and a half ago.

>

> My husband never had any amalgams but could have been exposed to

> mercury as a child (broken thermometer) and got some vaccinations a

[Guest guest]

And, if you were to follow their chelation protocol, using large

infrequent doses, then you probably would have to do alot more

*preparing* for the damage its going to do.

No, this doc works with Andy Cutler's protocol and knows I would like

to do the same.

And the final straw for me was that this DAN doctor I seen didn't get

the adrenal thing, and gave me Armour thyroid, when I desperately

needed adrenal support first.

Hmmm, I suspect I have hypothyroid issues (low body temperatures, hair

dry and falling - no tests done yet), and the doc did not feel the

need for me to get thyroid tests done to maybe support it during

chelation - " the thyroid does get messed up when there are mercury

issues - it should go away once you chelate " I what I was told for my

situation.

So my experience wasn't very good, I started chelating on my own, and

>

> --------------If his hair test still shows deranged mineral

transport, then he probably still has a mercury problem. If he has

been taking supplements, etc. then it would make sense that his hair

test improved some.

Yes, been supplementing for almost a year.

> ------------I think in ambiguous cases, Andy usually recommends a

trial of chelation to help determine toxicity. Then you should know

for sure. I think 5-10 rounds are recommended. If he has symptoms on

or after ending a round, then that should confirm it.

I am sorry, but I am not sure what sort of symptoms is one supposed to

watch for? Are you saying a person gets worse? Fatigued? Is there

mental confusion? He is working currently and travels sometimes - that

in itself makes me nervous about the possible side effects.

My reaction to chelators sealed the deal for me, and I felt no other

need to *prove it* to anyone else that I was toxic. If I were you, I

would try DMSA or ALA in low doses on your husband, especially since

he doesn't have any amalgams. There's no need to have this doctor's

blessing or even tell him that you're doing it. If he says your

husband is healthy enough to not see him for 6 months, then I think

he's healthy enough to try a low dose of chelation. JMO. Of course,

the final decision is up to you.-----------Jackie

>

Thanks for your advice, Jackie.

>

> Sorry for such a long post.

>

> Thank you for any inputs.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

And, if you were to follow their chelation protocol, using large

infrequent doses, then you probably would have to do alot more

*preparing* for the damage its going to do.

No, this doc works with Andy Cutler's protocol and knows I would like

to do the same.

And the final straw for me was that this DAN doctor I seen didn't get

the adrenal thing, and gave me Armour thyroid, when I desperately

needed adrenal support first.

Hmmm, I suspect I have hypothyroid issues (low body temperatures, hair

dry and falling - no tests done yet), and the doc did not feel the

need for me to get thyroid tests done to maybe support it during

chelation - " the thyroid does get messed up when there are mercury

issues - it should go away once you chelate " I what I was told for my

situation.

So my experience wasn't very good, I started chelating on my own, and

>

> --------------If his hair test still shows deranged mineral

transport, then he probably still has a mercury problem. If he has

been taking supplements, etc. then it would make sense that his hair

test improved some.

Yes, been supplementing for almost a year.

> ------------I think in ambiguous cases, Andy usually recommends a

trial of chelation to help determine toxicity. Then you should know

for sure. I think 5-10 rounds are recommended. If he has symptoms on

or after ending a round, then that should confirm it.

I am sorry, but I am not sure what sort of symptoms is one supposed to

watch for? Are you saying a person gets worse? Fatigued? Is there

mental confusion? He is working currently and travels sometimes - that

in itself makes me nervous about the possible side effects.

My reaction to chelators sealed the deal for me, and I felt no other

need to *prove it* to anyone else that I was toxic. If I were you, I

would try DMSA or ALA in low doses on your husband, especially since

he doesn't have any amalgams. There's no need to have this doctor's

blessing or even tell him that you're doing it. If he says your

husband is healthy enough to not see him for 6 months, then I think

he's healthy enough to try a low dose of chelation. JMO. Of course,

the final decision is up to you.-----------Jackie

>

Thanks for your advice, Jackie.

>

> Sorry for such a long post.

>

> Thank you for any inputs.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I can't remember all of the responses, so I'm sure that mine will be

repeat what has already been said. Just my thoughts in the text...

>

> I am very confused and worried - my husband and I have both been

> seeing a DAN doc to 'hold our hand' while we go thru the process of

> chelation, which we have been trying to get to begin since we started

> tratment a year and a half ago.

>

> My husband never had any amalgams but could have been exposed to

> mercury as a child (broken thermometer) and got some vaccinations a

> couple of years ago. It was at my request that we got his hair

> analysis done via Doctor's Data because I suspected mercury exposure.

>

> Here is the dilemma --- both his hair tests (taken about a year apart)

> showed abnormal mineral transport, though the number of counting rules

> decreaed in the second test result. BUT, the urine porphyrins test

> done just recently (tested by Lab Philippe Auguste in Paris) shows no

> mercury toxicity. His values are all normal.

>

> The DAN doc has also been helping him with liver issues for the past

> one year before any chelation was to be started. The suggestion was to

> get the system strong enough to handle chelation. This doc is

> insisting that the urine porphyrins test results are much more useful

> and correct in showing presence of mercury toxicity, so since the

> porphyrins are normal there is NO NEED TO DO ANY CHELATION.

Andy has said that the only other things besides mercury that will

cause deranged mineral transport to show up on a hair test are

pregnancy and lactation. We can rule those two out in your husband's

case, so the hair tests are indicating that mercury is a concern.

Seeing as the hair tests are indicating mercury in the body there is a

very good chance there is mercury in the brain as well. I would want

to chelate now and get as much out as possible to correct whatever the

health concerns are now (I don't think you mentioned symptoms) and to

prevent health problems from developing in future. Any amount of

mercury in the body is not a good thing and the sooner it is out the

less damage it can do.

The urine porphyrin test could be incorrect simply because of improper

sample handling. In " Amalgam Illness " Andy explains how to handle the

sample properly. Even if it was handled properly during collection

you have no control over what happened to it after it left.

The ultimate test is to do a trial of chelation. Since your husband

has no amalgams this would be very easy and safe to do. If you will

be chelating anyway, you can do rounds together (how romantic!).

She has

> noted that he is a good exrector of mercury (I believe based on the

> hair test results -- Doctor's Data, where in the Toxic Elements

> section his mercury value increased in the second test - 68th

> percentile).

Even if he is a good excreter, there is very little, if any, natural

excretion from the brain. The mercury in the brain has to be chelated

out to get it out and chelation will help to move mercury out of the

body. Even a person who is a " good excreter " will not be able to

excrete metals at a very fast rate. We were simply not designed to

cope with the amounts that we have been exposed to.

>His recent thyroid tests have come back normal.

" Normal " thyroid tests don't necessarily mean that the person is not

hypothyroid.

If you want you could post the test results. In mercury poisoning the

TSH is often in the normal range even when the person is hypothyroid

because the hypothyroidism is often centrally mediated (from improper

signals from the brain).

We also

> did a neurotransmittors test with the same urine sample, which showed

> 'sharply increased dopaminergic activity' (5.1 mg where the range is

> 2.5 - 3.5). Also has 'sharply increased seratoninegic activity' (17.5

> mg where the range is 3-4.5 mg). I do not know what the purpose of

> this test is.

Andy has said that this test is not very useful because you don't need

to know the level of neurotransmitters in urine, what you need to know

is the level in the brain and it is not possible to draw a sample from

the brain to test. He usually determines these things imperically -

from what is happening with the person.

The doc basically stopped the intake of the vitamin 'GS

> Calm', based on the neurotransmitters test results. We are awaiting

> amino acid values in the urine sample.

>

Which also will give you little information to go on.

> I was in a bit of a shock (even though a bit relieved too, naturally),

> when we were told he should just come back in 6 months as a follow up,

> with no chelation needed - his vits have been literally halved now.

>

> Even though someone is a good exrector should they not still chelate

> at least for a couple of months???

It would certainly be a good idea to chelate until the metals are out.

A trial of chelation would be the thing to try next.

I am really confused and worried

> that we may be wasting precious time doing the wrong thing, but then

> again I don't wish to rock the boat.

>

I can understand how you can get confused and worried when you go to a

doctor looking for answers and get more confusion. My suggestion

would be for both of you to take responsibility for your own health,

do as much reading and research as you can, starting with the files

and links of the frequent-dose-chelation group, and Andy's books, and

take charge of your own chelation as you understand how to do it.

It is not necessary to disagree with the doctor or rock the boat. It

is the doctor's responsibility to educate herself. There are some

things about toxicity and chelation that she hasn't caught on to yet.

That's her problem, not yours.

J

> Sorry for such a long post.

>

> Thank you for any inputs.

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> No, this doc works with Andy Cutler's protocol and knows I would like

> to do the same.

>

> ---------That's great. Do you mind me asking where this doctor

is?-------Jackie

>

>

Jackie,

I am in Spain.

>

>

>

> If you haven't been working on adrenals and thyroid this past

year, then what have you been working on with this doctor to prepare

you for chelation? .---------Jackie

For my husband - his liver issues

For myself - being a Crohn's patient with amalgams that needed

removal, just helping the system get stronger

>

>

>

>

> >My reaction to chelators sealed the deal for me, and I felt no other

> >need to *prove it* to anyone else that I was toxic. If I were you, I

> >would try DMSA or ALA in low doses on your husband, especially since

> >he doesn't have any amalgams.

Since hubby is slowly improving on the liver issues, would it be

better to chelate just with ALA? I read on one of the replies in the

Autism-Mercury Group that DMSA/DMPS could affect the liver, but then

again I thought they help reduce side effects of the ALA. Am I right?

Or is it better in his situation to do both both DMSA and ALA?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Also, does he have any other metals besides mercury to deal with?

>That can also help in choosing a chelator to try. If he has lead, >you

>might want to start with DMSA. If he has arsenic, then you would >want to try

DMPS or ALA.

Tough to say since his Urine test does not give any indication of either.

If it's just mercury, you could try any of them. And maybe

availability will help you decide. Which ones can you get in

Spain?-------Jackie

>

DMPS with doc's prescription (and this doc is pretty adamant about

using only TD DMPS vs the capsules), but I have already arranged for

Kirkman's ALA and VRP's DMSA (25 mg each), had to get it from the States.

BTW, my doc says that if taking both, then the DMSA dose should be

extended for an extra 8 hours ( so one ends up taking more DMSA

capsules than ALA for each round). This is to help the mercury removed

by ALA to be excreted out by the DMSA. Anyone heard of this? I don't

see the harm in it.