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

[Guest guest]

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

From: moriamerri

When last I checked (which is a couple years

ago at least) it was very possible to read tons, as well as attend

formal classes about chelation, and be ***TAUGHT*** to use DMSA

on various (not-every-4-hour) schedules. I presume that this is

still the case. If so, I do not consider it " knowing very little "

to recommend or use such practices. Do you?

===>No you're quite right, it wouldn't be that they don't know anything, it

would be that what they know is incorrect. My dh has a saying which says the

same thing...he says...

" It isn't that they don't know anything...it is that so much of what they know

is inaccurate. " ===>

I also happen to have generally positive opinions about VRP.

===>I used to until I heard about this water thing, now I'm questioning at

least the person who may have given this advice. Making a child drink a quart

of water every 4 hours should send up warning signals in just about anyone so if

this is true that someone at vrp said it was okay, I would rethink how much

expertise this person had.

In searching about water intoxication I ran across a story of a mother who

made her 3 year old dd drink 3 cups of water every few hours or so and the child

died, the mother charged with child abuse.

[Guest guest]

Hi Moria!

Comments interspersed.

>

>> Interesting that you would trust a neutraceutical company PR drone

>> over anyone else here or elsewhere. Note that their label on both the

>> 25mg and 100mg DMSA capsules both say " take one capsule daily " . This

>> is in fact quite harmful and demonstrates that they actually know

>> very little about their product, other than how to produce it.

>

>>

>

>,

>

>You seem to be pretending that anyone who knows more

>than " a little " would AGREE that using DMSA once a day is harmful.

>By this standard the only people who " know anything " are people

>who use 4-hour timing, right?

There is such a thing as knowing a falsehood, but let me follow you

down this path...

>When last I checked (which is a couple years

>ago at least) it was very possible to read tons, as well as attend

>formal classes about chelation, and be ***TAUGHT*** to use DMSA

>on various (not-every-4-hour) schedules. I presume that this is

>still the case. If so, I do not consider it " knowing very little "

>to recommend or use such practices. Do you?

Here we would have to talk about the difference, if any, between

knowledge and truth. I would say that " Knowing very little truth " is

" knowing very little " . Please don't make me use the leeches and

blood-letting argument....

>I guess we'd have to discuss what " know " means. I'm thinking that

>you would say that > 95% of chelation practitioners and

>mercury researchers also " know very little " ?

If we were to define " chelation practitioner " certain ways, possibly

99%, but this is just a hunch. There are some very good people out

there, few and far between.

>There could be some truth in such a view, but it is very different

>than saying someone is negligent in looking for information or

>is dumb or irresponsible.

You may have lost me here. I dont think I said or implied this.

Looking for information is never dumb or irresponsible in my book.

But in order to get " good " information, you have to have enough prior

knowledge to know where to look and to evaluate the information for

truth and quality. Asking VRP anything other than what formulation is

their product or how it is manufactured or when it's available is

barking up the wrong tree. Just like I don't ask my grocer for

recipes to cook the produce they supply or what wine goes with it,

but I do expect the best damn produce money can buy!

>Many intellegent and dedicated people,

>(including researchers, I think), people who are fully versed on

>all the going theories (including Andy's) believe that using DMSA on

>all sorts of (not-every-4-hours) schedules is fine.

>

>You and I likely agree that this whole business of chelation is

>pretty much in the dark ages. I would say that very little is

>known (as compared to what would be useful to know) -- and that

>the level of knowing is far from what would be desireable.

I would actually disagree. The knowledge (i.e. biochemistry,

pharmacokinetics) is there. The application thereof is not widely

understood or propagated.

What is in the dark ages is the education of the people who advertise

that they are educated enough to apply this knowledge.

>Still, I think people (esp those who are new here) could actually

>be confused by reading that VRP " knows very little " , and think

>that there really IS some sort of general agreement (among those who

>have looked into it) about how to use DMSA. This couldn't

>be further from the truth, and people have a difficult road coming

>to terms with this. I think people do need to know that there

>is NOT agreement, even though I also think it is a confusing

>and difficult knowledge.

>

>What do you think? How can we acknowledge the very real levels

>of disagreement while being clear that we (I mean here you and I,

>not everyone) think that 4 hour dosing is best? I've struggled

>with this. Also, in case you are wondering, yes, I have taken up

>similar points with Andy.

Not sure I get where you're coming from. I think anyone lurking on

this list for 24 hours will see there is disagreement. But if you

feel a banner at the top of each message should read " warning -- work

in progress -- see the files for what is the truth " or " each post is

simply the opinion of the writer, " I think that will scare people

away. I think it's important that anyone who comes to this list be

welcomed in a supportive manner, while being challenged and made to

challenge everything they have been told until now. They also have to

realize that the nature of UNMODERATED Usenet or is that

they could end up receiving advice on chelation from a plumber, a

concerned parent simply repeating what their doctor has told them, a

chemical engineer, or the self-professed most world-renowned expert

on chelation. The last one is not necessarily the one I would trust.

>I also happen to have generally positive opinions about VRP.

So do I. They make good products. They just have no business telling

people how to use them, whether it's the dosage or how much liquid to

ingest with them. They have, I am sure, good knowledge of chemistry

and marketing (i.e. what products to manufacture in response to a

demand) but that's it.

>I personally would consider what someone at VRP says, and I

>would also consider what others say. (Your calling them a

>drone leads me to wonder what you are up to rather than causing

>me to agree with you.) For me, questioning what people say and

>what they know is " good " -- but questioning is not discarding.

>Evaluating takes even longer.

I'm sorry the term " drone " turned you off. It was meant to convey my

doubt that the person on the phone had the qualifications to offer

the instructions they were offering. My adamance and calling someone

I have never met a " drone " stems from an assumption that the person

who is put on the phone at VRP to answer random questions about a

product is a rather low-level corporate member who is instructed to

answer basic questions without real knowledge other than a FAQ list

they refer to. The definition of a drone being " someone who lives on

the labour of others, " I used the word metaphorically, as the concept

seemed to fit. Again, I am imagining how things went from lots of

experience calling up corporations with random questions and

realizing that there are a lot of people out there who are paid to

talk out of their butt for the sole purpose of instilling confidence

in a company ( " You can call us, we have all the answers. " ) . I also

have developed a general annoyance and frustration with the entire

neutraceutical industry at the practice of labelling EVERY product,

regardless of dosage or packaging, with the " one-a-day " label.

Beyond this, I can understand the argument that careful consideration

of what anyone says and evaluation is necessary WHEN you are in

research mode, or arguing a phylosophical point. But once you start

approaching the realm of practicality and fact, things change. Not

everything is relative and there are absolutes. " Why don't you step

off that cliff, we are still considering whether gravity kicks in

every time--this time you might be safe. "

I sometimes think of this list as guerilla warfare. People come here

mostly for quick answers or confirmation when they are about to do

something extraordinarily silly, like a 300mg EDTA challenge test, or

voting for McCain. There is a limited window in which to get the

right answer though. Or at least throw in enough doubt that they

start looking at sources here and elsewhere. Or accept that this one

time, there is nothing you can do other than sit back and admire some

form of Darwinism at work...

None of this changes the fact that drinking that much water is

dangerous. Children have died. Parents have been charged in the

deaths. Parents who were either ignorant or were told to by so-called

professionals that it's what they should do. Parents who asked the

wrong people for advice.

Hope this answers at least some of the questions you asked.

Best,

--

Ralph Nader on the need for moral courage:

[Guest guest]

Yes I have read documents, like the ARI Consensus Position Paper. I

read it many times before I even considered chelation. Thankfully I

also read a lot more. I have a lot of respect for a lot of the

reviewers that have their names attached. I have met a lot of them, and

I think they are outstanding human beings and I think they do a

generally good job of trying to help autistic children. But not when it

comes to chelation. A lot of what they are pushing in their Consensus

Paper has come from " I tried this..... YES!, I tried that too! " . I even

know of some of the doctors on that list that do things that their own

Consensus Paper advises against. Not very consistent.

I'll list SOME of the research Andy has referred to below. I also think

the Rooney chelation paper gives a pretty good overview and some

explanations as to why some of the general " chelation protocols " are so

ill advised.

FROM ANDY-

A few of the interesting papers are:

TITLE: Influence of 2,3-dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonate and dimercaptosuccinic

acid on the mobilization of mercury from tissues of rats pretreated with

mercuric chloride, phenylmercury acetate or mercury vapors.

AUTHORS: Buchet JP; Lauwerys RR

AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Industrial Toxicology Unit, Catholic University of

Louvain, Bruxelles, Belgium.

SOURCE: Toxicology 1989 Mar;54(3):323-33

CITATION IDS: PMID: 2539660 UI: 89203858

ABSTRACT: The efficiency of the sodium salt of

2,3-dimercaptopropanesulfonic acid (DMPS) and meso-dimercaptosuccinic acid

(DMSA) to mobilize mercury from tissues has been assessed in rats pretreated

with different doses of HgCl2, phenylmercury acetate or exposed to different

concentrations of mercury vapors. These pretreatments increase the mercury

concentration in the kidney and to a lower extent in the liver. Only

exposure

to metallic mercury vapor leads to mercury accumulation in the brain. Both

chelators mobilize mercury stored in the kidney and the amount of metal

excreted in urine following a single administration of DMSA is a good

indicator of the renal burden of mercury. The rate of removal is greater

after DMPS administration than after DMSA but repeated administration of

either agents eventually leads to the same total amount of mercury mobilized

from the kidney. The loss of mercury from the liver can be slightly

accelerated by repeated administration of the chelators. However, the

chelators are inefficient in removing mercury from the brain.

Above paper in which the DMSA rate of brain mercury clearing corresponds

to a

20% accelleration - which is pretty meaningless clinically.

TITLE: Increased inorganic mercury in spinal motor neurons following

chelating agents.

AUTHORS: Ewan KB; Pamphlett R

AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Department of Pathology (Neuropathology Division),

University of Sydney, Australia.

SOURCE: Neurotoxicology 1996 Summer;17(2):343-9

CITATION IDS: PMID: 8856730 UI: 97009625

ABSTRACT: Heavy metal toxicity has been implicated in the pathogenesis of

motor neuron diseases. In an attempt to assess the efficacy of chelating

agents to remove mercury from motor neurons, we quantitated the effect

of the

chelating agents meso-2,3-dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) and 2,3-

dimercaptopropane -1-sulphonate (DMPS) on the burden of inorganic mercury in

mouse spinal motor neurons. Mice were injected intraperitoneally with 1.0 mg

HgCl2/kg body weight and one week later with either 4,400 mg/kg DMPS, 3,600

mg/kg DMSA or 5% NaHCO3 (control) over 4 weeks. Mercury deposits in motor

neurons of 50 micron frozen sections of lumbar spinal cord were visualised

with an autometallographic technique. Optical sections of silver-enhanced

deposits were acquired using a confocal microscope in reflective mode

and the

volume of the deposits within the perikaryon was estimated. Mercury deposits

occupied significantly more volume in motor neurons after both DMPS

(7.4%, SD

+/- 0.7%) and DMSA (8.0% +/- SD 0.7%) treatment than in controls (4.3%, SD

+/- 1.7%). The higher levels of neuronal inorganic mercury may be due to

increased entry of mercury into motor axons across the neuromuscular

junction

as a result of chelator-induced elevated circulating mercury.

Above paper in which it is shown DMSA increases levels of mercury in spinal

motor neurons.

TITLE: Protective role of DL-alpha-lipoic acid against mercury-induced

neural lipid peroxidation.

AUTHORS: Anuradha B; Varalakshmi P

AUTHOR AFFILIATION: Department of Medical Biochemistry, Dr AL Mudaliar

Post Graduate Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Madras University,

Taramani, Madras, 600 113, India.

SOURCE: Pharmacol Res 1999 Jan;39(1):67-80

CITATION IDS: PMID: 10051379 UI: 99162510

ABSTRACT: Experimental neurotoxicity in rat models was induced by an

intramuscular injection of mercuric chloride. dl-alpha-lipoic acid was

administered as an antidote in three protocols of experimental design. Two

protocols of short-term exposure of mercury was designed, one with

prophylactic therapy and the other with curative therapy of lipoic acid. The

third protocol was with prophylactic therapy of lipoic acid on long-term

exposure of mercury. Enhanced lipid peroxidation, depleted non-enzymic and

perturbed enzymic antioxidant status were observed in cerebral cortex,

cerebellum and sciatic nerves of the toxic groups. The ameliorating

effect of

lipoic acid and its therapeutic efficacy during various modes of therapy, on

the antioxidant status was established in the nervous tissues.

Above paper showing efficacy of LA for brain mercury problems

TITLE: Effect of mercury on rabbit myelin CNP-ase in vitro.

AUTHORS: Domanska-Janik K; Bourre JM

SOURCE: Neurotoxicology 1987 Spring;8(1):23-32

CITATION IDS: PMID: 3031563 UI: 87173849

ABSTRACT: 2',3'-cyclic nucleotide 3'-phosphodiesterase (CNPase) catalyzes

hydrolysis of 2',3'-cyclic nucleotides to form the corresponding

2'-monophosphates. Rabbit myelin fraction with CNPase specific activity

between 30-40 mumoles/min/mg protein was incubated in the presence of

various

inorganic and organic heavy metal compounds: HgCl2; (CH3Hg)OH; Pb(NO3)2;

Pb(C2H302)2.3H20; (C2H5)2Pb; (C2H5)3SnCl. The enzyme has been shown to be

almost exclusively sensitive to mercurials in microM concentration range.

This would arise from the high solubility of mercurials in organic solvents,

which allows them to penetrate into hydrophobic regions of the enzyme to

react with active sulfhydryl groups. CNP-ase inhibition by methylmercury was

biphasic: A reversible, non-competitive inhibition with an apparent Ki = 1

microM occurred after a 5 min preincubation time of the enzyme with the

inhibitor. In the case of longer preincubation time, as well as in the

presence of HgCl2, the graph of enzyme activity versus protein concentration

intercepted the abscissa to the right of the origin, indicating that

mercurials are irreversible inhibitors of the enzyme. After 45 min of

preincubation of the inhibitors with the enzyme 1 nmol of HgCl2 completely

blocks CNP-ase activity equivalent to 15.6 micrograms of myelin protein,

whereas 1 nmole of Met-Hg blocks activity in 9.9 micrograms proteins. This

apparently irreversible inhibition of CNP-ase activity by HgCl2 could be

fully restored by the use of an excess of hydrophobic low molecular weight

thiols, lipoic acid being the most efficient. Dithiothreitol, a hydrophilic

complexing agent, was potent to reverse the inhibition caused by Met-Hg only

during the short time experiments. Both low molecular weight thiols, and

also

EDTA in the case of inorganic mercury could prevent the inhibition of

CNP-ase

by mercurials, if preincubated for 15 min with the inhibitors, prior to the

addition of the enzyme. The irreversible type of inhibition of CNP-ase by

Met-Hg was only partially reversed in the presence of low molecular weight

thiols. This suggests that the formation of a metal-mercaptide complex

is not

the only mechanism of inhibition by methylmercury. The possibility of lipid

peroxidation triggered by methylmercury with subsequent inhibition of the

enzyme activity was not supported by the experimental results. In fact,

myelin associated CNP-ase activity appears to be very resistant to the

structural membrane alterations caused by lipid peroxidation.

above paper showing that LA actually can remove the emplaced mercury and fix

the problem.

TITLE: [Protective effect of lipoic acid amide in experimental mercurialism]

VERNACULAR TITLE: Zashchitnyi effekt amida lipoevoi kisloty pri

eksperimental'nom merkurializme.

AUTHORS: Leskova GE

SOURCE: Gig Tr Prof Zabol 1979 Jun;(6):27-30

The above paper actually DOES have an english abstract at the end of it even

though medline didn't pick it up. I plowed through it because it had really

good kinetic data on LA/mercury. They showed 50% reduction in brain and

other organ mercury over controls with use of LA, and also measured increase

in fecal and independently urinary excretion of mercury (where the fecal

rate

law in my book came from for LA), and also sliced and diced rats to figure

out exactly how much mercury was left in a variety of organs in controls and

treated animals.

TITLE: [Protective action of lipoic amide in poisoning by organic mercury

compounds (experimental data)]

VERNACULAR TITLE: O zashchitnom deistvii amida lipoevoi kisloty pri

intoksikatsii rtutnoorganicheskimi soedineniiami (eksperimental'nye dannye)

AUTHORS: Trakhtenberg IM; Leskova GE; Verich GE

SOURCE: Gig Tr Prof Zabol 1974 Sep;(9):25-8

above paper showing that LA is effective when the mercury is still

present in

the organic form.

moriamerri wrote:

>

>

> >

> > Lets put is simply......

> >

> > I know what research Andy's protocol is based on.

>

> Really?

> I'm taking some guesses what you might mean.

> Are you using the word " research " rather loosely here, to mean

> the informal kind of following-of-results-on-this-list sort of thing?

> Or do you actually know the studies Andy read?

>

> > What research are these " other " protocols based on?

>

> If I tell you, you're going to tell me why that research is wrong

> and doesn't count.

>

> > Because every doctor I have asked about " other " protocols, shrugs

> their

> > shoulders and says something like " that's just the way I do it " .

> >

> >

> > In other words they've based their protocol on " why don't we try

> > this.... and see what happens..... "

> >

> > If you know of doctors who have gone to greater lengths to

> understand

> > chelation, please let me know who they are.

>

> First off, I didn't say " great lengths " -- the bar was set at

> " knows very little " . was saying something about VRP

> marketing folks knowing " very little " about their product DMSA.

> Starting from there, and broadening this to apply to anyone who

> doesn't think 4-hour-dosing it the best knows " very little " .

> So, the standard here is not doctors who " have gone to great

> lengths " -- it would be doctors who have gone to ANY lengths

> past " very little " . Moderate knowledge is more than " very little " ,

> for example.

>

> Secondly, here are a couple of examples of organizations that

> have " gone to great lenghts " -- perhaps now as great as you'd

> like, but certainly not in the ballpark of shoulder shrugging.

>

> ==================================================================

> http://www.acamnet.org/site/c.ltJWJ4MPIwE/b.2073031/k.ADFD/Faqs.htm

> <http://www.acamnet.org/site/c.ltJWJ4MPIwE/b.2073031/k.ADFD/Faqs.htm>

>

> Q. What clinical resources are available to members?

> A. We have clinical resources covering a wide-range of topics

> including: Chelation Therapy, Hormone Replacement Therapy, Nutrition,

> Immunology, Cancer Prevention, Mesotherapy, Vitamin Supplementation,

> the National Health Institute sponsored Trial to Assess Chelation

> Therapy (TACT) study, Nutrition, Cardiovascular Health, Practice

> Management and CAIM Legal Issues, Xenobiotic and Heavy Metal

> Detoxification, etc. We also offer information on latest research and

> legislative policy. In order to meet everyone's needs, these

> resources are available in a variety of mediums, i.e. ACAM's website,

> educational programs, articles, books, open forums, etc.

>

> http://www.autismwebsite.com/aRI/vaccine/mercurydetox.htm

> <http://www.autismwebsite.com/aRI/vaccine/mercurydetox.htm>

>

> In response to this situation, the Autism Research Institute (ARI)

> convened a Consensus Conference on the Detoxification of Autistic

> Children in Dallas, Texas, February 9th through 11th, 2001. The

> attendees were 25 carefully selected physicians and scientists

> knowledgeable about mercury and mercury detoxification. The 15

> physicians present included 7 who were parents of autistic children

> and who had detoxified their own children with excellent results. The

> physician attendees present had treated well over 3,000 patients for

> heavy metal poisoning, about 1,500 of them being autistic children.

> The chemists, toxicologists, and other scientists present had a

> combined total of almost 90 years of experience in studying the

> toxicology of mercury.

>

> ==================================================================

>

> These examples were relatively easy to find. There are lots of

> others out

> there --- people with MANY YEARS of experience and thought -- people

> who are considered experts -- people who have given thoughtful

> consideration to chelation methods for years and years and years.

>

> Now, I've answered your question, and I'm guessing you (and

> others) will want to beat me over the head for doing so.

>

> Stop. Think. I didn't say these people were RIGHT. I didn't

> recommend that anyone USE their methods.

>

> On the other hand, " anyone who knows anything knows xyz " may

> be true in some cases, but it is not a convincing line of

> reasoning (since it doesn't address whatever issues there may be).

> In addition, it gives the impression IN THIS CASE ENTIRELY FALSE

> that there is some sort of general agreement on some standard

> of " basic knowledge " that " anyone " would agree to. This is so

> far from the case that I wouldn't know where to even begin....

>

> Moria

>

>

[Guest guest]

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

From: JULIE GRIFFITHS

I know that DMSA was sanctioned for lead in the 50s by the FDA.

I have no idea what the FDA dosing guidelines are. Might it be that VRP

is just following their guidelines?

===>I don't know the FDA guidelines, they most likely would be based on the

PDR, which is every 8 hours for LEAD poisoning.

moriamerri schrieb:

>

>

> >

> >

> > 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

>

>

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

>

> No virus found in this incoming message.

> Checked by AVG.

> Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.3/1748 - Release Date: 26/10/2008

19:53

>

[Guest guest]

Moria,

I don't even know where to begin. It sounds like you're mostly

arguing semantics which is not going to get us anywhere.

>WHEN there is actually a body of evidence -- and I do not mean

> " all the posts on this list " -- I mean a citeable, clear, BODY

>of evidence -- something that perhaps 50% of people might even

>CONSIDER calling " valid " -- then maybe I'd start dismissing

>out-of-hand people who are unfamiliar with it as " ignorant " .

Nope. Not ignorant. Unintelligent. But seriously, the concept

that, in order to be true, something has to be validated by a

majority of people is a flawed concept.

>My point is not actually who is right, but that there is a

>very major level of disagreement.

Which isn't really a point. Merely a state of affairs. Whose

relevance I fail to see. Still.

> " There could be some truth in such a view, but it is very different

>than saying someone ((is " negligent-in-looking-for-information " ) or

>(is " dumb " ) or ( " irresponsible " )).

That's exactly how I parsed it and it's still not what I said.

> I think you are claiming that education is ONLY

>education if it results in " truth " . And in a pure sense I'd

>probably agree with you. But if you want to say that most

>[chelation doctors and mercury researcher and VRP] are

>UNEDUCATED, I think you are being misleading. You need to

>explain your meaning of " educated " as it differs significantly

>from common usage, and people will end up either thinking you

>are a cracked or (perhaps) thinking that these people are not

educated (in the usual meaning), which is very false.

Thank you for thinking I am not " a cracked " . I think. I don't really

know what that is.

>Um, really? You would want them not to put ANY recommendations on

>ANY of their labels?

That is correct.

>I also have seen that people do get confused by this, even though

>it is not your intent. You may think this is a lesser evil, but

>how about starting out by agreeing that it IS an evil.

Nope. Confusing people is sometimes good. It's the first step in

hitting the reset switch.

>Consider that someone could actually think that there's agreement

>on some things, that there's some general standard, and that

>anyone who doesn't recommend 4-hour-dose-timing is living in a

>cave. How is this person going to feel when they find out that

>4-hour-dose timing is considered some bizarre theory -- some weird

>little fringe idea -- by many people.

>And how are they going to respond when they are totally unprepared

>for the opinions and beliefs elsewhere?

I really don't see how we can predict how any individual is going to

feel. They're individuals. Individuals vary.

>Do you think the evangelical religions are irritating BECAUSE

>of the way they sell their truth?

No, I think ALL religions are irritating because they have no basis

in fact and they are means of controlling ignorant, uneducated people

and keeping them that way. But that is an entirely other O/T

discussion.

>They think it is worth it

>BECAUSE the stakes are so high. I'm saying that both matter

>and that I don't like being " sold " on stuff by the sort of

>dismissive statement you made.

OK. Let's back track. I first posted the generally accepted science

of how much water to drink, with references, and told her " DAN

doctor knows VERY little about body chemistry " . Is this presentation

of commonly accepted knowledge dismissive? I don't think so. Is it

meant to jolt her into the realization that something she is doing

could cause great harm, according to the published research and views

of the majority of medical organizations around the world? As per

your litmus test? But she _dismisses_ this: a few posts later, she

says she has spoken to a " consultant " at VRP and that this validates

her actions and intentions of proceding further. Since I believe that

VRP has no business giving this kind of advice, I state this. I am

not " selling " anything. Just stating my strong opinion.

And, if you read my opinion again carefully, my ridiculing VRP's

labelling practise actually had NOTHING to do with 4-hour-dosing.

Rather, how can the dosage of one product which is 4 times more

potent than another be exactly the same? This is the absurdity that I

pointed out and that means they are just " selling " product with no

idea how it works, or very little interest in how it will modify a

person's body chemistry.

> You may be saying that I'm

>a minority (I think that is about what Andy's argument boils

>down to FWIW. But you may have different reasons.)

I'm not saying anything, because I still don't see what you are

asking for here. Can you distill to 25 words or less?

I _think_ it might just boil down to you not liking my style. Which

is OK, of course. But also quite irrelevant here. I just hope it's

not a convoluted attempt to moderate a self-proclaimed unmoderated

group. (Sincere hope, not personal paranoid threats, by the way)

>Or who didn't learn to evaluate advice -- which I'm saying they

>are not likely to figure out while you are telling them how silly

>VRP's advice is.

So then it doesn't really matter _what_ any of us say, or how. If

they can't evaluate, nothing is going to help.

--

Ralph Nader on the need for moral courage:

[Guest guest]

>I know that DMSA was sanctioned for lead in the 50s by the FDA.

>

>I have no idea what the FDA dosing guidelines are. Might it be that VRP

>is just following their guidelines?

My point was that VRP is giving TWO conflicting guidelines:

- 25mg once per day

- 100mg once per day

In that they don't mention body weight, or who should take the 25mg

versus the 100mg, this simply makes no sense.

Thus they make a fine product, but haven't a clue what they are

talking about when it comes to recommendations relative to how to

take the product, i.e. quantity of fluid.

--

Ralph Nader on the need for moral courage:

[Guest guest]

>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 " .

But to say " Astrologers know nothing about outer space " is an

absolute. Never have. Never will.

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

Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid).

--

Ralph Nader on the need for moral courage:

[Guest guest]

It is most definately every four hours 1/8 - 1/4 mg per pound of body weight.

From: moriamerri <moriam@...>

Subject: [ ] VRP doesn't know about DMSA? // Re: ALA - how much

must one drink?

Date: Monday, October 27, 2008, 6:47 PM

>

> I know that DMSA was sanctioned for lead in the 50s by the FDA.

>

> I have no idea what the FDA dosing guidelines are.

I think I once knew LOL.

I am sure it is NOT every-4-hours. .... but I don't remember

what it once. Once a day seems likely enough!

(Andy would know.)

Moria

> Might it be that VRP

> is just following their guidelines?

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Wow!  FDA guidelines are messed up then.  Sorry for my mixup!

From: moriamerri <moriam@...>

Subject: [ ] VRP doesn't know about DMSA? // Re: ALA - how much

must one drink?

Date: Monday, October 27, 2008, 6:54 PM

> >

> > I know that DMSA was sanctioned for lead in the 50s by the FDA.

> >

> > I have no idea what the FDA dosing guidelines are.

>

> I think I once knew LOL.

> I am sure it is NOT every-4-hours. .... but I don't remember

> what it once. Once a day seems likely enough!

> (Andy would know.)

>

> Moria

>

> > Might it be that VRP

> > is just following their guidelines?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Don't know why that came through twice.  But sorry for my mix up in what you

were talking about.

 

We have just been researching this for so long and I am ready to get started!!! 

Plan to start in January after other supps in place.

 

Dana

From: moriamerri <moriamearthlink (DOT) net>

Subject: [ ] VRP doesn't know about DMSA? // Re: ALA - how much

must one drink?

Date: Monday, October 27, 2008, 6:47 PM

>

> I know that DMSA was sanctioned for lead in the 50s by the FDA.

>

> I have no idea what the FDA dosing guidelines are.

I think I once knew LOL.

I am sure it is NOT every-4-hours. .... but I don't remember

what it once. Once a day seems likely enough!

(Andy would know.)

Moria

> Might it be that VRP

> is just following their guidelines?

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

No problem Dana -- and glad you have the amounts down

pat!

Moria

> > >

> > > I know that DMSA was sanctioned for lead in the 50s by the FDA.

> > >

> > > I have no idea what the FDA dosing guidelines are.

> >

> > I think I once knew LOL.

> > I am sure it is NOT every-4-hours. .... but I don't remember

> > what it once. Once a day seems likely enough!

> > (Andy would know.)

> >

> > Moria

> >

> > > Might it be that VRP

> > > is just following their guidelines?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >