VRP doesn't know about DMSA? // Re: ALA - how much must one drink?

[Guest guest]

>

>

> The VRP example of writing on the DMSA label to dose once per day

is

> sort of like if the manufacturers of 325 mg ASA wrote on the

> label " take 6-12 tablets once a day " . We could say that

they " don't

> know anything " about the product.

We could, but it is misleading -- it implies that that they

" don't know anything " relative to what a minimal amount of

education will get you -- or relative to some " average " or

" normal " amout of knowledge that we expect they would have.

" They don't know anything " is a comparison to an unstated

norm or background. It is a contrast of " knowing nothing "

to " knowing what someone is expected to know " or " more than

nothing " . This is (generally) a relative measure -- compared to

what " is known " .

E.g. " people know nothing about outer space " . Compared to

past times, not true. Compared to future, who knows?

Astronomers would likely disagree. Somone claiming to know

100 times more than current knowledge, however, would indeed

call this " nothing " .

(BTW, I don't know what ASA is.)

>

> It's not that Andy made some huge fantastic discovery. He just

went

> to the resources of pharmacy, chemistry, pharmacology, that were

> already there and applied it to chelation.

yep. ANd it does help that he's a chemist.

> I followed the lines of reasoning that Andy used to devise his

> protocol. Finding the half life of DMSA isn't much more difficult

> than finding the half life of ASA or any other drug. Multiple dose

> administration is described in every single pharmacy text, and

> chelation logically fits as a case of when it should be applied.

> Understanding how chelators behave in the human body does take some

> knowledge of chemistry.

yes. it is NOT the most obvious thing possible. It also is not

rocket science. Somewhere in the middle.

> Multiple dose administration is absolutely essential when the

> effective range of the drug falls fairly close to the toxic range

of

> the drug (this is one of the things stated in pharmacy texts).

okay, but I don't think that is the reason in the case of chelation

agents. Certainly not for ALA. Maybe for DMSA?

> In

> the case of chelation it is absolutely essential because of the

high

> toxicity of the METALs that the drug is moving.

Well, that's a good reason for LOW doses, and for chelating OFTEN

(becuase it will take a long time with these low doses).

But that doesn't imply the necessity of EVEN BLOOD LEVELS.

As I understand it, the need for continuing blood level is due

to a combination of factors that is yet a bit more complex.

1. metals will selectively get redistributed to " worse " locations

once freed up

2. chelation agents don't " hold on " to mercury

and

um

3. maybe something else I've forgotten?

>

> The fact that Andy does seem to be the only loud voice in the area

of

> chelation who applies pharmacology to chelation does seem fairly

> fantastic. The fact that some hear what he has to say and continue

> to ignore it and dose at anything other than the half life seems

> totally amazing to me. When you list all the ones below it really

> brings home what a sad state of affairs we have in the field of

> chelation.

I agree it is a sad sad state of affairs -- and in many many ways --

with this being one of the many.

Moria