Evidence for 6 month dump?

[Guest guest]

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