Re: Evidence for 6 month dump?

[Guest guest]

I have the exact same questions..!! =)

>

> Hi there. I apologize in advance if something I ask has already been

answered. I have looked through TONS of old posts so I don't think I missed it.

I am waiting for the book to arrive, but have read much of it on google books.

>

> I have researched mercury/fillings/pregnancy/chelation/etc for hours and hours

over days and weeks...obsessively actually. The Cutler protocol was

recommended to me by someone on another forum. This protocol seems to be very

different from most other recommendations, but I have heard good things about

it.

>

> I decided to have my amalgams out and am planning to have a baby. I know

Cutler says to remove and wait 18 months or wait until after the baby is born

(and breastfeeding is done). The reason being that there is a 6 month spike in

mercury after amalgam removal. Where does this information come from? I have

researched a lot and have yet to come across any studies indicating the mercury

suddenly pours out from the tissues into the blood. I'm not saying I've

researched more than Cutler of course, I'm just trying to ascertain where this

conclusion comes from. Without evidence of this, I'm just taking someone's word

for it. Know what I mean? I have seen the graph/chart on page 52 showing the

hump, but where did this information come from? Were there studies done or is

it more anecdotal reports from people stating they felt worse around that time

so it was more speculation?

>

> There are tons of varying opinions out there obviously. Given that, I'm

trying to stick to the " facts " and read research articles. With rare exception,

most indicated that besides the initial increase in mercury immediately

following removal, levels only decrease. One even used the word

" monophasically " suggesting there is not a hump. Now I know it's difficult to

accurately measure mercury in the body since a low level may indicate low levels

or a poor excreter, but the studies were still comparing apples to apples so it

seems more valid. Most suggested mercury levels were 40-60% lower compared to

pre-removal after 2-3 months and nearly 80% gone after 6 months. Twelve months

was when the levels were similar to those who had never had amalgams.

>

> I know that in an ideal world it would be best to wait as long as possible to

have a baby after amalgam removal to allow the mercury to come out of the

tissues and be excreted over time. I just can't find any evidence to support

the claim that the 6 months after removal is the WORST time. I realize it's not

the BEST, but everything I have read suggests it's BETTER than not having them

out at all. Less mercury in me should equal less mercury in the fetus.

>

> I hope I haven't ruffled any feathers. I'm not looking for a debate. I truly

am looking for evidence to help me make my OWN decision about when I can safely

start trying to have a baby. If there are studies indicating a surge in mercury

after amalgam removal, I want to know. I appreciate any feedback you can

provide. Sorry this was so long.

>

> Bree

>

[Guest guest]

More info from Andy here:

http://onibasu.com/archives/am/120035.html

http://onibasu.com/archives/am/112018.html

Now, can you please post _your_ references and papers you have read and

understood? It's difficult to refute something when you can't read it.

>

> Hi there. I apologize in advance if something I ask has already been

answered. I have looked through TONS of old posts so I don't think I missed it.

I am waiting for the book to arrive, but have read much of it on google books.

>

> I have researched mercury/fillings/pregnancy/chelation/etc for hours and hours

over days and weeks...obsessively actually. The Cutler protocol was

recommended to me by someone on another forum. This protocol seems to be very

different from most other recommendations, but I have heard good things about

it.

>

> I decided to have my amalgams out and am planning to have a baby. I know

Cutler says to remove and wait 18 months or wait until after the baby is born

(and breastfeeding is done). The reason being that there is a 6 month spike in

mercury after amalgam removal. Where does this information come from? I have

researched a lot and have yet to come across any studies indicating the mercury

suddenly pours out from the tissues into the blood. I'm not saying I've

researched more than Cutler of course, I'm just trying to ascertain where this

conclusion comes from. Without evidence of this, I'm just taking someone's word

for it. Know what I mean? I have seen the graph/chart on page 52 showing the

hump, but where did this information come from? Were there studies done or is

it more anecdotal reports from people stating they felt worse around that time

so it was more speculation?

>

> There are tons of varying opinions out there obviously. Given that, I'm

trying to stick to the " facts " and read research articles. With rare exception,

most indicated that besides the initial increase in mercury immediately

following removal, levels only decrease. One even used the word

" monophasically " suggesting there is not a hump. Now I know it's difficult to

accurately measure mercury in the body since a low level may indicate low levels

or a poor excreter, but the studies were still comparing apples to apples so it

seems more valid. Most suggested mercury levels were 40-60% lower compared to

pre-removal after 2-3 months and nearly 80% gone after 6 months. Twelve months

was when the levels were similar to those who had never had amalgams.

>

> I know that in an ideal world it would be best to wait as long as possible to

have a baby after amalgam removal to allow the mercury to come out of the

tissues and be excreted over time. I just can't find any evidence to support

the claim that the 6 months after removal is the WORST time. I realize it's not

the BEST, but everything I have read suggests it's BETTER than not having them

out at all. Less mercury in me should equal less mercury in the fetus.

>

> I hope I haven't ruffled any feathers. I'm not looking for a debate. I truly

am looking for evidence to help me make my OWN decision about when I can safely

start trying to have a baby. If there are studies indicating a surge in mercury

after amalgam removal, I want to know. I appreciate any feedback you can

provide. Sorry this was so long.

>

> Bree

>

[Guest guest]

Hi -

I don't have amalgams but used contact lenses for a long time starting in 1980,

and the solutions were preserved with Thimerosal for the next 10-15 years. I

was also exposed to broken CFL bulbs working in a " sick " office (no

ventilation/windows) during the year 2000. I had started detoxing in mid 2001

(AC protocol) and had done some rounds in Nov/Dec of 2002. I accidentally got

pregnant in April 2002. He was normal birth weight but just had some eczema and

was very fair skinned. By age 2 we observed he was hyperlexic (early reader),

mathematical (memorized the calendar) and had sensory issues. But as he got his

shots over time (I didn't know the dangers of vaccines then) he regressed,

especially after a round of aluminum-containing ones. He was addicted to

formula and gluten and though he was totally verbal he didn't respond to

questions or converse well. When I did his porphyrin test at the age of 4.5, he

was extremely toxic. And when we did urine collection after a round of

chelation the mercury was pouring out. (We are still detoxing and seeing

improvements but have encountered parasite, yeast and other challenges along the

way)

For what it's worth, my mom experienced profuse sweating and itching around six

months after her amalgams were removed. I think it was her body on toxin

overload. But like many things, there aren't research reports to explain this.

Andy has seen so many cases and heard so much feedback; I questioned a lot of

things in his protocol (do we need so much zinc and EFAs?) but so far he's been

right about everything.

Getting pregnant so soon after mobilizing metals, my body dumped a lot into my

son. I think the ioamt.org video on the smoking amalgam shows the mercury

accumulation in tissues and presence in breastmilk, so if you have the time, I

would get them out and wait.

PJ

> >

> > Hi there. I apologize in advance if something I ask has already been

answered. I have looked through TONS of old posts so I don't think I missed it.

I am waiting for the book to arrive, but have read much of it on google books.

> >

> > I have researched mercury/fillings/pregnancy/chelation/etc for hours and

hours over days and weeks...obsessively actually. The Cutler protocol was

recommended to me by someone on another forum. This protocol seems to be very

different from most other recommendations, but I have heard good things about

it.

> >

> > I decided to have my amalgams out and am planning to have a baby. I know

Cutler says to remove and wait 18 months or wait until after the baby is born

(and breastfeeding is done). The reason being that there is a 6 month spike in

mercury after amalgam removal. Where does this information come from? I have

researched a lot and have yet to come across any studies indicating the mercury

suddenly pours out from the tissues into the blood. I'm not saying I've

researched more than Cutler of course, I'm just trying to ascertain where this

conclusion comes from. Without evidence of this, I'm just taking someone's word

for it. Know what I mean? I have seen the graph/chart on page 52 showing the

hump, but where did this information come from? Were there studies done or is

it more anecdotal reports from people stating they felt worse around that time

so it was more speculation?

> >

> > There are tons of varying opinions out there obviously. Given that, I'm

trying to stick to the " facts " and read research articles. With rare exception,

most indicated that besides the initial increase in mercury immediately

following removal, levels only decrease. One even used the word

" monophasically " suggesting there is not a hump. Now I know it's difficult to

accurately measure mercury in the body since a low level may indicate low levels

or a poor excreter, but the studies were still comparing apples to apples so it

seems more valid. Most suggested mercury levels were 40-60% lower compared to

pre-removal after 2-3 months and nearly 80% gone after 6 months. Twelve months

was when the levels were similar to those who had never had amalgams.

> >

> > I know that in an ideal world it would be best to wait as long as possible

to have a baby after amalgam removal to allow the mercury to come out of the

tissues and be excreted over time. I just can't find any evidence to support

the claim that the 6 months after removal is the WORST time. I realize it's not

the BEST, but everything I have read suggests it's BETTER than not having them

out at all. Less mercury in me should equal less mercury in the fetus.

> >

> > I hope I haven't ruffled any feathers. I'm not looking for a debate. I

truly am looking for evidence to help me make my OWN decision about when I can

safely start trying to have a baby. If there are studies indicating a surge in

mercury after amalgam removal, I want to know. I appreciate any feedback you

can provide. Sorry this was so long.

> >

> > Bree

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I read those links already. It still doesn't answer my question. Cutler

telling women in posts that 6mos is the absolute worst time to get pregnant and

to reference the chart on pg 52, does not tell me where that information comes

from. I'm not looking for you to refute the information in the studies I

read...there are tons of them and they all say the same thing...except Cutler.

That's why I asking where that information came from. Maybe it's just true for

those following the Cutler protocol. Maybe it's based on anecdotal information.

Maybe it's something else, but the only thing anyone on this board or any other

board can say is either, " The chart on page 52 proves it, " or, " Take my word for

it, it happened to me. "

I'm a science/fact girl. I'm not taking someone's word for it. I think if you

tell women in their 30's not to get pregnant for 1.5-2 additional years, you

better give them evidence why they should wait. Otherwise, I think it's

irresponsible and it's risking a woman's fertility.

I'm also turned off by some comments I've read by Andy that say " God will punish

you " type things (I think I even read that exact statement) to women who choose

not to follow his protocol. I feel like that gives him less credibility in my

mind. Just my opinion.

> >

> > Hi there. I apologize in advance if something I ask has already been

answered. I have looked through TONS of old posts so I don't think I missed it.

I am waiting for the book to arrive, but have read much of it on google books.

> >

> > I have researched mercury/fillings/pregnancy/chelation/etc for hours and

hours over days and weeks...obsessively actually. The Cutler protocol was

recommended to me by someone on another forum. This protocol seems to be very

different from most other recommendations, but I have heard good things about

it.

> >

> > I decided to have my amalgams out and am planning to have a baby. I know

Cutler says to remove and wait 18 months or wait until after the baby is born

(and breastfeeding is done). The reason being that there is a 6 month spike in

mercury after amalgam removal. Where does this information come from? I have

researched a lot and have yet to come across any studies indicating the mercury

suddenly pours out from the tissues into the blood. I'm not saying I've

researched more than Cutler of course, I'm just trying to ascertain where this

conclusion comes from. Without evidence of this, I'm just taking someone's word

for it. Know what I mean? I have seen the graph/chart on page 52 showing the

hump, but where did this information come from? Were there studies done or is

it more anecdotal reports from people stating they felt worse around that time

so it was more speculation?

> >

> > There are tons of varying opinions out there obviously. Given that, I'm

trying to stick to the " facts " and read research articles. With rare exception,

most indicated that besides the initial increase in mercury immediately

following removal, levels only decrease. One even used the word

" monophasically " suggesting there is not a hump. Now I know it's difficult to

accurately measure mercury in the body since a low level may indicate low levels

or a poor excreter, but the studies were still comparing apples to apples so it

seems more valid. Most suggested mercury levels were 40-60% lower compared to

pre-removal after 2-3 months and nearly 80% gone after 6 months. Twelve months

was when the levels were similar to those who had never had amalgams.

> >

> > I know that in an ideal world it would be best to wait as long as possible

to have a baby after amalgam removal to allow the mercury to come out of the

tissues and be excreted over time. I just can't find any evidence to support

the claim that the 6 months after removal is the WORST time. I realize it's not

the BEST, but everything I have read suggests it's BETTER than not having them

out at all. Less mercury in me should equal less mercury in the fetus.

> >

> > I hope I haven't ruffled any feathers. I'm not looking for a debate. I

truly am looking for evidence to help me make my OWN decision about when I can

safely start trying to have a baby. If there are studies indicating a surge in

mercury after amalgam removal, I want to know. I appreciate any feedback you

can provide. Sorry this was so long.

> >

> > Bree

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Never have I seen Andy write anything about God....or " Take my word "

He always backs everything up with scientific fact, many times referencing

medical text books.

In hindsight, I wish we would have chelated before becoming pregnant, and not

vacinated our children.

My boys missed their whole early childhood screaming, not sleeping, and not

talking.

We are just now, after more than a year of chelation, getting to a point where

life is becoming enjoyable and we are able to do more " normal " things.

Still can't do many things that people take for granted, like go camping for

example.

I guess you could look at it as a kind of insurance. You may or may not need it,

are you willing to risk it?

The last five years for us have been like some part of hell here on earth, I

would not wish it on anybody.

We are just so happy that our boys are responding to chelation and they are

recovering, but it will be several more years.

Several more years of getting up in the middle of the night to give them their

dose of chelator to get the mercury out of their brains.

Sound like something you wanna do?

TJ

 

________________________________

From: bschlager1520 <bschlager1520@...>

Sent: Sat, May 29, 2010 9:43:58 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Evidence for 6 month dump?

 

I read those links already. It still doesn't answer my question. Cutler telling

women in posts that 6mos is the absolute worst time to get pregnant and to

reference the chart on pg 52, does not tell me where that information comes

from. I'm not looking for you to refute the information in the studies I

read...there are tons of them and they all say the same thing...except Cutler.

That's why I asking where that information came from. Maybe it's just true for

those following the Cutler protocol. Maybe it's based on anecdotal information.

Maybe it's something else, but the only thing anyone on this board or any other

board can say is either, " The chart on page 52 proves it, " or, " Take my word for

it, it happened to me. "

I'm a science/fact girl. I'm not taking someone's word for it. I think if you

tell women in their 30's not to get pregnant for 1.5-2 additional years, you

better give them evidence why they should wait. Otherwise, I think it's

irresponsible and it's risking a woman's fertility.

I'm also turned off by some comments I've read by Andy that say " God will punish

you " type things (I think I even read that exact statement) to women who choose

not to follow his protocol. I feel like that gives him less credibility in my

mind. Just my opinion.

> >

> > Hi there. I apologize in advance if something I ask has already been

answered. I have looked through TONS of old posts so I don't think I missed it.

I am waiting for the book to arrive, but have read much of it on google books.

> >

> > I have researched mercury/fillings/pregnancy/chelation/etc for hours and

hours over days and weeks...obsessively actually. The Cutler protocol was

recommended to me by someone on another forum. This protocol seems to be very

different from most other recommendations, but I have heard good things about

it.

> >

> > I decided to have my amalgams out and am planning to have a baby. I know

Cutler says to remove and wait 18 months or wait until after the baby is born

(and breastfeeding is done). The reason being that there is a 6 month spike in

mercury after amalgam removal. Where does this information come from? I have

researched a lot and have yet to come across any studies indicating the mercury

suddenly pours out from the tissues into the blood. I'm not saying I've

researched more than Cutler of course, I'm just trying to ascertain where this

conclusion comes from. Without evidence of this, I'm just taking someone's word

for it. Know what I mean? I have seen the graph/chart on page 52 showing the

hump, but where did this information come from? Were there studies done or is it

more anecdotal reports from people stating they felt worse around that time so

it was more speculation?

> >

> > There are tons of varying opinions out there obviously. Given that, I'm

trying to stick to the " facts " and read research articles. With rare exception,

most indicated that besides the initial increase in mercury immediately

following removal, levels only decrease. One even used the word " monophasically "

suggesting there is not a hump. Now I know it's difficult to accurately measure

mercury in the body since a low level may indicate low levels or a poor

excreter, but the studies were still comparing apples to apples so it seems more

valid. Most suggested mercury levels were 40-60% lower compared to pre-removal

after 2-3 months and nearly 80% gone after 6 months. Twelve months was when the

levels were similar to those who had never had amalgams.

> >

> > I know that in an ideal world it would be best to wait as long as possible

to have a baby after amalgam removal to allow the mercury to come out of the

tissues and be excreted over time. I just can't find any evidence to support the

claim that the 6 months after removal is the WORST time. I realize it's not the

BEST, but everything I have read suggests it's BETTER than not having them out

at all. Less mercury in me should equal less mercury in the fetus.

> >

> > I hope I haven't ruffled any feathers. I'm not looking for a debate. I truly

am looking for evidence to help me make my OWN decision about when I can safely

start trying to have a baby. If there are studies indicating a surge in mercury

after amalgam removal, I want to know. I appreciate any feedback you can

provide. Sorry this was so long.

> >

> > Bree

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I agree wholeheartedly TJ. And I wouldn' take my kid camping either.

Then again, after the past few years I don't want to " rough it " at all. I want

luxury and pampering. I've had about enough adventure!

>

> Never have I seen Andy write anything about God....or " Take my word "

> He always backs everything up with scientific fact, many times referencing

medical text books.

> In hindsight, I wish we would have chelated before becoming pregnant, and not

vacinated our children.

> My boys missed their whole early childhood screaming, not sleeping, and not

talking.

> We are just now, after more than a year of chelation, getting to a point where

life is becoming enjoyable and we are able to do more " normal " things.

> Still can't do many things that people take for granted, like go camping for

example.

> I guess you could look at it as a kind of insurance. You may or may not need

it, are you willing to risk it?

> The last five years for us have been like some part of hell here on earth, I

would not wish it on anybody.

> We are just so happy that our boys are responding to chelation and they are

recovering, but it will be several more years.

> Several more years of getting up in the middle of the night to give them their

dose of chelator to get the mercury out of their brains.

> Sound like something you wanna do?

> TJ

>

>  

>

>

>

>