Re: Worried now - no mercury in urine with chelation!

[Guest guest]

The urine tests are not reliable.

>

> I have just seen that on my urine toxic elements test there is no

> recordable mercury. I took this test after chelating with DMSA for two

> days so would have expected there to be some mercury in it.

>

> Worse, is the fact that a blood test 2 days after the chelation showed

> very high levels of mercury in the red blood cells.

>

> Now I am really worried that the DMSA chelation is just stirring up

> the mercury and not chelating it.

>

> This is NOT what I was hoping for at all and is very worrying!

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> >

> > I have just seen that on my urine toxic elements test there is no

> > recordable mercury. I took this test after chelating with DMSA

for two

> > days so would have expected there to be some mercury in it.

> >

> > Worse, is the fact that a blood test 2 days after the chelation

showed

> > very high levels of mercury in the red blood cells.

> >

> > Now I am really worried that the DMSA chelation is just stirring

up

> > the mercury and not chelating it.

> >

> > This is NOT what I was hoping for at all and is very worrying!

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

> >

> >

> > The urine tests are not reliable.

> >

> >

> >

>

> Okay, but why?

>

Because some labs don't use an analysis for mercury that is very

accurate, and accuracy is needed for the low levels that we would be

looking for.

There was a post from someone who had no detectable mercury in urine

then sent his samples to a lab that used whatever the better methods

were and got some mercury in the sample. I wish I could remember

where that post was.

There is also I high amount of error involved in sampling urine.

Andy has said that if a person takes a chelator there will be mercury

excretion. I suggest using onibasu.com to search for his posts.

The amount excreted might not be very much, especially in toxic people

because the presence of the mercury is interfering with the normal

toxin excretion process.

> I have learned from this group and Andy Cutler's work that using DMSA

> (or DMPS) provoked urine challenge tests are unreliable for

> diagnosing mercury toxicity. This makes sense to me, since a person

> whose organs or brain are highly toxic may have little or no mercury

> show up on the test, while someone with no toxicity may have off-the-

> charts mercury levels (typically due to a current source of exposure,

> such as amalgams still in the mouth).

>

> But is not talking about using the DMSA challenge test for

> diagnosis. She was simply trying to verify that mercury is being

> excreted during low-dose, high frequency chelation. (Correct me if

> I'm wrong, .)

>

> One way to verify that mercury is being excreted during chelation is

> to wait 1-2 years until your symptoms start going away (or it could

> be less time, if you're lucky). Maybe that's the only way. But for

> many of us, who have tried countless therapies for many years,

> without getting any better, committing to low-dose chelation (or any

> other approach) for 1-2 years without any empirical evidence that it

> is doing what it's supposed to, is a very difficult pill to swallow

> (pun intended). Sure, there are signs that chelation is happening --

> namely, flare-up of symptoms, feeling better or worse on/off round --

> but this is indicative of mercury redistribution, not mercury

> elimination.

>

> I ran the same type of test as a few months ago. (Mine were

> 24-hour tests. Was your test also a 24-hour test, ?) I ran

> it three ways -- baseline (no chelation), 25mg DMSA every 3 hours,

> and 25mg DMSA + 50mg ALA every 3 hours. Results: No detectable

> mercury on all three tests. I was very surprised, especially because

> of the third test, which involved ALA (essentially following the test

> outlined on Page 180 of AI).

>

> So why did our test results show no mercury? It seems to me there

> are several possibilities in 's case:

>

> (A) DMSA IS, indeed, leading to increased urinary excretion of

> mercury, but it just didn't happen to excrete much/any mercury during

> that particular day (day-to-day random variation simply too high to

> make this a reliable test)

> -> But her blood test results seem to indicate mercury was

> mobilized, so if mercury was mobilized, why was none excreted?

> -> And is there any hard data on this " high random variation from

> day to day " hypothesis? This theory has been given before, but I

> hope it's not just a convenient way to dismiss results we may not

> understand.

>

> ( Perhaps the acidity of the urine is too high, causing metals

> to " drop off " in the kidneys before being excreted.

> -> Andy discusses this on page 238 of HTI. Does this mean that

> chelation through the urinary route won't work for people whose urine

> is too acidic? I have no idea how important this issue is. I've

> tried to raise the issue before and also emailed Andy, but I have not

> had any resolution on the importance of urine acidity to successful

> chelation.

>

> (D) Urine volume was so high it diluted the mercury too much, such

> that significant mercury was indeed coming out via urine but was not

> detected

> -> In my case, DDI told me that my urine volume during the 24 hour

> tests was noticeably above average. So maybe it was too dilute to

> detect mercury in my case.

>

> (E) is not mercury toxic, symptoms are caused by something

> else, and the hair test results and other evidence is just

> coincidental.

> -> In my case, I am convinced that the probability of (E) is close

> to zero. Not sure about your situation, , but it's always

> worth considering all possibilties.

>

> (F) Extremely unlikely: DDI botched this one and sent the wrong

> results.

>

> For my case, where ALA was also used there are other possibilities:

>

> (G) Most likely: My body burden is low, but ALA is indeed working,

> but through the biliary route almost exclusively

>

> © Not too likely: Perhaps ALA doesn't work all that well in some

> people, and they need to use another chelator that crosses the BBB

> instead

> -> For me, ALA certainly mobilizes mercury (as I've experienced post-

> chelation redistribution effects), but I wish I could know whether it

> is helping to eliminate it or not. I think my liver is in decent

> shape and I'm very " regular " , so I'm hoping it's doing the trick.

>

> Maybe a fecal metals test is more reliable for tracking whether

> chelation is facilitating the removal of metals when using ALA. Or

> maybe there is no reliable way to do it.

>

> As fantastic as Andy's work is, there are still many unknowns, and

> this issue seems to be one of them. It is assumed that low-dose,

> high frequency chelation with ALA " works " for everyone, provided the

> body's own excretory functions are in reasonably good working order.

> I truly hope that's the case.

>

> For now, I continue to chelate with ALA (and occassionally DMSA)

> based on faith. Faith that it's actually doing what it's supposed

> to, not just mobilizing and redistributing mercury around. (I hope a

> year from now -- or maybe sooner! -- I'll know for sure.) The faith

> comes from Cutler's work, his personal experience, and the shared

> experiences of (complete strangers on) the internet. Yes, they are

> complete strangers, but when you read the same kinds of success

> stories over again, it really helps. Of course, not all are success

> stories, as some report chelating for a long time with no progress,

> or even worsening of symptoms or presentation of new symptoms.

> Faith, of course, is only as good as the object in which it is

> placed.

>

> It would be great to have some kind of empirical test to reliably

> indicate whether mercury is being excreted while chelating.

>

> With all that said, I may actually be seeing some slight progress in

> my health due to chelation. Too early to tell, since my symptoms

> fluctuate so much. But I'm hopeful and encouraged. At least today I

> am, when the brain fog/fatigue is present but not out of control.

> But with mercury toxicity, and especially chelation, each day is like

> a box of chocolates...

>

> Darren

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- Hi Darren

Firstly - thank you so much for explaining all that so wonderfully and

in just they way that I would have liked to have been able to do myself!

In frequent-dose-chelation , " Darren "

wrote:

>

>

> > >

> > > I have just seen that on my urine toxic elements test there is no

> > > recordable mercury. I took this test after chelating with DMSA

> for two

> > > days so would have expected there to be some mercury in it.

> > >

> > > Worse, is the fact that a blood test 2 days after the chelation

> showed

> > > very high levels of mercury in the red blood cells.

> > >

> > > Now I am really worried that the DMSA chelation is just stirring

> up

> > > the mercury and not chelating it.

> > >

> > > This is NOT what I was hoping for at all and is very worrying!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

> >

> > Okay, but why?

> >

>

>

> Because some labs don't use an analysis for mercury that is very

> accurate, and accuracy is needed for the low levels that we would be

> looking for.

>

> Andy has said that if a person takes a chelator there will be mercury

> excretion. I suggest using onibasu.com to search for his posts.

But what if (hypothetically speaking) there are some people who are

not actually excreting the stuff when using a chelator? Is there any

evidence that this is definitely not a possibility?

>

> The amount excreted might not be very much, especially in toxic

people because the presence of the mercury is interfering with the

normal toxin excretion process.

, If this is the case this is in itself rather worrying isn't it?

I take this to mean that if our " normal toxin excretion process " is

not functioning because of the mercury then aren't we doing more

damage by stirring up more mercury with the chelators?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks for responding, .

I thought Doctor's Data was considered a very reputable lab. Is that

just for hair testing?

Doctor's Data says that their detection limit for mercury is somewhere

between .1 and 3 parts per billion. (Upper bound takes into account

sampling variation.)

Since my tests came back with results below the detection limit,

during that round I guess I was only excreting 3 (or less) parts per

billion. Do we have any idea if that's sufficient for successful

chelation? Hopefully ALA is doing the bulk of the work by increasing

biliary excretion.

It's not that Doctor's Data can't pick up mercury when it's plentiful

in urine, as many people on these forums have reported very high

readings with urine-provoked challenge tests. My reading last summer

was off-the-charts, but I think it was because I still had amalgams

in, thus my current exposure was very high.

Thanks again,

Darren

> > >

> > >

> > > The urine tests are not reliable.

> > >

> > > \\\\

> > >

> >

> > Okay, but why?

> >

>

>

> Because some labs don't use an analysis for mercury that is very

> accurate, and accuracy is needed for the low levels that we would be

> looking for.

>

> There was a post from someone who had no detectable mercury in urine

> then sent his samples to a lab that used whatever the better methods

> were and got some mercury in the sample. I wish I could remember

> where that post was.

>

> There is also I high amount of error involved in sampling urine.

>

> Andy has said that if a person takes a chelator there will be mercury

> excretion. I suggest using onibasu.com to search for his posts.

>

> The amount excreted might not be very much, especially in toxic

people because the presence of the mercury is interfering with the

normal toxin excretion process.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> > I have learned from this group and Andy Cutler's work that using DMSA

> > (or DMPS) provoked urine challenge tests are unreliable for

> > diagnosing mercury toxicity. This makes sense to me, since a person

> > whose organs or brain are highly toxic may have little or no mercury

> > show up on the test, while someone with no toxicity may have off-the-

> > charts mercury levels (typically due to a current source of exposure,

> > such as amalgams still in the mouth).

> >

> > But is not talking about using the DMSA challenge test for

> > diagnosis. She was simply trying to verify that mercury is being

> > excreted during low-dose, high frequency chelation. (Correct me if

> > I'm wrong, .)

> >

<snip>

> >

> > Darren

> >

[Guest guest]

>

> > Andy has said that if a person takes a chelator there will be mercury

> > excretion. I suggest using onibasu.com to search for his posts.

>

> But what if (hypothetically speaking) there are some people who are

> not actually excreting the stuff when using a chelator? Is there any

> evidence that this is definitely not a possibility?

> >

According to a post I read from Andy, if a person takes a chelator

(small doses at the half life of course) there will be some mercury

excretion. It has to do with how chelators work. By chelators we are

meaning something with two thiol groups ie ALA, DMSA or DMPS.

> > The amount excreted might not be very much, especially in toxic

> people because the presence of the mercury is interfering with the

> normal toxin excretion process.

>

> , If this is the case this is in itself rather worrying isn't it?

> I take this to mean that if our " normal toxin excretion process " is

> not functioning because of the mercury then aren't we doing more

> damage by stirring up more mercury with the chelators?

>

What it means is that when people reach a certain level of toxicity

the only way that they can get the metals out and get their own body

to start functioning properly is to chelate.

If the person is using dithiol chelators appropriately, there will be

some excretion. It is monothiols that will stir up mercury and do

more damage.

And, the person will do more damage if they use doses of chelator that

are too high for them. That is why we keep suggesting people start

very low and determine what they can tolerate by side effects.

Here is a post from someone who took too much chelator and still

didn't get detectable mercury in her urine test. Note that there was

mercury in her hair test, so she is excreting. It is just an example

of how unpredictable/ unreliable urine mercury tests are:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/frequent-dose-chelation/message/24840

(It's not the post I was looking for)

>

>

>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

>

> But is not talking about using the DMSA challenge test for

> diagnosis. She was simply trying to verify that mercury is being

> excreted during low-dose, high frequency chelation. (Correct me if

> I'm wrong, .)

>

> One way to verify that mercury is being excreted during chelation is

> to wait 1-2 years until your symptoms start going away (or it could

> be less time, if you're lucky). Maybe that's the only way. But for

> many of us, who have tried countless therapies for many years,

> without getting any better, committing to low-dose chelation (or any

> other approach) for 1-2 years without any empirical evidence that it

> is doing what it's supposed to, is a very difficult pill to swallow

> (pun intended). Sure, there are signs that chelation is happening

Several ways to verify that mercury is being removed from the body

during chelation

- if a hair test early in chelation met the counting rules, then do

another hair test later in chelation to see if if still meets the

counting rules (my first test did and second test 1.5 year later did

not, meaning that mineral transport is becoming more orderly and that

could only happen if mercury actually did leave my body)

- as chelation proceeds one is able to increase the chelator dose.

That verifies that mercury has left the body, and if using ALA it

verifies mercury has left the brain (I started at 18 mg DMPS and had

significant end of round side effects at that dose, so much so that I

really should have started at a lower dose. Now I am chelating with

36 mg DMPS and the end of round side effects are almost not

noticeable. Mercury had to leave for that to happen)

- do the tests at www.amenclinic.com and keep the results somewhere.

Repeat the tests a couple of years later. Improvement would be an

indication that the problem is resolving.

- if any other symptoms are improving, that would be an indication

that the metals are leaving.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> (A) DMSA IS, indeed, leading to increased urinary excretion of

> mercury, but it just didn't happen to excrete much/any mercury during

> that particular day (day-to-day random variation simply too high to

> make this a reliable test)

> -> But her blood test results seem to indicate mercury was

> mobilized, so if mercury was mobilized, why was none excreted?

> -> And is there any hard data on this " high random variation from

> day to day " hypothesis? This theory has been given before, but I

> hope it's not just a convenient way to dismiss results we may not

> understand.

>

Andy would have lots of hard data in the form of urine tests that

clients have sent to him. There are also lots posted in the archives

of autism mercury (enough to tell that there is no point using urine

tests to track chelation).

Andy tells parents on autism mercury to use symptoms and not urine

tests to track chelation. If you find some of those posts you may

find some of his comments on the test results he has reviewed.

<snip>

>

> As fantastic as Andy's work is, there are still many unknowns, and

> this issue seems to be one of them. It is assumed that low-dose,

> high frequency chelation with ALA " works " for everyone, provided the

> body's own excretory functions are in reasonably good working order.

> I truly hope that's the case.

>

>

It isn't really an unknown when one understands the theory of

chelation (as Andy does). When taking real chelators in small doses

at the half life metals will move out, even if the excretory functions

are not in reasonably good working order. It takes a lot of reading

of Andy's books and posts to understand what Andy has been saying. It

helps when the theories have been tested on people over and over again

and the results reported (in archives), or when one tests the theories

on one's own body and they prove to be true (as I have).

[Guest guest]

,

Good point. There are several indirect ways to track mercury

chelation progress, as you explained: hair test normalization;

tolerance to higher chelator doses; symptom improvements. I plan on

having a hair test done periodically -- every 6-9 months perhaps -- to

see how things look. And I track symptoms daily and in great detail.

While it would be nice to have a reliable, more direct way to measure

mercury being eliminated during chelation, it seems like that might

be a pipe dream. Apparently urine tests can be meaningful, but one

has to be a kineticist to interpret the urine tests properly... (See

below)

Also, my understanding is that chelators hold on to the toxins and

allow them to circulate throughout the body, but chelators do nothing

directly to facilitate removal. Elimination of toxins bound by

chelators is entirely dependent on the body's natural excretory

processes. So I'm not sure I understand the logic behind " If the

person is using dithiol chelators appropriately, there will be some

excretion. " This is comforting, but I'm not sure how it is known,

especially in light of the urine pH issue raised on p.238 of HTI.

That was a good suggestion, , to check Onibasu (AM-Archives) to

see Andy's posts about this topic, and there were plenty. I'm not a

member of AM and haven't checked the posts on that forum, so it's a

new source of information for me.

I've pasted several relevant posts by Andy from AM below. Hopefully

people will find them helpful. It is clear that Andy doesn't think

there's much use for laboratory tests in tracking chelation (other

than hair tests, I guess). But apparently urine tests can be

useful, though it takes a rocket scientist to interpret them

correctly. I still don't understand why, but then again, I'm no

rocket scientist.

POSTS BY ANDY CUTLER ON AUSTIM-MERCURY ABOUT TRACKING CHELATION W/

URINE TESTS

(1) Apparently current medical tests say urine testing for heavy

metals is not reliable.

http://onibasu.com/archives/am/80756.html

(2) Andy seems to imply that the urine tests can be informative,

if (a) your run enough of them, and ( they are interpreted

correctly. Maybe Andy's talking about the high random variation from

day-to-day theory... just my guess.

http://onibasu.com/archives/am/94106.html

(3) Andy seems to imply that timed tests (as opposed to 24-hour tests)

might be helpful.

http://onibasu.com/archives/am/81806.html

(4) Andy says you must be a kineticist to interpret the urine tests

properly.

http://onibasu.com/archives/am/118799.html

(5) Patient wants to use urine testing to track chelation progress.

For some reason, Andy does NOT use this opportunity to advise against

these tests, but seems to suggest that the patient go ahead and order

them.

http://onibasu.com/archives/am/39214.html

(6) ALA increases both stool and urine excretion of mercury... but,

" none of these measurements is at all relevant to tracking therapy... "

http://onibasu.com/archives/am/85314.html

(7) " No laboratory measurements are useful for tracking progress of

chelation... "

http://onibasu.com/archives/am/85355.html

(8) " You do not track chelation with tests... "

http://onibasu.com/archives/am/48907.html

Q.E.D. (?)

Darren

[Guest guest]

>

>

Thanks for finding these links, Darren. I added some of them in our

links section. (Andy must be tired of posting the same thing over

and over, and I'm even getting tired of searching, so have

established a place in the links to put the posts we find).

Here is another one:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Autism-Mercury/message/229376

That was the one where he says that

" He's excreting, all mammals do that when given chelators. Not doing

so is not

compatible

with life. Thus he is alive, you gave him a chelator, he's excreting

heavy

metals. "

which is relevant to the concerns from the people who

had " undetectable " mercury in their urine tests. If they are taking

chelators they are excreting mercury. The test not detecting any

mercury has to do with the limitations of the testing.

> >

> POSTS BY ANDY CUTLER ON AUSTIM-MERCURY ABOUT TRACKING CHELATION W/

> URINE TESTS

>

> (1) Apparently current medical tests say urine testing for heavy

> metals is not reliable.

> http://onibasu.com/archives/am/80756.html

>

> (2) Andy seems to imply that the urine tests can be informative,

> if (a) your run enough of them, and ( they are interpreted

> correctly. Maybe Andy's talking about the high random variation

from

> day-to-day theory... just my guess.

> http://onibasu.com/archives/am/94106.html

>

> (3) Andy seems to imply that timed tests (as opposed to 24-hour

tests)

> might be helpful.

> http://onibasu.com/archives/am/81806.html

>

I think what he means is that all of the tests must be the same time

interval (and that many tests are needed in order to make any sense

of them). I don't think he has anything against 24 h tests (in fact

the link I found says always to do 24 h tests).

It's always difficult to catch the whole sample and measure the

volumes accurately, which adds a big source of error.

> (4) Andy says you must be a kineticist to interpret the urine tests

> properly.

> http://onibasu.com/archives/am/118799.html

>

> (5) Patient wants to use urine testing to track chelation progress.

> For some reason, Andy does NOT use this opportunity to advise

against

> these tests, but seems to suggest that the patient go ahead and

order

> them.

> http://onibasu.com/archives/am/39214.html

>

In autism mercury parents go on and on about urine tests, and after a

while I suspect Andy gets tired of telling them that they don't need

to waste their money.

> (6) ALA increases both stool and urine excretion of mercury... but,

> " none of these measurements is at all relevant to tracking

therapy... "

> http://onibasu.com/archives/am/85314.html

>

> (7) " No laboratory measurements are useful for tracking progress of

> chelation... "

> http://onibasu.com/archives/am/85355.html

>

> (8) " You do not track chelation with tests... "

> http://onibasu.com/archives/am/48907.html

>

> Q.E.D. (?)

>

Not sure exactly what QED means, but the test results that Andy has

examined and cases that Andy has consulted on, have already

demonstrated to him that what he says to us is true.

> Darren

>