Question for

[Guest guest]

Hi Penny,

Generally a bloody nose is indicative of weak collagen and usually this

is the result of low copper. Is this a possibility?

In a message dated 3/2/2001 10:57:01 AM Pacific Standard Time,

PennyHoule@... writes:

<< Since the bb isn't working, hope you don't mind if I throw this question

at

you here. Do you know what deficiency could possibly be indicated by a

bloody

nose? Woke up this morning with a good one. Very unusual for me, so was

thinking this might be mean something.>>

[Guest guest]

Thanks ,

It's possible. Even though I'm hypo, I seemed to need copper in the beginning

because I couldn't tolerate the zinc. I've pretty much eliminated the copper

lately, because I was associating it with headaches. I also associate high

estrogen with headaches, which have become a bit more frequent again,

especially around the onset of my period (peak estrogen time). I know copper

enhances estrogen. I've also noticed just a small amount of alcohol (beer)

will give me a headache, another indicator of excessive copper? So anyway, I

was putting 2+2 together and came up with STOPPING copper. I suppose I need

another hair analysis to know for sure.

It's curious because I remember a couple of other people thinking that copper

was giving them headaches. Perhaps it's something else that's really missing?

You know, I had planned to post this at the other site, but I did something

interesting that gave me a very different perspective on my last hair

analysis. I converted all of the results and the normal ranges into

percentages. Originally I was deficient in everything, so I just assumed I

needed to supplement everything. But when I looked at what percentage of the

bottom norm number I was, I got a better picture of what I was more deficient

in and what I was less deficient in. Big surprise. Selenium was my number one

deficiency. My hair showed 8% of what would be considered the bottom of the

normal range. Chromium was next at 11%, then molybdenum (16%), manganese

(17%) potassium (20%) Iron (28%) Cobalt (33%) sodium (70%) phosphorous (85%)

ending with zinc, which was the only one in which I fell into the normal

range at all, by 106% of the lowest normal number. Copper was 73% of low

normal. Up to this point, I have definitely not been making selenium, or

molybdenum, or manganese top priorities, so this makes me rethink some of my

approach. I plan to emphasize these for a bit and see what happens. I still

need to research the interactions of these with other supplements but any

comments you may have will be appreciated. I'm going to stick with the

potassium for a while as well, I definitely feel that potassium may make a

big difference.

Anyway, it's definitely time for a new hair analysis, but I'll get started

anyway. Seeing how I feel seems to be the best indicator.

Penny

[Guest guest]

Hi Penny,

Copper does seem to be associated with headaches and I still don't know

why. If I were subject to headaches, I'd probably have figured this out, but

I'm extremely resistant to them. The worst headache I ever get is barely

noticeable.

A couple months ago I got some of these headaches and was curious about

what was going on. In retrospect, it's possible that it was from the

combination of taking copper while being potassium deficient. I have the

feeling that potassium deficiency somehow interferes with copper metabolism.

Perhaps taking copper (supplements or food, like beer, chocolate, etc.) while

potassium deficient is one pathway to headaches. I'm not sure, but I think

it's worth paying attention to this possibility. Taking magnesium without

potassium may be how potassium gets depleted.

Other possibilities are that some other nutrient needed for copper

metabolism is missing, like niacin, biotin, B5, or some other minerals. Who

knows??

If it is related to the potassium/magnesium/calcium balance, then my

guess is that hypers are usually magnesium deficient and potassium adequate,

so copper wouldn't cause headaches. Hypos are probably more likely to be

potassium deficient and therefore more subject to headaches from copper. Does

this fit what people are experiencing?

Penny, your analysis of your minerals as a percentage of the minimum is a

neat way to look at them and potentially a better way to see what minerals

are most deficient. We'll have to see if that proves to be the best way to

look at them.

In a message dated 3/2/2001 1:50:51 PM Pacific Standard Time,

PennyHoule@... writes:

<< It's possible. Even though I'm hypo, I seemed to need copper in the

beginning

because I couldn't tolerate the zinc. I've pretty much eliminated the copper

lately, because I was associating it with headaches. I also associate high

estrogen with headaches, which have become a bit more frequent again,

especially around the onset of my period (peak estrogen time). I know

copper

enhances estrogen. I've also noticed just a small amount of alcohol (beer)

will give me a headache, another indicator of excessive copper? So anyway, I

was putting 2+2 together and came up with STOPPING copper. I suppose I need

another hair analysis to know for sure.

It's curious because I remember a couple of other people thinking that

copper

was giving them headaches. Perhaps it's something else that's really missing?

You know, I had planned to post this at the other site, but I did something

interesting that gave me a very different perspective on my last hair

analysis. I converted all of the results and the normal ranges into

percentages. Originally I was deficient in everything, so I just assumed I

needed to supplement everything. But when I looked at what percentage of the

bottom norm number I was, I got a better picture of what I was more

deficient

in and what I was less deficient in. Big surprise. Selenium was my number

one

deficiency. My hair showed 8% of what would be considered the bottom of the

normal range. Chromium was next at 11%, then molybdenum (16%), manganese

(17%) potassium (20%) Iron (28%) Cobalt (33%) sodium (70%) phosphorous (85%)

ending with zinc, which was the only one in which I fell into the normal

range at all, by 106% of the lowest normal number. Copper was 73% of low

normal. Up to this point, I have definitely not been making selenium, or

molybdenum, or manganese top priorities, so this makes me rethink some of my

approach. I plan to emphasize these for a bit and see what happens. I still

need to research the interactions of these with other supplements but any

comments you may have will be appreciated. I'm going to stick with the

potassium for a while as well, I definitely feel that potassium may make a

big difference.

Anyway, it's definitely time for a new hair analysis, but I'll get started

anyway. Seeing how I feel seems to be the best indicator.

Penny >>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I'm glad you mentioned the B vitamins and their relationship to copper

metabolism. I've been handling my headaches quite well with niacin, but had

wondered if perhaps my other b's were becoming unbalanced as a result of the

increased niacin intake (I also increased my B1 recently). The last major

headache I had lasted 2 days and two nights and even major amounts of niacin

didn't have nearly the effect it usually does, so this seems like a good sign

that perhaps my other b's were out of balance. I think the magnesium/potassium

relationship is another important one. I've been taking a lot of magnesium, and

take even more at headache time, (and have just recently started taking the

potassium), so a pottasium deficiency could certainly be another contributor to

the copper/headache thing. I've also been hit or miss with the biotin, so that's

something else to keep in mind. Great suggestions. Thanks!

Penny

[Guest guest]

Carol,

I agree that getting people to understand that this is not " your

brother-in-laws " back surgery is difficult...also you need to change

peoples expectation about what that means for your recovery. They

really have no point of reference. I found I got their attention better

when I told them I was having my " spine reconstructed " instead of using

the term " back surgery " . They seemed to understand more fully that it

was an entirely different animal. They still thought I should be " all

better " after 3 or 4 months. Sigh.

I too am interested to hear what the surgery is comparable to.

Take Care, Cam

[Guest guest]

Dear Carol,

People just don't get the total timetable of this surgery and recovery, they have nothing to campare it to. My one stage revision was over ten hours, and Carla's who I was in the waiting room for was fourteen. Kumar said the only BIGGER surgery is separation of conjoined twins. People get that. I was very plain with Carla's family and church friends just what this entails, and the recovery. People tend to get tired of how long this whole thing takes, you'll be surprised by people, you'll loose some, some will be scared to be around you, and others will step up to the plate in ways that will really shock you.

People think, back surgery, okay, you'll be better in six weeks. A lot of them won't be able to handle that it's much longer than that. Many of us have had some set backs that makes the timetable much longer than even our regular recovery. I learned a lot about people through my adventure in surgeries, since I had three major ones in two calendar years. I plain lost some people I thought I could count on, and some people I was barely aquainted with really came through for me and my family. I wish I could wave a wand and help people get it, but all you can do is have family or friends talk to one of us that have been through it, Carla says often that what I said to her family was a real timeframe, they see it now, but thought when I was telling them, wow, that seems long.

[ ] Question for

I spoke to yesterday afternoon for quite awhile. She sounded like her old self again. I had some questions about the recovery to ask her. I guess I need to go shopping! Anyway, she mentioned when she talked to that had said that this surgery is comparable to some other surgery......but not quite as bad as the separation of siamese twins, but almost. I thought it was great to compare it to something else because most people don't get how serious this surgery is. They think I'm just "having back surgery" and think I should be over it in 6 weeks or something. What did your doctor say this revision surgery is comparable to, ? I had never heard this before, and it's a great idea, I think to show people how serious it is. Carol V.

[Guest guest]

---Damn..ain't that the truth!! I have more people say to me " oh,

yeah so and so just had back surgery...they are back to work blah,

blah, blah.....I think to myself..you have no friggin idea what I

am talking about!!!,PA

In , " cammaltby " <cammaltby@...>

wrote:

>

> Carol,

>

> I agree that getting people to understand that this is not " your

> brother-in-laws " back surgery is difficult...also you need to

change

> peoples expectation about what that means for your recovery. They

> really have no point of reference. I found I got their attention

better

> when I told them I was having my " spine reconstructed " instead of

using

> the term " back surgery " . They seemed to understand more fully that

it

> was an entirely different animal. They still thought I should

be " all

> better " after 3 or 4 months. Sigh.

>

> I too am interested to hear what the surgery is comparable to.

>

> Take Care, Cam

>

[Guest guest]

Perhaps another thing people may understand a little is if it's pointed out to them that a 64 year old guy in certainly not great shape will recover faster from a quadruple heart bypass than a 29 year old from spinal revision surgery. I think even my mother was surprised when she had the unfortunate opportunity to compare how quickly dad bounced back from that compared to how I'd done a couple of years before with the revision - and yet the idea of having your chest cranked open and the damage to bone and muscle from it is something that most people are very well afraid of and able to understand in terms of it carrying a significant recovery.

A lot of people also seem to get the idea a bit better if you start telling them how long your scars are, and talking about the chiselling and pounding involved in fitting hooks and the kind of power tools required to do osteotomies (yup, I'm evil so if people persistently irritate me about it, I'm more than happy to gross them out to make the point ;o) Still, it's true enough that an awful lot of people get plain frustrated when you don't bounce back in 6 weeks flat no matter how much you tell them or try to prepare them for the whole idea.

titch-- The wages of sin are death, but by the time taxes are taken out, it's just sort of a tired feeling - a Poundstone

[Guest guest]

Carol, Cam,

I don't know what this surgery is comparable to, except that two doctors, a pain doc and an internist at HSS, in '97, told me this is the most painful surgery anyone can have.

Bonnie

[ ] Re: Question for

Carol,I agree that getting people to understand that this is not "your brother-in-laws" back surgery is difficult...also you need to change peoples expectation about what that means for your recovery. They really have no point of reference. I found I got their attention better when I told them I was having my "spine reconstructed" instead of using the term "back surgery". They seemed to understand more fully that it was an entirely different animal. They still thought I should be "all better" after 3 or 4 months. Sigh.I too am interested to hear what the surgery is comparable to.Take Care, Cam

[Guest guest]

Diane,

Its a grabber. I think its the best there is. Just love mine,

here is the link. The one I use is the locking one:

http://www.arcmate.com/Products.aspx?ParentID=43976

>

> Dear , Can you tell me what an Arcmate is. I've never heard

of

> it.

> Thanks,

> Diane B

>

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: bty18626645

Hi thankyou very much for answering I am relieved that somebody

else had the same experience.Honestly thought oh my God I always

thought it was toxicity and then saw the test..... Anyway just wanted

to ask you even more questions hope you don't mind! Did you use both

DMSA and ALA or one or the other?

====>We started with Dmsa for a couple rounds, then added in Ala and did

Dmsa/Ala rounds for almost a year. We have used just Ala for rounds also.

I am just wondering about using DMSA

as on Sophie's test she does have a higher then average level of

arsenic.Wondered what you think?

===>There are some good reasons to include Dmsa; it speeds excretion of the

metals and controls the side effects of Ala which are euphoria and spaciness. We

tried to use Ala alone at round 30, but it was not good. At about round 50 we

were able to use Ala alone.

The negative in including Dmsa, at least for us is that it increased yeast, a

lot, but this is not true for others and they find Ala increased yeast more, so

is individualistic. You don't need Dmsa, however, unless you have lead.

Also wondered if you would mind

telling me how many rounds you did before you saw improvements.

===>We saw improvements on the third day of the first round. Prior to

beginning chelation her attention/focus/auditory processing had really become

problematic. I remember that on that third day of that first round I had a 10

minute, very snappy, totally age appropriate reciprocal conversation with her,

something that hadn't happened in quite some time.

Others take longer 5-10 rounds so be patient.

I guess

I am trying to gather evidence to convince my very sceptical hubby

===>Yes, this was the hard part here, also. Good luck.

that

we should still chelate despite the lack of derangement on the

test.Sorry for such a long posr and thanks for your time and

patience.Much appreciated

Emma and Sophie London UK

[Guest guest]

No it dose not work that way most men need more T levels with low SHBG I have

low SHBG was 12 below range I do 80 mgs of Test C every 3 days and I do HCG the

day before my T shot 250 IU's. With lower SHBG your body eats up the T as fast

as you take it. So you does by lab trying to get into the 800's top of range

1100 and keeping Estradiol down in my case do to the low SHBG I keep my

Estraidol down to 15 this is my sweet spot most men go great at 20. Doing this

keeps my Free T up near the top of the range and my Bio T.

To add T to get more stronger you need to do much more like body builders do up

to or over 1000 mgs a week. This is nuts you can do great just staying in shape

for get about looking like a BB it is not easy and can set you back.

Co-Moderator

Phil

> From: phil <phildude43@...>

> Subject: question for

>

> Date: Friday, June 11, 2010, 3:49 PM

> In theory,if one is taking, say test

> 50mg twice a week, and erections are strong, which would

> indicate a good range of estradiol.If he added .25mg of

> arimidex twice a week and upped his test dose to 75mg twice

> a week.Added in weight training, would he not expect to see

> significant improvement of muscle development without

> compromising a good estradiol range?

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

>

[Guest guest]

Good morning,

I noticed you were quoted on the website fightingcancer.com/blog by

Chamberlain. Is that by permission? I ask because he has a book that is being

advertised and your words about resisting sales hype are running through my

brain.

Your quote concerned people's attitudes and cancer and you were telling of a man

that was not a very good patient in that he ate cheese with almost every meal

and ended up with good results concerning his cancer. I had to laugh. I have

been craving pizza for about four weeks and after reading that, my husband and I

went out and had pizza. I savored every single bite and am still smiling.

Point taken! Now, how about that book?

Thanks, .

[Guest guest]

>

> Hi ,

> What brand of clo you used for scar? thanks

+++Hi Wanda,

, like all members of this program, use brands of cod liver oil I

recommend.

Bee