Hair test results: need your experienced opinions!

January 8, 2008

I've posted my daughter's DDI results in the hopes that Andy & others

with experience can comment. File is in the Files section, Hair Test

folder, File name: Gs hair test - dec 17-07.JPG

The results don't meet the counting rules, but I'm assuming that the

very high uranium and moderately high arsenic/lead/tin/aluminium put

the results in the suspicious category.

My first question to you all is: what metals do the results confirm?

They don't meet the rules, but can I deduct there is mercury? Should I

chelate based on the test results (FYI, I'm ready and anxious to

chelate just based on my daughter's bevy of ASD traits & learning

difficulties, which match so many of the symptoms of toxicity

described in Andy's book).

My second big question has to do with the very high uranium. Andy says

that low iron levels can cause high uranium. Or it can be driven up by

high mercury. Or lastly I guess it could be the fault of that nuclear

research centre that is within 15 km of where I live (arghhh)!! Still,

I'd like to think that it's caused by lack of iron or by mercury --

those I can deal with! If iron is the problem, do I need to confirm a

deficiency through a blood test before giving supplements? How much

iron can I safely give a 40 lb child without tests? If the problem is

the environment near the nuclear research centre, then what?

Am I correct in concluding adrenal fatigue? (results seem moderately

high + she has symptoms of it)

What about the thyroid? The NA/K ratio is low (.0.654) - can I

conclude that the thyroid is fast or do I need to do the specific

thyroid tests (free T3, free T4, T3, T4, TSH)

What extra supplements should I be giving based on these results?

As extra input, here is the link to her previous urinary porphyrins &

blood work through the French lab:

/files/people/

(File name: G's test results).

Finally, for chelation I guess we'd have to go with ALA (mercury,

arsenic) and DMSA for the lead. What is normally done about arsenic -

do you start with ALA & then possibly add DMPS if needed down the

road? And what happens to the aluminum since it can't be chelated?

Thanks in advance for comments, corrections!

January 9, 2008

>

> I've posted my daughter's DDI results in the hopes that Andy & others

> with experience can comment. File is in the Files section, Hair Test

> folder, File name: Gs hair test - dec 17-07.JPG

>

> The results don't meet the counting rules, but I'm assuming that the

> very high uranium and moderately high arsenic/lead/tin/aluminium put

> the results in the suspicious category.

You are right it does not meet the counting rules, doesn't even

come close. Supplementation and other interventions that help

can make the hair test look more normal. Also, mercury in the

brain won't derange the hair test.

Body burden of lead is not always well reflected in hair. She has

enough to justify DMSA chelation as there may be more in her bones

and brain than the test shows. I would include ALA so you will get

rid of any mercury and it will help with lead issues.

For dosage and timing, see the FAQ and the Moria's website in the

files section. Ask questions if you are unsure about anything.

> My first question to you all is: what metals do the results confirm?

> They don't meet the rules, but can I deduct there is mercury? Should I

> chelate based on the test results (FYI, I'm ready and anxious to

> chelate just based on my daughter's bevy of ASD traits & learning

> difficulties, which match so many of the symptoms of toxicity

> described in Andy's book).

The only metal that appears to be a problem is lead. There could

be mercury, but the test is not saying it. Yellow level toxics are

not significant.

> My second big question has to do with the very high uranium. Andy says

> that low iron levels can cause high uranium. Or it can be driven up by

> high mercury. Or lastly I guess it could be the fault of that nuclear

> research centre that is within 15 km of where I live (arghhh)!! Still,

> I'd like to think that it's caused by lack of iron or by mercury --

> those I can deal with! If iron is the problem, do I need to confirm a

> deficiency through a blood test before giving supplements? How much

> iron can I safely give a 40 lb child without tests? If the problem is

> the environment near the nuclear research centre, then what?

In Hair Test Interpretation, Andy says uranium over .5 is significant.

Hers is .31 so not a problem. We get this from the water in certain

parts of the country where it is in the soil. If she has other

indications of iron deficiency, you can check by blood tests, but

the hair test doesn't indicate it.

> Am I correct in concluding adrenal fatigue? (results seem moderately

> high + she has symptoms of it)

There is no adrenal sign on the hair test. If she has symptoms

of adrenal problems you can try some adrenal cortex extract,

the hair test doesn't always show the problem. I needed adrenal

support and my hair test did not say so.

> What about the thyroid? The NA/K ratio is low (.0.654) - can I

> conclude that the thyroid is fast or do I need to do the specific

> thyroid tests (free T3, free T4, T3, T4, TSH)

Since the ratio is still in range, I don't think the hair test

is indicating a problem. Again, you can decide whether to test

based on symptoms of thyroid problems.

> What extra supplements should I be giving based on these results?

All I would suggest based on the hair test is chelation as above,

and basic recommended supplements are in the supplement file.

> As extra input, here is the link to her previous urinary porphyrins &

> blood work through the French lab:

> /files/people/

> (File name: G's test results).

Maybe someone else will respond. I don't know how to interpret these.

> Finally, for chelation I guess we'd have to go with ALA (mercury,

> arsenic) and DMSA for the lead. What is normally done about arsenic -

> do you start with ALA & then possibly add DMPS if needed down the

> road? And what happens to the aluminum since it can't be chelated?

Focus on chelating the lead. Using DMSA/ALA will also take care

of any mercury. The others don't appear to be a problem.

--

> Thanks in advance for comments, corrections!

>

January 12, 2008

Thank you so much for your comments.

I have a few more questions now for you & others who can hopefully

reply this weekend before I meet with the DAN! doc again on Monday.

> > I've posted my daughter's DDI results in the hopes that Andy & others

> > with experience can comment. File is in the Files section, Hair Test

> > folder, File name: Gs hair test - dec 17-07.JPG

> >

> > The results don't meet the counting rules, but I'm assuming that the

> > very high uranium and moderately high arsenic/lead/tin/aluminium put

> > the results in the suspicious category.

>

> You are right it does not meet the counting rules, doesn't even

> come close. Supplementation and other interventions that help

> can make the hair test look more normal. Also, mercury in the

> brain won't derange the hair test.

>

> Body burden of lead is not always well reflected in hair. She has

> enough to justify DMSA chelation as there may be more in her bones

> and brain than the test shows. I would include ALA so you will get

> rid of any mercury and it will help with lead issues.

>

> For dosage and timing, see the FAQ and the Moria's website in the

> files section. Ask questions if you are unsure about anything.

> > My first question to you all is: what metals do the results confirm?

> > They don't meet the rules, but can I deduct there is mercury? Should I

> > chelate based on the test results (FYI, I'm ready and anxious to

> > chelate just based on my daughter's bevy of ASD traits & learning

> > difficulties, which match so many of the symptoms of toxicity

> > described in Andy's book).

>

> The only metal that appears to be a problem is lead. There could

> be mercury, but the test is not saying it. Yellow level toxics are

> not significant.

I highly suspect mercury so maybe it is mostly in the brain now. If I

understand correctly, Andy says that Hg amounts from fish are not

significant, but I ate a *lot* of fish while pregnant with my daughter

(esp. salmon, tuna, swordfish - French doctors never me warned against

it). I knew within a few months of birth that something wasn't right

and then we added to it with a boat load of vaccines in her first 2

years of life. Mercury does seem very possible to me.

As for lead, we moved into an old house when she was 20 months old

that had lots of lead paint on doors, radiators, etc. We were advised

at the time to paint over it, which we did, as this was safer than

removing it. All work was done before we moved in but still there was

lots of dust & she could have been exposed during our 3 years there so

yes, the lead could be higher than on the test.

And what about the arsenic? It's higher that the lead but do you not

think it's significant?

Of course the DAN! sees only mercury as a problem as per porphyrins

results (she told me months ago not to bother doing a hair test

because the porphyrins was all I needed and a " better " test). She

didn't mention any other metals based on the porphyrins. And if I

recall, she mentioned using DMPS not DMSA, but that would not correct

to treat mercury & lead.

> > Am I correct in concluding adrenal fatigue? (results seem moderately

> > high + she has symptoms of it)

>

> There is no adrenal sign on the hair test. If she has symptoms

> of adrenal problems you can try some adrenal cortex extract,

> the hair test doesn't always show the problem. I needed adrenal

> support and my hair test did not say so.

There are signs and Andy mentions that many labs recommend ACE for all

patients so I figure I have nothing to lose.

> > What extra supplements should I be giving based on these results?

>

> All I would suggest based on the hair test is chelation as above,

> and basic recommended supplements are in the supplement file.

>

> > As extra input, here is the link to her previous urinary porphyrins &

> > blood work through the French lab:

> > /files/people/

> > (File name: G's test results).

>

> Maybe someone else will respond. I don't know how to interpret these.

Yes please if someone knows how to interpret the porphyrins for lead &

other toxins, that would be helpful.

> > Finally, for chelation I guess we'd have to go with ALA (mercury,

> > arsenic) and DMSA for the lead. What is normally done about arsenic -

> > do you start with ALA & then possibly add DMPS if needed down the

> > road? And what happens to the aluminum since it can't be chelated?

>

> Focus on chelating the lead. Using DMSA/ALA will also take care

> of any mercury. The others don't appear to be a problem.

>

> --

January 12, 2008

Just for the record;

SILICA chelates Aluminum and

vitamin C and Calcium cna reduce Adrenal fatique; esp. the Calcium.---

In , " iam2l84t " <mam78@...> wrote:

>

> Thank you so much for your comments.

>

> I have a few more questions now for you & others who can hopefully

> reply this weekend before I meet with the DAN! doc again on Monday.

>

> > > I've posted my daughter's DDI results in the hopes that Andy &

others

> > > with experience can comment. File is in the Files section, Hair

Test

> > > folder, File name: Gs hair test - dec 17-07.JPG

> > >

> > > The results don't meet the counting rules, but I'm assuming

that the

> > > very high uranium and moderately high

arsenic/lead/tin/aluminium put

> > > the results in the suspicious category.

> >

> > You are right it does not meet the counting rules, doesn't even

> > come close. Supplementation and other interventions that help

> > can make the hair test look more normal. Also, mercury in the

> > brain won't derange the hair test.

> >

> > Body burden of lead is not always well reflected in hair. She

has

> > enough to justify DMSA chelation as there may be more in her

bones

> > and brain than the test shows. I would include ALA so you will

get

> > rid of any mercury and it will help with lead issues.

> >

> > For dosage and timing, see the FAQ and the Moria's website in the

> > files section. Ask questions if you are unsure about anything.

>

> > > My first question to you all is: what metals do the results

confirm?

> > > They don't meet the rules, but can I deduct there is mercury?

Should I

> > > chelate based on the test results (FYI, I'm ready and anxious to

> > > chelate just based on my daughter's bevy of ASD traits &

learning

> > > difficulties, which match so many of the symptoms of toxicity

> > > described in Andy's book).

> >

> > The only metal that appears to be a problem is lead. There could

> > be mercury, but the test is not saying it. Yellow level toxics

are

> > not significant.

>

> I highly suspect mercury so maybe it is mostly in the brain now. If

I

> understand correctly, Andy says that Hg amounts from fish are not

> significant, but I ate a *lot* of fish while pregnant with my

daughter

> (esp. salmon, tuna, swordfish - French doctors never me warned

against

> it). I knew within a few months of birth that something wasn't right

> and then we added to it with a boat load of vaccines in her first 2

> years of life. Mercury does seem very possible to me.

>

> As for lead, we moved into an old house when she was 20 months old

> that had lots of lead paint on doors, radiators, etc. We were

advised

> at the time to paint over it, which we did, as this was safer than

> removing it. All work was done before we moved in but still there

was

> lots of dust & she could have been exposed during our 3 years there

so

> yes, the lead could be higher than on the test.

>

> And what about the arsenic? It's higher that the lead but do you not

> think it's significant?

>

> Of course the DAN! sees only mercury as a problem as per porphyrins

> results (she told me months ago not to bother doing a hair test

> because the porphyrins was all I needed and a " better " test). She

> didn't mention any other metals based on the porphyrins. And if I

> recall, she mentioned using DMPS not DMSA, but that would not

correct

> to treat mercury & lead.

>

> > > Am I correct in concluding adrenal fatigue? (results seem

moderately

> > > high + she has symptoms of it)

> >

> > There is no adrenal sign on the hair test. If she has symptoms

> > of adrenal problems you can try some adrenal cortex extract,

> > the hair test doesn't always show the problem. I needed adrenal

> > support and my hair test did not say so.

>

> There are signs and Andy mentions that many labs recommend ACE for

all

> patients so I figure I have nothing to lose.

>

> > > What extra supplements should I be giving based on these

results?

> >

> > All I would suggest based on the hair test is chelation as

above,

> > and basic recommended supplements are in the supplement file.

> >

>

> > > As extra input, here is the link to her previous urinary

porphyrins &

> > > blood work through the French lab:

> > > Autism-

Mercury/files/people/

> > > (File name: G's test results).

> >

> > Maybe someone else will respond. I don't know how to interpret

these.

>

> Yes please if someone knows how to interpret the porphyrins for

lead &

> other toxins, that would be helpful.

>

> > > Finally, for chelation I guess we'd have to go with ALA

(mercury,

> > > arsenic) and DMSA for the lead. What is normally done about

arsenic -

> > > do you start with ALA & then possibly add DMPS if needed down

the

> > > road? And what happens to the aluminum since it can't be

chelated?

> >

> > Focus on chelating the lead. Using DMSA/ALA will also take care

> > of any mercury. The others don't appear to be a problem.

> >

> > --

>

January 12, 2008

> >

> > Thank you so much for your comments.

> >

> > I have a few more questions now for you & others who can hopefully

> > reply this weekend before I meet with the DAN! doc again on Monday.

> >

> > > > I've posted my daughter's DDI results in the hopes that Andy &

> others

> > > > with experience can comment. File is in the Files section, Hair

> Test

> > > > folder, File name: Gs hair test - dec 17-07.JPG

> > > >

> > > > The results don't meet the counting rules, but I'm assuming

> that the

> > > > very high uranium and moderately high

> arsenic/lead/tin/aluminium put

> > > > the results in the suspicious category.

> > >

> > > You are right it does not meet the counting rules, doesn't even

> > > come close. Supplementation and other interventions that help

> > > can make the hair test look more normal. Also, mercury in the

> > > brain won't derange the hair test.

> > >

> > > Body burden of lead is not always well reflected in hair. She

> has

> > > enough to justify DMSA chelation as there may be more in her

> bones

> > > and brain than the test shows. I would include ALA so you will

> get

> > > rid of any mercury and it will help with lead issues.

> > >

> > > For dosage and timing, see the FAQ and the Moria's website in the

> > > files section. Ask questions if you are unsure about anything.

> >

> > > > My first question to you all is: what metals do the results

> confirm?

> > > > They don't meet the rules, but can I deduct there is mercury?

> Should I

> > > > chelate based on the test results (FYI, I'm ready and anxious to

> > > > chelate just based on my daughter's bevy of ASD traits &

> learning

> > > > difficulties, which match so many of the symptoms of toxicity

> > > > described in Andy's book).

> > >

> > > The only metal that appears to be a problem is lead. There could

> > > be mercury, but the test is not saying it. Yellow level toxics

> are

> > > not significant.

> >

> > I highly suspect mercury so maybe it is mostly in the brain now. If

> I

> > understand correctly, Andy says that Hg amounts from fish are not

> > significant, but I ate a *lot* of fish while pregnant with my

> daughter

> > (esp. salmon, tuna, swordfish - French doctors never me warned

> against

> > it). I knew within a few months of birth that something wasn't right

> > and then we added to it with a boat load of vaccines in her first 2

> > years of life. Mercury does seem very possible to me.

> >

> > As for lead, we moved into an old house when she was 20 months old

> > that had lots of lead paint on doors, radiators, etc. We were

> advised

> > at the time to paint over it, which we did, as this was safer than

> > removing it. All work was done before we moved in but still there

> was

> > lots of dust & she could have been exposed during our 3 years there

> so

> > yes, the lead could be higher than on the test.

> >

> > And what about the arsenic? It's higher that the lead but do you not

> > think it's significant?

> >

> > Of course the DAN! sees only mercury as a problem as per porphyrins

> > results (she told me months ago not to bother doing a hair test

> > because the porphyrins was all I needed and a " better " test). She

> > didn't mention any other metals based on the porphyrins. And if I

> > recall, she mentioned using DMPS not DMSA, but that would not

> correct

> > to treat mercury & lead.

> >

> > > > Am I correct in concluding adrenal fatigue? (results seem

> moderately

> > > > high + she has symptoms of it)

> > >

> > > There is no adrenal sign on the hair test. If she has symptoms

> > > of adrenal problems you can try some adrenal cortex extract,

> > > the hair test doesn't always show the problem. I needed adrenal

> > > support and my hair test did not say so.

> >

> > There are signs and Andy mentions that many labs recommend ACE for

> all

> > patients so I figure I have nothing to lose.

> >

> > > > What extra supplements should I be giving based on these

> results?

> > >

> > > All I would suggest based on the hair test is chelation as

> above,

> > > and basic recommended supplements are in the supplement file.

> > >

> >

> > > > As extra input, here is the link to her previous urinary

> porphyrins &

> > > > blood work through the French lab:

> > > > Autism-

> Mercury/files/people/

> > > > (File name: G's test results).

> > >

> > > Maybe someone else will respond. I don't know how to interpret

> these.

> >

> > Yes please if someone knows how to interpret the porphyrins for

> lead &

> > other toxins, that would be helpful.

> >

> > > > Finally, for chelation I guess we'd have to go with ALA

> (mercury,

> > > > arsenic) and DMSA for the lead. What is normally done about

> arsenic -

> > > > do you start with ALA & then possibly add DMPS if needed down

> the

> > > > road? And what happens to the aluminum since it can't be

> chelated?

> > >

> > > Focus on chelating the lead. Using DMSA/ALA will also take care

> > > of any mercury. The others don't appear to be a problem.

> > >

> > > --

> >

>

January 12, 2008

>

> Thank you so much for your comments.

>

> I have a few more questions now for you & others who can hopefully

> reply this weekend before I meet with the DAN! doc again on Monday.

>

> > > I've posted my daughter's DDI results in the hopes that Andy &

others

> > > with experience can comment. File is in the Files section, Hair Test

> > > folder, File name: Gs hair test - dec 17-07.JPG

> > >

> > > The results don't meet the counting rules, but I'm assuming that the

> > > very high uranium and moderately high arsenic/lead/tin/aluminium put

> > > the results in the suspicious category.

> >

> > You are right it does not meet the counting rules, doesn't even

> > come close. Supplementation and other interventions that help

> > can make the hair test look more normal. Also, mercury in the

> > brain won't derange the hair test.

> >

> > Body burden of lead is not always well reflected in hair. She has

> > enough to justify DMSA chelation as there may be more in her bones

> > and brain than the test shows. I would include ALA so you will get

> > rid of any mercury and it will help with lead issues.

> >

> > For dosage and timing, see the FAQ and the Moria's website in the

> > files section. Ask questions if you are unsure about anything.

>

> > > My first question to you all is: what metals do the results confirm?

> > > They don't meet the rules, but can I deduct there is mercury?

Should I

> > > chelate based on the test results (FYI, I'm ready and anxious to

> > > chelate just based on my daughter's bevy of ASD traits & learning

> > > difficulties, which match so many of the symptoms of toxicity

> > > described in Andy's book).

> >

> > The only metal that appears to be a problem is lead. There could

> > be mercury, but the test is not saying it. Yellow level toxics are

> > not significant.

>

> I highly suspect mercury so maybe it is mostly in the brain now. If I

> understand correctly, Andy says that Hg amounts from fish are not

> significant, but I ate a *lot* of fish while pregnant with my daughter

Fish can *certainly* make you toxic, especially the tuna and

swordfish you mention below. Many types of salmon are not good

either.

> (esp. salmon, tuna, swordfish - French doctors never me warned against

> it). I knew within a few months of birth that something wasn't right

> and then we added to it with a boat load of vaccines in her first 2

> years of life. Mercury does seem very possible to me.

Yes, your history of exposure indicates to me that mercury is a

problem, too.

> As for lead, we moved into an old house when she was 20 months old

> that had lots of lead paint on doors, radiators, etc. We were advised

> at the time to paint over it, which we did, as this was safer than

> removing it. All work was done before we moved in but still there was

> lots of dust & she could have been exposed during our 3 years there so

> yes, the lead could be higher than on the test.

>

> And what about the arsenic? It's higher that the lead but do you not

> think it's significant?

It is not a big concern, the lead is a much bigger problem because

hair lead can be falsely low. And mercury is a big concern, too.

Those are the ones you need to focus on.

> Of course the DAN! sees only mercury as a problem as per porphyrins

> results (she told me months ago not to bother doing a hair test

> because the porphyrins was all I needed and a " better " test). She

> didn't mention any other metals based on the porphyrins. And if I

> recall, she mentioned using DMPS not DMSA, but that would not correct

> to treat mercury & lead.

My understanding is porphyrins testing is subject to problems

and I would believe a lead result in hair before I believed

the lack of evidence of lead in a porphyrins test.

The hair test result indicates an unhealthy level of lead and

there is likely more in her bones and brain than the hair test

shows - there is no way to measure that part, but if she has

it in her body, some of it got into her bones and brain as well.

It makes sense to use DMSA for awhile to clear some lead. It

chelates mercury, too. In Hair Test Interpretation, Andy suggests

chelating with DMSA on a regular basis initially. After a while you

can use DMSA less often, perhaps once a month as lead slowly moves

out of the bones and brain.

You can use ALA with the DMSA. This is the most important chelator

because it clears mercury out of the brain. DMPS can't do that. If

you want to use DMPS/ALA later when you are using DMSA/ALA only once

a month, that is fine.

> > > Am I correct in concluding adrenal fatigue? (results seem moderately

> > > high + she has symptoms of it)

> >

> > There is no adrenal sign on the hair test. If she has symptoms

> > of adrenal problems you can try some adrenal cortex extract,

> > the hair test doesn't always show the problem. I needed adrenal

> > support and my hair test did not say so.

>

> There are signs and Andy mentions that many labs recommend ACE for all

> patients so I figure I have nothing to lose.

Yes, it is fine to try it and see how she does.

> > > What extra supplements should I be giving based on these results?

> >

> > All I would suggest based on the hair test is chelation as above,

> > and basic recommended supplements are in the supplement file.

> >

>

> > > As extra input, here is the link to her previous urinary

porphyrins &

> > > blood work through the French lab:

> > > /files/people/

> > > (File name: G's test results).

> >

> > Maybe someone else will respond. I don't know how to interpret these.

>

> Yes please if someone knows how to interpret the porphyrins for lead &

> other toxins, that would be helpful.

Andy has posted about these tests in the past and you may want to

check archives and Moria's website for his comments.

Also, Anita posted some information in the files some time back that

may help you interpret these.

--

> > > Finally, for chelation I guess we'd have to go with ALA (mercury,

> > > arsenic) and DMSA for the lead. What is normally done about

arsenic -

> > > do you start with ALA & then possibly add DMPS if needed down the

> > > road? And what happens to the aluminum since it can't be chelated?

> >

> > Focus on chelating the lead. Using DMSA/ALA will also take care

> > of any mercury. The others don't appear to be a problem.

> >

> > --

>

January 13, 2008

Andy

SILICA most certainly does chelate Aluminum; i have tons of articles:

example; just one qutoe from many articles; type Silica Aluminum

search QUOTE:

Additionally scientists and researchers have long hypothesized that

Alzheimer's disease is linked to a build up of aluminum in the brain,

and links between aluminum in drinking water supplies and Alzheimer's

have now been ascertained.

A factor that is overlooked is that SILICA reduces the accumulation

of aluminum.

When researchers added SILICA to aluminum-laced water supplies, it

inhibited the aluminum from being absorbed.

It also caused a proliferation in the excretion of aluminum in urine

and lowered aluminum concentrations in the brain, liver, bone, spleen

and kidneys. END QUOTE

> > >

> > > Thank you so much for your comments.

> > >

> > > I have a few more questions now for you & others who can

hopefully

> > > reply this weekend before I meet with the DAN! doc again on

Monday.

> > >

> > > > > I've posted my daughter's DDI results in the hopes that

Andy &

> > others

> > > > > with experience can comment. File is in the Files section,

Hair

> > Test

> > > > > folder, File name: Gs hair test - dec 17-07.JPG

> > > > >

> > > > > The results don't meet the counting rules, but I'm assuming

> > that the

> > > > > very high uranium and moderately high

> > arsenic/lead/tin/aluminium put

> > > > > the results in the suspicious category.

> > > >

> > > > You are right it does not meet the counting rules, doesn't

even

> > > > come close. Supplementation and other interventions that

help

> > > > can make the hair test look more normal. Also, mercury in

the

> > > > brain won't derange the hair test.

> > > >

> > > > Body burden of lead is not always well reflected in hair.

She

> > has

> > > > enough to justify DMSA chelation as there may be more in her

> > bones

> > > > and brain than the test shows. I would include ALA so you

will

> > get

> > > > rid of any mercury and it will help with lead issues.

> > > >

> > > > For dosage and timing, see the FAQ and the Moria's website in

the

> > > > files section. Ask questions if you are unsure about

anything.

> > >

> > > > > My first question to you all is: what metals do the results

> > confirm?

> > > > > They don't meet the rules, but can I deduct there is

mercury?

> > Should I

> > > > > chelate based on the test results (FYI, I'm ready and

anxious to

> > > > > chelate just based on my daughter's bevy of ASD traits &

> > learning

> > > > > difficulties, which match so many of the symptoms of

toxicity

> > > > > described in Andy's book).

> > > >

> > > > The only metal that appears to be a problem is lead. There

could

> > > > be mercury, but the test is not saying it. Yellow level

toxics

> > are

> > > > not significant.

> > >

> > > I highly suspect mercury so maybe it is mostly in the brain

now. If

> > I

> > > understand correctly, Andy says that Hg amounts from fish are

not

> > > significant, but I ate a *lot* of fish while pregnant with my

> > daughter

> > > (esp. salmon, tuna, swordfish - French doctors never me warned

> > against

> > > it). I knew within a few months of birth that something wasn't

right

> > > and then we added to it with a boat load of vaccines in her

first 2

> > > years of life. Mercury does seem very possible to me.

> > >

> > > As for lead, we moved into an old house when she was 20 months

old

> > > that had lots of lead paint on doors, radiators, etc. We were

> > advised

> > > at the time to paint over it, which we did, as this was safer

than

> > > removing it. All work was done before we moved in but still

there

> > was

> > > lots of dust & she could have been exposed during our 3 years

there

> > so

> > > yes, the lead could be higher than on the test.

> > >

> > > And what about the arsenic? It's higher that the lead but do

you not

> > > think it's significant?

> > >

> > > Of course the DAN! sees only mercury as a problem as per

porphyrins

> > > results (she told me months ago not to bother doing a hair test

> > > because the porphyrins was all I needed and a " better " test).

She

> > > didn't mention any other metals based on the porphyrins. And if

I

> > > recall, she mentioned using DMPS not DMSA, but that would not

> > correct

> > > to treat mercury & lead.

> > >

> > > > > Am I correct in concluding adrenal fatigue? (results seem

> > moderately

> > > > > high + she has symptoms of it)

> > > >

> > > > There is no adrenal sign on the hair test. If she has

symptoms

> > > > of adrenal problems you can try some adrenal cortex extract,

> > > > the hair test doesn't always show the problem. I needed

adrenal

> > > > support and my hair test did not say so.

> > >

> > > There are signs and Andy mentions that many labs recommend ACE

for

> > all

> > > patients so I figure I have nothing to lose.

> > >

> > > > > What extra supplements should I be giving based on these

> > results?

> > > >

> > > > All I would suggest based on the hair test is chelation as

> > above,

> > > > and basic recommended supplements are in the supplement file.

> > > >

> > >

> > > > > As extra input, here is the link to her previous urinary

> > porphyrins &

> > > > > blood work through the French lab:

> > > > > Autism-

> > Mercury/files/people/

> > > > > (File name: G's test results).

> > > >

> > > > Maybe someone else will respond. I don't know how to

interpret

> > these.

> > >

> > > Yes please if someone knows how to interpret the porphyrins for

> > lead &

> > > other toxins, that would be helpful.

> > >

> > > > > Finally, for chelation I guess we'd have to go with ALA

> > (mercury,

> > > > > arsenic) and DMSA for the lead. What is normally done about

> > arsenic -

> > > > > do you start with ALA & then possibly add DMPS if needed

down

> > the

> > > > > road? And what happens to the aluminum since it can't be

> > chelated?

> > > >

> > > > Focus on chelating the lead. Using DMSA/ALA will also take

care

> > > > of any mercury. The others don't appear to be a problem.

> > > >

> > > > --

> > >

> >

>

January 14, 2008

Anne,

Like , I wonder what your purpose is here. This is a group

composed of many extremely well-educated people in the realms of

nutrition, supplements and biomedical interventions for children with

autism, including chelation - I'm sort of surprised that you speak to

us as though we are simpletons.

When I look through your many posts here I don't see any questions

being asked, except as they relate to challenges to the mostly

elementary and perseverative posts that you continue to put up about

things that seem to be your pet interests. You seem mostly keen to

have a venue in which you can espouse your views, or perhaps to become

some sort of respected pedagogical figure. the difficulty with this

is that honestly, people here have not asked for your tutelage. All

of the articles and wiki links you post are freely available to us all

and are rather unexceptional (as has already been pointed out to you).

Even this silly disagreement you're having with Andy now shows how

little you actually know or are even able to glean from what you read.

When Andy disputed your claim that silica was a chelator of aluminum,

you wrote back that you have a ton of articles that say otherwise (and

honestly, I can tell you the reaction to arguments from authority and

generalisation like this are not impressing anyone here even if you

find them pursuasive). Then, somewhat amazingly, you proceeded to

quote an article that does not even claim that silica is a chelator.

All it claims (and it may well be incorrect about this for all I know)

is that silica reduces the uptake of aluminum. The claim at the end

isn't even clear as to whether they measured the aluminum coming out

of the body via urine when they gave subject water with both silica

and aluminum in it (meaning it may have decreased absorption and the

aluminum excreted was the same stuff they gave the person to ingest)

or when there was no aluminum being ingested at all. Yet you are

completely uncritical of the article and cite it as evidence that

silica " chelates " aluminum. It seems that you either do not actually

understand what you read, or would simply want to believe it without

any critical thinking at all. And at the same time you feel entirely

comfortable making bold claims of truth based on it and using it to

dispute those of others.

There are lots of other problems with that bit you cut and pasted, but

I think I have already given good reason to call it into question.

Please don't respond by citing another article to me - I am well

equipped to do a basic search for myself if I care enough about

whether silica inhibits the absorption of aluminum to bother.

I imagine that your motives are good ones and that you are aiming to

help people. It's true that this is a free, and publicly open group -

and I can just change my mailbox settings to ignore/delete your posts

in the future, but along with that I want to suggest to you that you

consider why you're spending your time here when so much of what

you're offering is frankly not up to the rigorous standards that many

people in this group insist upon - and you've already gotten several

comments like this, but for some reason pay no attention. Perhaps you

would consider spending some time here learning before you start

lecturing people about things that you don't really have a strong

grasp on.

Good luck,

> > >

> > > Just for the record;

> >

> > to add incorrect information and confuse people so they might hurt

> their kids....

> > >

> > > SILICA chelates Aluminum and

> >

> > Nope. It does no such thing.

> > >

>

> >

January 14, 2008

I agree with , Anita and the others who have also responded as well.

I'm afraid that Anne's posts will ruin the integrity of this group should

she continue posting in the same careless manner she has been. I recommend

this group to parents I come across EVERY day - and am a little scared that

a new parent would take some of her posts literally and just treat their

child without doing further research on what she says.

Additionally, I'm sorry - but it's very difficult to take anyone seriously

when they can't take the time to proofread what they've written, especially

if they are trying to be persuasive. I can deal with a typo here and there,

but her posts are riddled with spelling mistakes, bad grammar and a lack of

punctuation - and give me a headache to read.

I find your posts disruptive and argumentative - and quite frankly, I don't

have time to read your posts when there are other things I need to be

reading that will actually help my child. I'm sure I am not alone when I

say that I will not be reading another one of your posts again.

From: [mailto: ]

On Behalf Of zpapacarroll

Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 7:54 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Hair test results: need your experienced

opinions!