The infamous graph on page 52 of Amalgam Illness

[Guest guest]

Andy has posted multiple times how very important this graph is in

understanding the healing process of chelation. I'm having a hard

time getting my head around its application to " real-life situations "

(explained below).

In the graph, line " c " correlates " Brain Hg " to " time after amalgam

removal, months " for " brain mercury using DMSA every 4 hours on

alternate weeks for 3 months, then DMSA + ALA every 3-4 hours for 3

days per week. " This is the prescription for " ideal " chelation, that

is for certain.

The important line, Andy feels, is the " subjective sensation of

sickness " , " e " , which graphs " how bad [sic] you feel " versus the same

" time after amalgam removal, months " . It falls rapidly, then rises

back up and plateaus over the 5-11 month period, then falls back down.

Here's my problem. Most people do not follow " ideal " chelation for a

number of reasons (illness, can't get their head around it, " fall off

the wagon, " etc.) So most people don't start RIGHT after amalgam

removal (or there might not be amalgam removal in the case of an

autistic child). As well, weekly compliance is rare, or unattainable.

In my case, over 34 months' time, I have only completed about 45

rounds of DMSA/DMSA+ALA. As I see it, this could mean I am at one of

three places:

A) Even though I am technically 3 years past my amalgam removal, I

am still stuck in that plateau on line " e " because, at the " ideal "

pacing, this would correspond to being about 10-11 months along in

the process.

or

I have combined lines " d " (no chelation) with " e " and I am to the

right of where the graph ends (36 months on the x-axis) but at a

higher level of " feel bad " .

or

© I am really, for practical purposes, on line " d " , because of such

sparse rounds.

There are assumptions in my calculation which may be faulty. Does

taking a lengthy break from chelation extend the process

proportionally or exponentially? Andy, which do you feel in the above

is a reasonable interpretation?

Elsewhere in this group Andy mentioned that between 100-300 rounds of

chelation are usually required to achieve " good health " . The page 52

graph normalizes to " feeling good " as early as 1-2 years. How does

this relate to the 2-6 years of non-stop (3 out of every 7 days, ad

infinitum) chelation that would be required to achieve 100-300 rounds?

Hope this makes sense.

--

Ralph Nader on the need for moral courage:

[Guest guest]

>

> Elsewhere in this group Andy mentioned that between 100-300 rounds of

> chelation are usually required to achieve " good health " . The page 52

> graph normalizes to " feeling good " as early as 1-2 years. How does

> this relate to the 2-6 years of non-stop (3 out of every 7 days, ad

> infinitum) chelation that would be required to achieve 100-300 rounds?

>

> Hope this makes sense.

>

>

I honestly don't know if my thought here is any help:

My thought is that the intent of " good health " is much

broader (or deeper) than " feeling good " . Thus one would

start " feeling good " before actually attaining " good health " .

Sorry I'm not more help.

Moria

[Guest guest]

Well I suppose the idea of " feeling better " today is of course relative

to how bad you felt the day before.

ie, relatively speaking you could feel a lot better, but you still may

not be completely healthy.

moriamerri wrote:

>

>

>

> >

> > Elsewhere in this group Andy mentioned that between 100-300 rounds of

> > chelation are usually required to achieve " good health " . The page 52

> > graph normalizes to " feeling good " as early as 1-2 years. How does

> > this relate to the 2-6 years of non-stop (3 out of every 7 days, ad

> > infinitum) chelation that would be required to achieve 100-300 rounds?

> >

> > Hope this makes sense.

> >

> >

>

> I honestly don't know if my thought here is any help:

> My thought is that the intent of " good health " is much

> broader (or deeper) than " feeling good " . Thus one would

> start " feeling good " before actually attaining " good health " .

>

> Sorry I'm not more help.

>

> Moria

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Andy has posted multiple times how very important this graph is in

> understanding the healing process of chelation. I'm having a hard

> time getting my head around its application to " real-life situations "

> (explained below).

>

> In the graph, line " c " correlates " Brain Hg " to " time after amalgam

> removal, months " for " brain mercury using DMSA every 4 hours on

> alternate weeks for 3 months, then DMSA + ALA every 3-4 hours for 3

> days per week. " This is the prescription for " ideal " chelation, that

> is for certain.

>

> The important line, Andy feels, is the " subjective sensation of

> sickness " , " e " , which graphs " how bad [sic] you feel " versus the same

> " time after amalgam removal, months " . It falls rapidly, then rises

> back up and plateaus over the 5-11 month period, then falls back down.

The time axis is approximate. A few people take much longer. Most follow it

more or

less.

> Here's my problem. Most people do not follow " ideal " chelation for a

> number of reasons (illness, can't get their head around it, " fall off

> the wagon, " etc.) So most people don't start RIGHT after amalgam

> removal (or there might not be amalgam removal in the case of an

> autistic child). As well, weekly compliance is rare, or unattainable.

Again, it is approximate. You get something like the curve for chelating

properly if you do

something like chelate properly.

You get somethng like the curve for not chelating if you don't chelate.

You get something much worse if you follow an inappropriate, harmful and

dangeorus

protocol such as the DAN! or Buttar protocols.

> In my case, over 34 months' time, I have only completed about 45

> rounds of DMSA/DMSA+ALA. As I see it, this could mean I am at one of

> three places:

>

> A) Even though I am technically 3 years past my amalgam removal, I

> am still stuck in that plateau on line " e " because, at the " ideal "

> pacing, this would correspond to being about 10-11 months along in

> the process.

No.

The timescale is due to your body's natural response to being able to try to get

rid of the

mercury. Chelation doesn't speed it up, not chelating doesn't slow it down.

You start

things going, your body does its own thing on its own personal and individual

timescale.

> or

>

> I have combined lines " d " (no chelation) with " e " and I am to the

> right of where the graph ends (36 months on the x-axis) but at a

> higher level of " feel bad " .

>

> or

>

> © I am really, for practical purposes, on line " d " , because of such

> sparse rounds.

Since there aren't a bunch of equally poisoned clones of you to try different

protocols on it

is hard to give an accurate answer to this all, but my suspicion is that some

people can

chelate more, some less, and if you do what your body will let you do then you

get the

best result you can.

> There are assumptions in my calculation which may be faulty. Does

> taking a lengthy break from chelation extend the process

> proportionally or exponentially?

No.

You get to the steady state from what your BODY wants to do, after it calms down

and is

done dumping mercury. At that point there is whatever amount of mercury is

left. You

can then chelate that out and experience further great improvement. However you

don't

go bouncing up and down at that point, you just get better. The graph is to

clarify the

earlier part where you bounce up and down because of your body's physiologic

response

and to explain that this is not something you or your doctor are causing, it is

started by

whatever gets things going and then is on autopilot.

> Elsewhere in this group Andy mentioned that between 100-300 rounds of

> chelation are usually required to achieve " good health " . The page 52

> graph normalizes to " feeling good " as early as 1-2 years. How does

> this relate to the 2-6 years of non-stop (3 out of every 7 days, ad

> infinitum) chelation that would be required to achieve 100-300 rounds?

The graph on page 52 doesn't bring you to being well.

It brings you to the end of the initial roller coaster ride your body goes on

due to trying to

detox itself once it gets the chance. You may well need a lot more chelation

beyond that -

but that chelation is a smooth, steady thing. No more ups and downs.

Andy