Homeopathy/Chelation - Fran; Was: Okay to start chelating with ALA only??

[Guest guest]

Hi Fran (below) --

Posted by: " Fran Sheffield " FranSheffield@... fmsheffield

Date: Tue May 13, 2008 5:40 am ((PDT))

>Hi Dave (and others),

>I am a homeopath and I am in the middle of writing an article

>for one of our homeopathic journals. I also treat large number of

>children with ASDs. I have been sitting on this list for a couple of

>weeks just to see what is being done in terms of chelation to increase

>my understanding of what I am writing about.

>May I pick up a few points from your post and ask some questions of you,

>or anyone else who may be able to help?

> > You can ask people about homeopathy here. What I am understanding, is

> > that homeopathy can help the body to do what it already knows how

to do.

> > It can be very helpful for symptoms - but, the body does not know

how to

> > remove mercury from the brain, so homeopathy can't help with that.

>Question 1: Do we have any research that shows that the body in a

>healthy state does not know how to remove mercury from the brain? To my

>way of simple thinking - if the mercury got in there, it must be able to

>get out again - any reason why it should only be a one way process?

Of course. The BBB is permeable to the organic mercury compounds, like

methy and ethyl. These compounds then demethylate in the brain and start

causing damage. Another route in is by migration along neurons - like

the neurons that are efferent from the pituitary into the sinus cavity.

It will also go in during acute poisoning states, when the pressure of

mercury on the body side of the BBB is high; but once it's equilibrated

and the mercury is bound up in tissues, there does not appear to be any

mechanism to transport the mercury out. If there was, the half life of

mercury in the brain would not be as long as it is, about 25 years. (As

mentioned in the note to , from which this thread started, it does

appear that there is such a mechanism for lead, since lead mimics calcium.)

>Also, I am not so sure that homeopathy cannot help in this area and I

>hope to be conducting some research on mercury removal with homeopathy

>in the near future to establish what can and what cannot be done.

Interesting. How do you propose to carry this out?

Perhaps an initial approach would be to poll people - or just read the

archives (searchable on onibasu.com). My informal impression is that a

number of people who have shown up here, and who did have success

chelating, had tried homeopathy and had what might be called only

qualified success. (I'm discounting the one or two I've seen that were

very down on it, but that is my general impression.)

>Your comment also opens up the question of what is really going on with

>homeoapthy?

>If homeopathy can correct ASD symptoms that are frequently attributed to

>mercury toxicity - and it can, sometimes rapidly - yet no obvious

>mercury chelation has taken place, is mercury the underlying culprit to

>the problem or just there by association?

I'm not sure of the logic here. If we chelate the mercury, and that

removes symptoms which don't come back, then it does indeed seem to be

the underlying problem. I have not seen a lot of reports that ASD

kids/adults are completely recovered using homeopathy. I don't doubt

that there are some cases - as far as I can see, not all ASD _is_

mercury, only a lot of it.

>I am not really expecting an answer to that one - just throwing it in

because it is something I am

pondering. But that aside, I would like some help with my ignorance in

the following area:

> > First of all, you need to know that neither DMSA nor DMPS remove

mercury

> > from the brain or from the inside of cells. Only ALA does that.

>Question 2: I thought that none of the chelating agents could remove

mercury from the brain. Is this untrue? I have read the Aposhian research:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12870874?dopt=AbstractPlus

No, you didn't, you read the abstract. Have a look at the paper, as it

is very edifying with regard to what happens when an improper protocol

is used. (Notice the death rate of the mice/rats.)

>that showed that mercury could be removed from the liver and kidneys by

>combinations of DSMA, DMPS, and ALA but that none of them could remove

>it from the brain (this study was done on rats - poor things - so it may

>be different with humans). Do you know of any studies that contradict

>these findings?

Quite a lot. You can begin your research with the list here:

http://onibasu.com/archives/am/659.html

>Kind regards,

>Fran Sheffield

Fran - I have read Coulter's thesis, which I found very

interesting. I think it's a case of two theories that are in some ways

incommensurate, but each one seems to have some efficacy, even if

neither can be explained from the other's point of view. There are other

cases of this (eg classical and constructive mathematics or classical

and quantum mechanics). It's too bad that we live in a world where some

one point of view seems to have to monopolize things. The unfortunate

result, is that when one point of view takes over, those who represent

the suppressed one, tend to balkanize. That is, we tend to become like

our opponent, who wants to say that they have every answer. That is a

mistake. I'd say it is very important to take your opponent seriously,

recognizing their strengths (your limitations) while standing for the

continued relevance of your own point of view, even if it does not have

all the answers.

I've got ' huge history of medicine, which I hope to read soon.

(What's up with , anyway? He didn't look all that well to me in

his pictures. Was he ill? I wouldn't be surprised - most of us become

critical of medicine when we become ill and have to deal with it.)

PS. By the way, it might be relevant for you to point out in your

article that while DMSA and DMPS might be located in the world of

allopathic medicine, ALA would not. It would most rightly be placed in

the realm of Orthomolecular Medicine. You may know that orthomolecular

medicine is an offshoot of biochemistry, itself a field that grew out of

the study of nutrition. Allopathic medicine was very hostile to and

dismissive of the results of biochemistry, which was discovering that it

could cure pellagra, rickets, beri-beri and scruvy with nutrient

factors. As a result, two of the most prominent biochemists in the

world, Linus ing and (along with Theron Randolph, the

allergist, and Abrham Hoffer, psychiatrist), inaugurated this new field,

which became quite a challenge to commercial/institutional medicine for

perhaps two decades.

It think this bit of history is important, since we might see the use of

ALA, which is already present in the body, as in some ways similar to

the use of vitamin C. As puts it:

" The use of a large number of chemical substances now applied to combat

disease, or the symptoms of disease, could only be construed as

collaborating with nature in the most Pickwickian way. I am referring to

those drugs which are wholly unlike nature’s weapons but which, for

unknown reasons, appear to bring relief from specific symptoms. In

principle, one would assume that top priority in the treatment of

disease should always be given to those medications which are most

similar to nature’s own biological weapons, and that one should be

cautious about introducing alien chemicals into any patient’s system.

But this principle hardly describes the practice of modern medicine or

the policy espoused by medical education.

" The fact is that medicine has become addicted to the administration of

vast quantities of nonbiological medications…. The basic fault of all

these weapons is that they have no known connection with the disease

process itself. They tend to mask the difficulty, not eliminate it. They

contaminate the internal environment, create dependence on the part of

the patient, and often complicate the physician’s job by erasing

valuable clues as to the real source of the trouble. " (from his

" Nutrition Against Disease " )

I'm sure that as a homeopath, you would agree with this, so I just

wanted to make sure that your grasp that ALA might be termed a " natural "

substance.

PPS. Finally, I don't know where you are in your explorations, but I

hope you do understand that people following the Cutler protocol, are

following the most cautious form of chelation around. I'm hoping that

this is why you are here, that it's because you recognize that _if_

someone decides on chelation, then this is the way to go, being the

slowest, gentlest and more careful approach. It might be a good idea to

spend some time at places like dmpsbackfire.com and look at Klinghardt's

site, to get some idea of how crazy it gets.

>Homeopathy Plus!(Education and Treatment)

>http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au

>Do No Harm Initiative (Homeopathic Immunisation)

>http://www.d-n-h.org