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

[Guest guest]

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. 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.

Sorry for such a long post.

Thank you for any inputs.