Re: Question on heavy metals testing- provoked urine vs. hair test.

[Guest guest]

If you search this list you can find lots of information on why you should avoid

provoked (challenge) testing and that EDTA is bad for mercury people.

The clear reason for the dismissal of this testing is that using high infrequent

doses of chelator substances causes huge redistributions of heavy metals. It can

make you a lot sicker and a lot harder to get better. Especially if you do this

a few times. It also does not show how much metals are in your central nervous

system or brain. Anyone given a chelator will excrete metals even if they are

not poisoned with them.

You have to know how to read the hair tests to find mercury in them. Most

doctors do not know that low hair mercury isn't normal and indicates you are

retaining and are probably poisoned with it. I had absolutely no hair mercury

at all.

So if you know you had higher metals on the urine test...there is no reason to

risk repeating this test, just move onto frequent low dose chelation. If you are

curious about how to read the hair test and use it diagnostically purchase

Andy's book Hair Test Interpretation.

I will leave you with the link to Andy's posts on questions about testing for

metals:

http://onibasu.com/wiki/Testing_for_mercury

There is a lot there about challenge testing.

Hope that helps clarify.

Jan

>

> I have a question on testing. My doc has relied upon provoked urine heavy

metals testing (via Doctors' Data), and using DMSA and slow-released EDTA as the

provoking agent. The first one, probably ten years or so ago, showed highly

elevated levels of both mercury and lead. After varying number of rounds of

chelation, subsequent tests showed steadily declining levels of both , though

still elevated.

> I've since read Andy Cutler's views (in various web comments) which seem to

rely on hair testing and are dismissive of provoked urine testing. However, I

did not read therein any clear reason for that dismissal. If anyone can list

explicit reasons for this, I'd appreciate learning of them.

> The only thing I can guess is that, consistent with his views on need to

maintain a steady blood dosage to avoid mere redistribution and re-deposition of

metals, the use of a single-lg-dose of a chelator like DMSA might have that

effect. I would certainly understand that concern if that is the main one.

>

> As for comparative effectiveness, even prior to the 1st urine screen, I had

had a hair test, which did not show elevated mercury or lead. My wife had very

parallel results from both. Clearly, the provoked urine screen was more

conclusive in detecting what was actually stored in the body (and potentially

bound to cell walls). Yet I am curious as to whether there might be other

reasons for shunning the urine testing in favor of hair testing. Any thoughts

on this?

>

[Guest guest]

Thx, Jan, for the quick reply.

As I had said in prev. note, I suspected that one concern w/challenge testing is

that of potential for redistribution. I think this is a valid concern in

general, but I've done such tests only about once every couple years on avg. And

frankly, I'm glad because I'd otherwise have no way of validating whether

chelation had any effect whatsoever. That's because any " symptoms " I may have

are typically sub-clinical, and not so clearly tied to heavy metals toxicity. I

do have reason to suspect that elevated hvy metals MIGHT BE causal, but in any

case, again I don't have enough other empirical evidence that chelation has

" worked " without such a measure.

(In my case, original readings for Hg: 31, Pb:41 (both ug/g Creatinine).

After a few rounds of oral chelation (first using DMSA but not as per Cutler),

these had dropped steadily to about 1/3 of initial readings....still too high of

course.)

> It also does not show how much metals are in your central nervous system or

brain. <

Does the hair test show/measure this? I'm under the impression that no test will

show what's in the brain. I assume that, given the load in my body overall,

some is also in the brain but that it won't be measurable; but that it's

possible once other body stores are " cleaned " of heavy metals, it might be

safely drawn out of brain as well.

> Anyone given a chelator will excrete metals even if they are not poisoned with

them. <

I'm not sure how to read this. A chelator will only mobilize & bind metals if

they're present in the body; and presumably, the higher the test levels, the

higher the load in the body. (Though I'm not sure about this latter statement

and I'd guess there are some other variables influencing different results in

different people, aside from just the relative body loads. For example, relative

recentness of exposure, internal chemistry, etc.)

I suspect that the presence of elevated (above " reference range " ) amounts of

such heavy metals have some deleterious effects, whether or not there are

clinical signs of poisoning. As I said, I'm probably " sub-clinical " in

symptoms/complaints to most docs, but some " minor " mysteries of my own health

conditions suggested the possibility, which is why I was tested.

Re. hair testing, I can verify that absence of metals in these doesn't prove

anything about body burden. However, I was then also unaware of the " counting

rules " for how to do a proper evaluation of hair test results, and will look

into doing this in the future. In fact, though it might be a bit of an

extravagance, I might consider doing the hair test just before I do any more

urine challenge tests, if indeed I do any. It would be interesting to compare

results given the " counting " rules, to see if there's any correlation.

I'll also try to find more info about why " EDTA is bad for mercury people. "

In my case, I have both high merc and lead, and EDTA is acknowledged (at least

in some research) as especially effective in lead. I understand from my doc that

one concern with EDTA has been it's poor absorbtion, but at least one newer

formulation (DeTox Max) seems to have addressed that particular concern; by

emulsifying it with phospholipids and making it slowly released over 48 hrs. To

be honest, I'd like to see some more independent research on this; but the data

presented with that product's spec sheet seems convincing at 1st glance. In the

meantime, I'll dig more deeply into the webpages to which you point. The

1/2-life -based dosing protocol certainly makes sense from a theoretical

viewpoint, and there also seems to be enough anecdotal support for it that it

bears consideration.

Thanks again for your help,

~RH

> >

> > I have a question on testing. My doc has relied upon provoked urine heavy

metals testing (via Doctors' Data), and using DMSA and slow-released EDTA as the

provoking agent. The first one, probably ten years or so ago, showed highly

elevated levels of both mercury and lead. After varying number of rounds of

chelation, subsequent tests showed steadily declining levels of both , though

still elevated.

> > I've since read Andy Cutler's views (in various web comments) which seem

to rely on hair testing and are dismissive of provoked urine testing. However,

I did not read therein any clear reason for that dismissal. If anyone can list

explicit reasons for this, I'd appreciate learning of them.

> > The only thing I can guess is that, consistent with his views on need to

maintain a steady blood dosage to avoid mere redistribution and re-deposition of

metals, the use of a single-lg-dose of a chelator like DMSA might have that

effect. I would certainly understand that concern if that is the main one.

> >

> > As for comparative effectiveness, even prior to the 1st urine screen, I had

had a hair test, which did not show elevated mercury or lead. My wife had very

parallel results from both. Clearly, the provoked urine screen was more

conclusive in detecting what was actually stored in the body (and potentially

bound to cell walls). Yet I am curious as to whether there might be other

reasons for shunning the urine testing in favor of hair testing. Any thoughts

on this?

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Sometimes another metal may come out before mercury is released, so the

urine test won't catch it. Also, metal toxicity can mean that the mercury

has gone into the bones and brain so the hair test won't catch it.

The most reliable test is to simply take a small dose of the chelator

(ALA), and wait to see if there is a reaction. For me, that meant an itchy

feeling inside that was almost unbearable. I added DMSA to help with the

unpleasant side effect (which is why lots of people take the DMSA - also to

chelate lead). Combining them does speed up detoxification, but I don't

believe it's by much. If one can bear the ALA by itself, some believe it's

safer, and it's certainly cheaper. When my last dozen bottles of DMSA run out,

I'll try to use the ALA alone. I'll be at about 60 rounds by then and hope

enough is out that I can forgo the DMSA.

You'll definitely know if you are metal toxic if you try some ALA (start

with a small amount like 50mg and then try 200mg if you don't react). If you

don't react to this, you may not have a problem. Good Luck! /Rosegvr

[Guest guest]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, .

As toxicity is a matter of degree, and it can occur at various substructural

(i.e. from cellular to organ)levels, and because it may take a while for such

effects to become experienced as symptoms of illness, toxicity is a " relative "

thing. That is, for some it may be clearly manifest in classic symptoms, while

for others there may be some impairment happening even at a cellular level that

is not necessarily yet being directly experienced as illness (but which could

eventually lead to such). So, as heavy metals such as mercury & lead are known

biotoxins, and also as certain, otherwise-unexplained symptoms often are the

reason for one to test for heavy metals in the first place, I think it

reasonable to assume that any tests which show elevated (above some reference

range) levels are sufficient cause to conclude at least some level of impairment

or toxicity...symptoms of which could become more noticeable / clearer over

time. At least that's how I approach it.

In my case, even though I do not have an ASD or classic symptoms of metals

poisoning, there are enough other " trouble spots " - both annoyingly chronic

symptoms and lab-measured biological metrics pointing to cellular & metabolic

dysfunction - that my high merc & lead levels are prime suspects to be

eliminated.

I agree, from experience a hair test won't necessarily be conclusive. In my

case, a hair test done prior to a urine test did not show any lead or mercury

(or other suggestors of metals toxicity), while the urine challenge test showed

high levels of both merc & lead. Admittedly though, I didn't know then the

" counting rules " re. the overall profile that a hair test is said to provide.

In any case, I have taken small doses of ALA over the years without noticing

any effect. So at least in my case, a reaction to it (or lack thereof) wouldn't

be a good indicator of unhealthy levels of the heavy metals, which I still have

and intend to further reduce as much as is possible.

Thanks again,

>

> Sometimes another metal may come out before mercury is released, so the

> urine test won't catch it. Also, metal toxicity can mean that the mercury

> has gone into the bones and brain so the hair test won't catch it.

>

> The most reliable test is to simply take a small dose of the chelator

> (ALA), and wait to see if there is a reaction. For me, that meant an itchy

> feeling inside that was almost unbearable. I added DMSA to help with the

> unpleasant side effect (which is why lots of people take the DMSA - also to

> chelate lead). Combining them does speed up detoxification, but I don't

> believe it's by much. If one can bear the ALA by itself, some believe it's

> safer, and it's certainly cheaper. When my last dozen bottles of DMSA run

out,

> I'll try to use the ALA alone. I'll be at about 60 rounds by then and hope

> enough is out that I can forgo the DMSA.

>

> You'll definitely know if you are metal toxic if you try some ALA (start

> with a small amount like 50mg and then try 200mg if you don't react). If you

> don't react to this, you may not have a problem. Good Luck! /Rosegvr

>

>

>