Guest guest Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 I think a study involving Andy Cutler is a very good idea. How about an autopsy study on kids who die (and or people of all ages) comparing hair elements tests by Doctor's Data using Andy's counting rules to precise measurements of brain, pituitary gland, thyroid, heart, kidney, muscle, spinal cord, and liver mercury concentrations? How well do his rules predict the levels of mercury in these organs? A count of existing amalgams and/or vaccine history of the individuals autopsied could also be collected, though analysis of that info would be a separate study. That should be a fairly simple, straightforward experiment that could be done rather quickly. I would think parents of autistic children who die due to accidents might be willing to allow autopsies for this purpose, as would many folks whose family members have died from MS, Alzheimers, or Parkinson's. Mercury testing of organs should be done independently by two separate labs. Hair element tests can be interpreted by Andy, and by someone else using his counting rules. A third party (or two) can evaluate the predictive value of the hair test interpretation. I think this would be an important study because several fo the prominent studies in the debate about mercury toxicity involved measurements of mercury in hair. If the basic premise that the amount of mercury in hair IS directly related to levels in body organs is WRONG, as Andy Cutler indicates, and some research (like the baby hair study) suggests, then much existing research on mercury toxicity effects needs to be re-evaluated in light of this. All data must be made freely available for independent confirmation of results and analysis. Sue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 > Posted by: " learningstillalways " learningstillalways@... > learningstillalways > Date: Wed Jul 4, 2007 3:19 pm ((PDT)) > >If the basic premise that the amount of mercury in hair IS directly >related to levels in body organs is >WRONG, as Andy Cutler indicates, and some research (like the baby >hair study) suggests, >then much existing research on mercury toxicity effects needs to be >re-evaluated in light >of this. My understanding of hair test interpretation on the autism treatment mailing list is that (1) if the hair shows high levels of mercury then the person tested has high mercury levels in their organs (2) if the hair shows normal to low levels of mercury then the counting rules should be used to ascertain if mercury is present in the body Now maybe I'm wrong here, but again, my understanding is that the reason (2) would apply is when a person who is mercury poisoned is not a good excreter, while (1) might apply to those that are able to excrete mercury. Perhaps going a jump beyond that and imagining that if all this is true then it may also be the case that those children who develop normally until about 18 months and then regress are for the most part poor excreters of mercury who finally got more than they could handle. In my son's case his problems seemed present almost from birth. Hospitalized for bronchitis at 10 days of age, then diagnosed with cerebral palsy at 16 months and only at age 3 being diagnosed with, at first, moderate autism. FWIW the CP diagnosis was later removed and the autism diagnosis changed to pdd-nos. His hair test, done at age 4 or 5 showed mercury in the red, which iirc means he does excrete. However my wife is Rh- and is our 3d child so he got lots of mercury from Mom's numerous rhogam shots... something most folks aren't exposed to. Marty -- Autism Homeschooler's discussion list AutismHomeschool/ Drupal Developer Blog: http://drupaldev.webtrouble.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 You probably already know this but the hair test doesn't measure the amount of mercury in the hair. It measures mineral content, zinc, calcium, magnesium, etc. You use the counting rules with the test results to determine if there is a mineral transport problem which in-turn show mercury toxicity. It's been a few years since we have done this with my son but I think that is the jist of it. > > > > Posted by: " learningstillalways " learningstillalways@... > > learningstillalways > > Date: Wed Jul 4, 2007 3:19 pm ((PDT)) > > > >If the basic premise that the amount of mercury in hair IS directly > >related to levels in body organs is > >WRONG, as Andy Cutler indicates, and some research (like the baby > >hair study) suggests, > >then much existing research on mercury toxicity effects needs to be > >re-evaluated in light > >of this. > > My understanding of hair test interpretation on the autism treatment > mailing list is that > > (1) if the hair shows high levels of mercury then the person tested > has high mercury levels in their organs > > (2) if the hair shows normal to low levels of mercury then the > counting rules should be used to ascertain if mercury is present in the body > > > Now maybe I'm wrong here, but again, my understanding is that the > reason (2) would apply is when a person who is mercury poisoned is > not a good excreter, while (1) might apply to those that are able to > excrete mercury. Perhaps going a jump beyond that and imagining that > if all this is true then it may also be the case that those children > who develop normally until about 18 months and then regress are for > the most part poor excreters of mercury who finally got more than > they could handle. > > In my son's case his problems seemed present almost from birth. > Hospitalized for bronchitis at 10 days of age, then diagnosed with > cerebral palsy at 16 months and only at age 3 being diagnosed with, > at first, moderate autism. FWIW the CP diagnosis was later removed > and the autism diagnosis changed to pdd-nos. > > His hair test, done at age 4 or 5 showed mercury in the red, which > iirc means he does excrete. However my wife is Rh- and is our 3d > child so he got lots of mercury from Mom's numerous rhogam shots... > something most folks aren't exposed to. > > Marty > > > -- > Autism Homeschooler's discussion list > AutismHomeschool/ > Drupal Developer Blog: http://drupaldev.webtrouble.com/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 Yes, I definitely know that. That is why I am suggesting this study and why I specifically said that hair elements tests need to be run-not toxic elements or only measurements of mercury content. If Andy Cutler is correct, then many mercury toxicity studies that looked for associations between hair mercury levels and various outcomes are immediately in need of re-evaluation. Despite the refrain to the contrary on many internet blogs/webpages, IF you look at published studies of mercury toxicity in both humans and wildlife, measurements of hair mercury level are generally considered a valid index of mercury exposure/toxicity. Some of the Seychelles work and some of Grandjean's work used hair mercury levels as one index of mercury exposure. From what I can determine, hair mercury is primarily methylmercury; but inorganic mercury exposure is not excreted (or measured) in hair analysis. It may be that Andy's counting rules allow identification of individuals with high inorganic mercury stores while hair levels reflect only methyl- mercury exposure, OR as he seems to think, hair mercury levels may only reflect methylmercury excretion rates and one must examine the pattern of other elements to determine the probable mercury toxicity of any individual. If he is correct, many scientists will need to re-evaluate their data and probably redo their research as they did not likely do hair elements analyses on any of their study subjects. Sue > > You probably already know this but the hair test doesn't measure the > amount of mercury in the hair. It measures mineral content, zinc, > calcium, magnesium, etc. You use the counting rules with the test > results to determine if there is a mineral transport problem which > in-turn show mercury toxicity. It's been a few years since we have > done this with my son but I think that is the jist of it. > > > > > > > > Posted by: " learningstillalways " learningstillalways@ > > > learningstillalways > > > Date: Wed Jul 4, 2007 3:19 pm ((PDT)) > > > > > >If the basic premise that the amount of mercury in hair IS directly > > >related to levels in body organs is > > >WRONG, as Andy Cutler indicates, and some research (like the baby > > >hair study) suggests, > > >then much existing research on mercury toxicity effects needs to be > > >re-evaluated in light > > >of this. > > > > My understanding of hair test interpretation on the autism treatment > > mailing list is that > > > > (1) if the hair shows high levels of mercury then the person tested > > has high mercury levels in their organs > > > > (2) if the hair shows normal to low levels of mercury then the > > counting rules should be used to ascertain if mercury is present in > the body > > > > > > Now maybe I'm wrong here, but again, my understanding is that the > > reason (2) would apply is when a person who is mercury poisoned is > > not a good excreter, while (1) might apply to those that are able to > > excrete mercury. Perhaps going a jump beyond that and imagining that > > if all this is true then it may also be the case that those children > > who develop normally until about 18 months and then regress are for > > the most part poor excreters of mercury who finally got more than > > they could handle. > > > > In my son's case his problems seemed present almost from birth. > > Hospitalized for bronchitis at 10 days of age, then diagnosed with > > cerebral palsy at 16 months and only at age 3 being diagnosed with, > > at first, moderate autism. FWIW the CP diagnosis was later removed > > and the autism diagnosis changed to pdd-nos. > > > > His hair test, done at age 4 or 5 showed mercury in the red, which > > iirc means he does excrete. However my wife is Rh- and is our 3d > > child so he got lots of mercury from Mom's numerous rhogam shots... > > something most folks aren't exposed to. > > > > Marty > > > > > > -- > > Autism Homeschooler's discussion list > > AutismHomeschool/ > > Drupal Developer Blog: http://drupaldev.webtrouble.com/ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 According to his rules Allie has no mercury poisoning, except his rules have an exception that even if they don't meet counting rules they could still have mercury poisoning. Debi > > I think a study involving Andy Cutler is a very good idea. > > How about an autopsy study on kids who die (and or people of all ages) comparing hair > elements tests by Doctor's Data using Andy's counting rules to precise measurements of > brain, pituitary gland, thyroid, heart, kidney, muscle, spinal cord, and liver mercury > concentrations? How well do his rules predict the levels of mercury in these organs? A > count of existing amalgams and/or vaccine history of the individuals autopsied could also > be collected, though analysis of that info would be a separate study. > > That should be a fairly simple, straightforward experiment that could be done rather > quickly. I would think parents of autistic children who die due to accidents might be > willing to allow autopsies for this purpose, as would many folks whose family members > have died from MS, Alzheimers, or Parkinson's. Mercury testing of organs should be done > independently by two separate labs. > > Hair element tests can be interpreted by Andy, and by someone else using his counting > rules. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 True. But if you read his analysis carefully, he is basically saying he has developed a method that he is confident is capable of identifying most people with mercury toxicity with some degree of certainty. But he readily admits that his method is not perfect and that some could be id'd as mercury toxic by his method, when in fact, they are not, OR id'd as non-toxic, when in fact, they are poisoned. From my readings of his thought processes, I suspect he would likely welcome research to test, and potentially improve, the method he has developed--as long as the research was done honestly and openly by competent researchers. An ability to see and admit imperfections in one's work indicates to me a scientific honesty that I don't detect from those who protest that enough is known, or from those who with-hold existing data, thus preventing those interested from re-evaluating it. I tend to trust researchers who admit that their work isn't perfect much more than those who contend that their findings/ opinions are the final word and there is no need to do any further investigation. I don't know if Andy's analysis is correct or not. I would like some testing done to find out if it is, and if so, to find ways to make it even more reliable and also to give doubters who do a hair test some confidence in the results they get, beyond what folks on various listservs have to say. The main reason I think a test of his method would be valuable though is because his basic premise that some extremely toxic individuals actually have hair test results that show little evidence of mercury toxicity is CONTRARY to the relationship between hair mercury levels and mercury toxicity that has been assumed to be true by many mercury researchers. If he is right, I think a reanalysis/re-evaluation of some existing studies is warranted. Sue > > According to his rules Allie has no mercury poisoning, except his > rules have an exception that even if they don't meet counting rules > they could still have mercury poisoning. > > Debi > >> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 Trust Andy. Re: Andy Cutler & study Yes, I definitely know that. That is why I am suggesting this study andwhy I specifically said that hair elements tests need to be run-nottoxic elements or only measurements of mercury content. If Andy Cutler is correct, then many mercury toxicity studies that looked for associations between hair mercury levels and various outcomesare immediately in need of re-evaluation. Despite the refrain to the contrary on many internet blogs/webpages,IF you look at published studies of mercury toxicity in both humansand wildlife, measurements of hair mercury level are generally considered a valid index of mercury exposure/toxicity. Some of the Seychelles work and some of Grandjean's work used hair mercury levels as one index of mercury exposure. From what I can determine, hair mercury is primarily methylmercury; but inorganic mercury exposure is not excreted (or measured) in hairanalysis.It may be that Andy's counting rules allow identification of individualswith high inorganic mercury stores while hair levels reflect only methyl-mercury exposure, OR as he seems to think, hair mercury levels may only reflect methylmercury excretion rates and one must examine the patternof other elements to determine the probable mercury toxicity of any individual.If he is correct, many scientists will need to re-evaluate their data and probablyredo their research as they did not likely do hair elements analyseson any of their study subjects.Sue>> You probably already know this but the hair test doesn't measure the> amount of mercury in the hair. It measures mineral content, zinc,> calcium, magnesium, etc. You use the counting rules with the test> results to determine if there is a mineral transport problem which> in-turn show mercury toxicity. It's been a few years since we have> done this with my son but I think that is the jist of it.> > >> > > > > Posted by: "learningstillalways" learningstillalways@ > > > learningstillalways> > > Date: Wed Jul 4, 2007 3:19 pm ((PDT))> > >> > >If the basic premise that the amount of mercury in hair IS directly > > >related to levels in body organs is> > >WRONG, as Andy Cutler indicates, and some research (like the baby > > >hair study) suggests,> > >then much existing research on mercury toxicity effects needs to be > > >re-evaluated in light> > >of this.> > > > My understanding of hair test interpretation on the autism treatment > > mailing list is that> > > > (1) if the hair shows high levels of mercury then the person tested > > has high mercury levels in their organs> > > > (2) if the hair shows normal to low levels of mercury then the > > counting rules should be used to ascertain if mercury is present in> the body> > > > > > Now maybe I'm wrong here, but again, my understanding is that the > > reason (2) would apply is when a person who is mercury poisoned is > > not a good excreter, while (1) might apply to those that are able to > > excrete mercury. Perhaps going a jump beyond that and imagining that > > if all this is true then it may also be the case that those children > > who develop normally until about 18 months and then regress are for > > the most part poor excreters of mercury who finally got more than > > they could handle.> > > > In my son's case his problems seemed present almost from birth. > > Hospitalized for bronchitis at 10 days of age, then diagnosed with > > cerebral palsy at 16 months and only at age 3 being diagnosed with, > > at first, moderate autism. FWIW the CP diagnosis was later removed > > and the autism diagnosis changed to pdd-nos.> > > > His hair test, done at age 4 or 5 showed mercury in the red, which > > iirc means he does excrete. However my wife is Rh- and is our 3d > > child so he got lots of mercury from Mom's numerous rhogam shots... > > something most folks aren't exposed to.> > > > Marty> > > > > > -- > > Autism Homeschooler's discussion list> > AutismHomeschool/> > Drupal Developer Blog: http://drupaldev.webtrouble.com/> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 What is more reliable and accurate to determine mercury toxicity? The hair test or the porphyrin test (UPP)? > > > > According to his rules Allie has no mercury poisoning, except his > > rules have an exception that even if they don't meet counting rules > > they could still have mercury poisoning. > > > > Debi > > > >> > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 Perhaps the biggest problem is that there is no real accurate way of measuring mercury which is bound to tissue. You can get a feel through external excretion, but unless you can develop some analytical tool which focuses on the specific physicochemical nature of mercury per se measured at its site in the body, the results will always be hit or miss. Re: Andy Cutler & study True. But if you read his analysis carefully, he is basically saying he has developed a method that he is confident is capable of identifying most people with mercury toxicity with some degree of certainty. But he readily admits that his method is not perfect and that some could be id'd as mercury toxic by his method,when in fact, they are not, OR id'd as non-toxic, when in fact, they are poisoned. From my readings of his thought processes, I suspect hewould likely welcome research to test, and potentially improve,the method he has developed--as long as the researchwas done honestly and openly by competent researchers. An ability to see and admit imperfections in one's work indicatesto me a scientific honesty that I don't detect from thosewho protest that enough is known, or from those who with-hold existing data, thus preventing those interestedfrom re-evaluating it.I tend to trust researchers who admit that their work isn't perfectmuch more than those who contend that their findings/opinions are the final word and there is no need to do anyfurther investigation.I don't know if Andy's analysis is correct or not. I would like some testing done to find out if it is, and if so, tofind ways to make it even more reliable and also to givedoubters who do a hair test some confidence in theresults they get, beyond what folks on various listservs haveto say. The main reason I think a test of his method would be valuable though is because his basic premise that some extremely toxic individuals actually have hair test results that show little evidence of mercury toxicity is CONTRARY tothe relationship between hair mercury levels and mercury toxicity that has been assumed to be true by many mercury researchers. If he is right, I think a reanalysis/re-evaluation of some existing studies is warranted. Sue>> According to his rules Allie has no mercury poisoning, except his> rules have an exception that even if they don't meet counting rules> they could still have mercury poisoning.> > Debi> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 Ladders (http://ladders.org/bdar.php) does something similar, though not with hair. They have a brain donation program for people with autism. Would be interesting to see metal toxicity studies on those tissues. > > I think a study involving Andy Cutler is a very good idea. > > How about an autopsy study on kids who die (and or people of all ages) comparing hair > elements tests by Doctor's Data using Andy's counting rules to precise measurements of > brain, pituitary gland, thyroid, heart, kidney, muscle, spinal cord, and liver mercury > concentrations? How well do his rules predict the levels of mercury in these organs? A > count of existing amalgams and/or vaccine history of the individuals autopsied could also > be collected, though analysis of that info would be a separate study. > > That should be a fairly simple, straightforward experiment that could be done rather > quickly. I would think parents of autistic children who die due to accidents might be > willing to allow autopsies for this purpose, as would many folks whose family members > have died from MS, Alzheimers, or Parkinson's. Mercury testing of organs should be done > independently by two separate labs. > > Hair element tests can be interpreted by Andy, and by someone else using his counting > rules. > > A third party (or two) can evaluate the predictive value of the hair test interpretation. > > I think this would be an important study because several fo the prominent studies in the > debate about mercury toxicity involved measurements of mercury in hair. If the basic > premise that the amount of mercury in hair IS directly related to levels in body organs is > WRONG, as Andy Cutler indicates, and some research (like the baby hair study) suggests, > then much existing research on mercury toxicity effects needs to be re-evaluated in light > of this. > > All data must be made freely available for independent confirmation of results and > analysis. > > Sue > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 I understand that it might be. I am not 100% convinced that is correct however. Unfortunately, it wouldn't be possible in the autopsy study I propose to test this question. But this could, and should, be tested after the autopsy study, if that confirmed Andy's work. A good size sample of kids could then be given the hair test and the porphyrin test silmultaneously to determine if indeed the porphyrin test is more accurate. If I were trying to assess an individual's toxicity, I would run multiple kinds of tests and look for confirmation of the results of one test via a different test method. But the point of the study I am suggesting is not solely to help individuals determine their own or their child's toxicity. Rather, the implications, if Andy's assessment of hair mercury testing is correct, are many. If you read the court transcripts one of the points of contention is whether or not the baby hair study was correct. The govt witness was claiming it could not be replicated (although there was a good cross on that). If Andy is proved correct, then there is more evidence in support of low hair mercury possibly indicating an excretion problem. It would also support the idea that exposure to mercury can reduce the ability to excrete it. Is that true in most people, or just some?. One, maybe both, of the recent amalgam studies in children looked at hair mercury to evaluate toxicity post amalgam placement.Their conclusions re: toxicity would be refuted if Andy's assessment is correct. The recent survey by GreenPeace of people's hair mercury across the US could be extremely misleading if Andy's work is correct. The Seychelles work which confounds the whole assessment of what is a " safe " level of methylmercury ingestion used hair mercury as one index of mercury exposure. If Andy is right, their method of assessment is faulty, hence their conclusions are faulty. I can't list other studies at the moment, but I know that there are many that use hair tests of mercury content and make the assumption that hair mercury is directly correlated with body stores. If that assumption is incorrect, much research must be re-evaluated. Sue > > > > > > According to his rules Allie has no mercury poisoning, except his > > > rules have an exception that even if they don't meet counting > rules > > > they could still have mercury poisoning. > > > > > > Debi > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 The Dr Amy study already indicates that autistic kids don't excrete Hg thru their hair. From: "learningstillalways" <learningstillalways@...>Reply-EOHarm To: EOHarm Subject: Re: Andy Cutler & studyDate: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:11:15 -0000 I understand that it might be. I am not 100% convincedthat is correct however. Unfortunately, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 Yeah, I had signed up for one of the brain/autism donation programs. I don't know now though, if they're just gonna use our tissues to chase the elusive autism gene without testing anything else, I don't know if I want to put my family through that. I'd rather just be a plain ole organ donor & skip the brain harvesting if it won't go to actually helping... Debi > > Ladders (http://ladders.org/bdar.php) does something similar, though > not with hair. They have a brain donation program for people with > autism. Would be interesting to see metal toxicity studies on those > tissues. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 I hope the Neurodiverse have signed up for this. I'd like to find out what part of their brains are missing that allows them to find joy in autism. > > > > Ladders (http://ladders.org/bdar.php) does something similar, though > > not with hair. They have a brain donation program for people with > > autism. Would be interesting to see metal toxicity studies on those > > tissues. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 > > > Posted by: " learningstillalways " learningstillalways@... > > learningstillalways > > Date: Wed Jul 4, 2007 3:19 pm ((PDT)) > > > >If the basic premise that the amount of mercury in hair IS directly > >related to levels in body organs is > >WRONG, as Andy Cutler indicates, confirmed by Holmes and in their works. Holmes paper published, not sure if is or not yet. It is certainly what anyone who looks at a bunch of hair tests an analyzes them figures out. > > and some research (like the baby > >hair study) suggests, > >then much existing research on mercury toxicity effects needs to be > >re-evaluated in light > >of this. Correct. This is discussed in the book Hair Test Interpretation: Finding Hidden Toxiciites in the first few dozen pages. The net effect of this is that the most severely impaired individuals have LOW hair Hg, so the least squares line through all Hg vs neuro-impairment data (they of course never ever ever report actual DATA, they just tell us what conclusions they want us to draw from it) would greatly understate the effects of mercury on development. Since the EPA limits were derived from this data they would be far too lax. Note that essentially everything the FDA and CDC says is safe wildly exceeds the EPA limits. I've reviewed the EPA report in detail, they do a great job - only one oversight in not finding a parameter that is reported in the literature that they have to estimate, which makes their calculated " safe " level about twice as high as it should be. But of course given this problem with interpretation of hair mercury levels the EPA safe level is no doubt several times higher than the truly safe level. A factor of 10 is a good guesstimate, though proper analysis of real data by someone looking for correct answers - which at this point must be presumed not to include anyone who works for the government, a drug company or who receives federal research funding - is really needed to decide the proper number. > > My understanding of hair test interpretation on the autism treatment > mailing list is that > > (1) if the hair shows high levels of mercury then the person tested > has high mercury levels in their organs As long as you inteprret " high " as REALLY high, yes. One must recall that organic mercury partitions into hair well, while inorganic mercury does not and thus yellow range results for organic mercury may not be significant. Of course most people (including essentially all doctors) don't realize that organic mercury turns into inorganic mercury in a few months. > (2) if the hair shows normal to low levels of mercury then the > counting rules should be used to ascertain if mercury is present in the body Yes. They should be used regardless, but a red high mercury is always a warning sign. > Now maybe I'm wrong here, but again, my understanding is that the > reason (2) would apply is when a person who is mercury poisoned is > not a good excreter, This is the common superstition bandied around by clueless DAN! doctors, but the reason is actually that the mineral transport proteins are poisoned. This does not necessarily correlate with them being a " good excreter " in terms of half life. Hair is not an excretory tissue. No singificant amount of mercury is excreted in the hair. > while (1) might apply to those that are able to > excrete mercury. Not necessarily either. They may have organic mercury exposure. They may simply have a robust form of the mineral transport protein that handles mercury itself, while the other mineral transport proteins are poisoned at lower levels. > Perhaps going a jump beyond that and imagining that > if all this is true then it may also be the case that those children > who develop normally until about 18 months and then regress are for > the most part poor excreters of mercury who finally got more than > they could handle. Not necessarily true. Also you are very confused about toxicity. It isn't a one size fits all phenomenon. The issues are not only excretion, but also individual sensitivity and exposure levels. > In my son's case his problems seemed present almost from birth. In the 18 month regression cases if you review files they were usually having a lot of problems prior to the MMR at 18 months. I'm certainly familiar with cases where the child was impaired from birth and improved greatly on chelation. > Hospitalized for bronchitis at 10 days of age, then diagnosed with > cerebral palsy at 16 months and only at age 3 being diagnosed with, > at first, moderate autism. FWIW the CP diagnosis was later removed > and the autism diagnosis changed to pdd-nos. > > His hair test, done at age 4 or 5 showed mercury in the red, which > iirc means he does excrete. No. It means he has high mercury in his hair and presumably his body. It also means he is very likely to be a good responder to chelation. > However my wife is Rh- and is our 3d > child so he got lots of mercury from Mom's numerous rhogam shots... > something most folks aren't exposed to. > > Marty > > > -- > Autism Homeschooler's discussion list > AutismHomeschool/ > Drupal Developer Blog: http://drupaldev.webtrouble.com/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 It is a common delusion among laymen (and doctors, who ought to know better) that labortory tests are infallible. This is far from the truth. Read any medical text to find discussion of " false positives " and " false negatives. " Really all you get is probabilities from a hair test, a blood test, or a urine test. In my book I spell out what the probabilities are and how to get to a certain answer, rather than talking down to the readers by pretending everything is sraightforward, certain, unquestionable and infallible. I'm sure most of you can exercise the level of reasoning to handle this, which is probably less than it takes to assemble a piece of furniture or bicycle where the instructions were written by a chinese person at the factory where they made it. > True. But if you read his analysis carefully, he is basically > saying he has developed a method that he is confident is > capable of identifying most people with mercury toxicity > with some degree of certainty. Yes. And I spell out how to get to greater certainty through very simple means. > But he readily admits that his method is not perfect > and that some could be id'd as mercury toxic by his method, > when in fact, they are not, OR id'd as non-toxic, when in > fact, they are poisoned. This is what a " false positive " or a " false negative " are, or in statistical parlance, alpha and beta errors. All lab tests have them. > From my readings of his thought processes, I suspect he > would likely welcome research to test, and potentially improve, > the method he has developed--as long as the research > was done honestly and openly by competent researchers. Absolutely, though this does seem unlikely. I'd also greatly welcome research into how to extract more information from the test. > An ability to see and admit imperfections in one's work indicates > to me a scientific honesty that I don't detect from those > who protest that enough is known, Militant ignorance has never appealed to me. > or from those who with-hold existing data, Personally I view this as morally shocking when the data is ethically releasable and conclusions in a paper are asserted that are drawn from analysis of it. It is also particularly shocking when the data is too expensive for someone else to regenerate. E. g. for my hair test book it would not be horribly diffficult for someone to get on the web and get tests and medical histories from 50 or 100 people. For the Faeroes study it is impossible to reproduce it, thus the position Dr. Grandjean took of witholding data is in my mind unethical Also for example the witholding of the porphyrin data from the DeRouen study of amalgam fillings in Portuguese orphans, though there were other ethical problems with this study as well. > thus preventing those interested from re-evaluating it. Correct. To be scientific, something must be verifiable or falsifiable by others. For practical purposes this means other people have to REALLY be able to go do it, it can't be something that is only possible in a fantasy world. Thus, for example, clinical trials without adequate disclosure of data are unscientific because it is too expensive to reproduce them. > I tend to trust researchers who admit that their work isn't perfect > much more than those who contend that their findings/ > opinions are the final word and there is no need to do any > further investigation. By definition, there is no finality in science. The ones talking about finality are doing something else. I like to view it as a human sacrificing religion. > I don't know if Andy's analysis is correct or not. I would > like some testing done to find out if it is, and if so, to > find ways to make it even more reliable and also to give > doubters who do a hair test some confidence in the > results they get, beyond what folks on various listservs have > to say. As the basis of science is observation, this is the best proof there is. You could start collecting those cases and see how it comes out. It is a lot of work, but not impossible. > The main reason I think a test of his method would be > valuable though is because his basic premise that some > extremely toxic individuals actually have hair test results that > show little evidence of mercury toxicity You vastly misinterpret what I say. Most toxic people do show evidence of toxicity. With mercury the evidence is usually derangement of mineral transport, not a high mercury level. This idea of using indirect indicators isn't new - it has been going on for a century with the blood count. We don't measure vitamin B-12 levels to decide if someone has B-12 deficiency, we look at the size of their red blood cells. If those are too large we suspect B -12 deficiency (the parameter is MCV. MCH also usually is elevated). An interpretation of this akin to checking a hair test for mercury toxicity by looking at the mercury level would be for the doctor to see a high MCV and put the patient on a diet to make their red blood cells skinnier. > is CONTRARY to > the relationship between hair mercury levels and > mercury toxicity that has been assumed to be true by > many mercury researchers. If he is right, I think > a reanalysis/re-evaluation of some existing studies is > warranted. Yes, THIS is a very relevant issue. THIS is a reason that if federally funded science were about knowledge people would be all over this issue right now. > Sue > > > > > > > > According to his rules Allie has no mercury poisoning, except his > > rules have an exception that even if they don't meet counting rules > > they could still have mercury poisoning. > > > > Debi > > > >> > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 Hi Andy, I am glad you are replying to my posts here re: your work and to know that you basically agree with *most* of what I have written. In regards to the following: > > The main reason I think a test of his method would be > > valuable though is because his basic premise that some > > extremely toxic individuals actually have hair test results that > > show little evidence of mercury toxicity > > You vastly misinterpret what I say. Sorry, I did not word my statement carefully enough. What I was trying to say is that extremely toxic individuals actually may have hair test results that show low levels of mercury--I used the wording " evidence of mercury toxicity " because anyone who has not read your work, or some of the confirming studies you mention, will assume that " low levels of mercury in hair " means " no evidence of mercury toxicity. " I clearly understand that you see CLEAR evidence of toxicity in the hair elements tests of severely poisoned individuals. But as far as I can tell, most mercury researchers to date have not looked for, tested for, or recognized the clear evidence you describe. I think that if you are correct this information NEEDS to become mainstream knowledge. The only way I can see that happening is for someone to do the study I suggested, and to get the results published in a mainstream journal. Because a result confirming your assessment would shake up the mercury toxicity world, I think such a study might have to be funded by non-mainstream sources. I got the impression from one mercury researcher that I talked to that research funding is tough to come by and very tied up in politics. Sue > > Most toxic people do show evidence of toxicity. With mercury the evidence is usually > derangement of mineral transport, not a high mercury level. > > This idea of using indirect indicators isn't new - it has been going on for a century with > the blood count. We don't measure vitamin B-12 levels to decide if someone has B-12 > deficiency, we look at the size of their red blood cells. If those are too large we suspect B > -12 deficiency (the parameter is MCV. MCH also usually is elevated). > > An interpretation of this akin to checking a hair test for mercury toxicity by looking at the > mercury level would be for the doctor to see a high MCV and put the patient on a diet to > make their red blood cells skinnier. > > > is CONTRARY to > > the relationship between hair mercury levels and > > mercury toxicity that has been assumed to be true by > > many mercury researchers. If he is right, I think > > a reanalysis/re-evaluation of some existing studies is > > warranted. > > Yes, THIS is a very relevant issue. > > THIS is a reason that if federally funded science were about knowledge people would be all > over this issue right now. > > > Sue > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 > > It is a common delusion among laymen (and doctors, who ought to know better) that > laboratory tests are infallible. > Perhaps it's time that the Vatican opened some testing labs, si? Lenny (Jewish boy running and ducking. . .) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 When our son passed away suddenly, we were called about a brain donation. My friend who researched for us couldn't see anything about a toxicity study, just genetics. We couldn't do the donation. More importantly, his 10 y.o. sister heard us, and begged us not to. Re: Andy Cutler & study Yeah, I had signed up for one of the brain/autism donation programs. Idon't know now though, if they're just gonna use our tissues to chasethe elusive autism gene without testing anything else, I don't know ifI want to put my family through that. I'd rather just be a plain oleorgan donor & skip the brain harvesting if it won't go to actuallyhelping...Debi>> Ladders (http://ladders.org/bdar.php) does something similar, though > not with hair. They have a brain donation program for people with > autism. Would be interesting to see metal toxicity studies on those > tissues.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 Andy, Glad to see you have joined this discussion, what can we do as parents interested in this issue to assist you in a grant writing process to deliver to AS (or others) for funding? Chris > > > > > > According to his rules Allie has no mercury poisoning, except his > > > rules have an exception that even if they don't meet counting rules > > > they could still have mercury poisoning. > > > > > > Debi > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 > But as far as I can tell, most mercury researchers to date > have not looked for, tested for, or recognized the clear evidence > you describe. I think that if you are correct this information > NEEDS to become mainstream knowledge. The only way I can > see that happening is for someone to do the study I suggested, > and to get the results published in a mainstream journal. 10,000 journal articles will be useless. Everyone refusing to let mainstream doctors make money off of them, and showing contempt for pseudoscientific idiocy held out as " scientific medicine " will work. It is a political problem that can not be solved until people stop being confused and thinking of it as a technical problem. Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 > Posted by: " andrewhallcutler " AndyCutler@... andrewhallcutler > Date: Fri Jul 6, 2007 12:21 pm ((PDT)) > >10,000 journal articles will be useless. > >Everyone refusing to let mainstream doctors make money off of them, >and showing >contempt for pseudoscientific idiocy held out as " scientific >medicine " will work. > >It is a political problem that can not be solved until people stop >being confused and >thinking of it as a technical problem. I wonder how this is going. Our family has definitely gotten more interested in nutrition and prevention, relying on doctor visits less and internet research and talking with others more. In general it seems like it's not just us, that many folks see their doctors less often and look for more self reliant ways to be healthy. Or maybe that is just my perception. Speaking personally I think the example I consider most when mulling over whether to go to my doctor or not is when my father in law had a heart attack. The next day at the hospital he was about to be served a bacon and egg breakfast. Fortunately my brother in law was there to see it and send it back for something more appropriate. People are becoming aware, and it's far more than autism involved. Just my two cents. Marty -- Autism Homeschooler's discussion list AutismHomeschool/ Drupal Developer Blog: http://drupaldev.webtrouble.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 That's precisely why the FDA wants to more closely "regulate" your supplement activities. You may decide to avoid the AMA monopoly. Re: Andy Cutler & study > Posted by: "andrewhallcutler" AndyCutleraol andrewhallcutler> Date: Fri Jul 6, 2007 12:21 pm ((PDT))>>10,000 journal articles will be useless.>>Everyone refusing to let mainstream doctors make money off of them, >and showing>contempt for pseudoscientific idiocy held out as "scientific >medicine" will work.>>It is a political problem that can not be solved until people stop >being confused and>thinking of it as a technical problem.I wonder how this is going. Our family has definitely gotten more interested in nutrition and prevention, relying on doctor visits less and internet research and talking with others more. In general it seems like it's not just us, that many folks see their doctors less often and look for more self reliant ways to be healthy. Or maybe that is just my perception.Speaking personally I think the example I consider most when mulling over whether to go to my doctor or not is when my father in law had a heart attack. The next day at the hospital he was about to be served a bacon and egg breakfast. Fortunately my brother in law was there to see it and send it back for something more appropriate.People are becoming aware, and it's far more than autism involved.Just my two cents.Marty-- Autism Homeschooler's discussion listAutismHomeschool/Drupal Developer Blog: http://drupaldev.webtrouble.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 Try having a kid in a Children's Hospital for metabolic acidosis related to vomiting & them saying, " gluten what? " Are there not any registered dieticians who comprehend special diets at all in hospitals? I could maybe understand it with autism, but they didn't even know what celiac is! Debi > > I wonder how this is going. Our family has definitely gotten more > interested in nutrition and prevention, relying on doctor visits less > and internet research and talking with others more. In general it > seems like it's not just us, that many folks see their doctors less > often and look for more self reliant ways to be healthy. Or maybe > that is just my perception. > > Speaking personally I think the example I consider most when mulling > over whether to go to my doctor or not is when my father in law had a > heart attack. The next day at the hospital he was about to be served > a bacon and egg breakfast. Fortunately my brother in law was there to > see it and send it back for something more appropriate. > > People are becoming aware, and it's far more than autism involved. > > Just my two cents. > > Marty > > > -- > Autism Homeschooler's discussion list > AutismHomeschool/ > Drupal Developer Blog: http://drupaldev.webtrouble.com/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2007 Report Share Posted July 8, 2007 Akron children's brought my daughter this nasty chemical laden coffee creamer to drink when I told them she couldn't have wheat or dairy. Those creamers are rarely casein free anyway. They had NO food for her to eat except fruit. I didn't trust the scrambled eggs assuming they had milk or were a powdered concoction. Hospitals are pathetic on food. And remember the uproar when the Cleveland Clinic tried to get rid of the Mc's in it's food court? The staff and families went NUTS. The premier heart hospital in the nation and they serve Big Macs. > > Try having a kid in a Children's Hospital for metabolic acidosis > related to vomiting & them saying, " gluten what? " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.