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

[Guest guest]

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?