Guest guest Posted January 21, 2001 Report Share Posted January 21, 2001 wrote (in part:) > Another thing is 4 or 8 eight >hour dosing . I don't know what to do. doctor say 8 , Andy says 4. ? Any >help in starting this would be appreciated . I really have been over this >for a long time , but I just need to make sure I am doing it right . trying >to ease my mind . thanks kelly Hi , Regarding the 4 vs 8 hour thing, the issue is that with 8 hours the bloodstream will have much more stop/start/stop/start effect. (4 hrs is based on how long the DMSA stays active in the blood. I don't know the details on that.) On 8 hours, what happens is the DMSA is there, then it is not, then it is, then it is not. For some people this seems to not cause noticable problems, where for other people it does cause noticable problems (and then there is always the possiblility of UNnoticed problems). On 4 hours, the effect is more constant: the DMSA is there all the time, until you stop that " round " . Andy's view, at least as I understand it, is to be " conservative " and choose the path that is KNOWN to be safe for everyone, even though it is less convienient (and even though not EVERYone will have noticable bad effects from the 8). I hope that helps you decide! Moria (myself: ALA only; 3 hours apart; varying between 3/4 and 3/11) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2001 Report Share Posted January 21, 2001 We've had to go to the 4-hour dosing too, now that we have added the ALA into the mix. Kenny had FANTASTIC results in Phase I with the 8-hour dosing using the slow-release formula of DMSA. He did MUCH better on than off chelation. We are only on cycle two of DMSA/ALA, but this weekend has been an improvement over the last weekend we chelated, and we are at a higher dose this time. Our compounding pharmacist did some checking into this as well, and recommended that we go with the 4-hour cycle based on the ALA half life. I am going to experiment with giving Kenny a day or two of straight DMSA after we stop the DMSA/ALA to see if it will help with the behavior problems we had during the off cycle last time. (We saw a return of behaviors that had disappeared during Phase I.) I'll let you know the results in a couple of days.... (Cary, NC)persistentC@... [ ] 4 vs 8 wrote (in part:)> Another thing is 4 or 8 eight >hour dosing . I don't know what to do. doctor say 8 , Andy says 4. ?Any >help in starting this would be appreciated . I really have been over this >for a long time , but I just need to make sure I am doing it right .trying >to ease my mind . thanks kelly Hi ,Regarding the 4 vs 8 hour thing, the issue is that with 8 hoursthe bloodstream will have much more stop/start/stop/start effect.(4 hrs is based on how long the DMSA stays active in the blood.I don't know the details on that.) On 8 hours, what happens isthe DMSA is there, then it is not, then it is, then it is not.For some people this seems to not cause noticable problems, wherefor other people it does cause noticable problems (and then thereis always the possiblility of UNnoticed problems). On 4 hours, the effect is more constant: the DMSA is there allthe time, until you stop that "round".Andy's view, at least as I understand it, is to be "conservative"and choose the path that is KNOWN to be safe for everyone, eventhough it is less convienient (and even though not EVERYone willhave noticable bad effects from the 8).I hope that helps you decide!Moria (myself: ALA only; 3 hours apart; varying between 3/4 and 3/11) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2001 Report Share Posted July 11, 2001 --- In @y..., " J. Greenberg " <greenvil@b...> wrote: > For whatever it's worth, > Andy is not the only advocate for 4hr dosing over 8 hr. I consulted with > another doctor who felt strongly in favor of every 4 as well. I'm not > saying that I have a strong opinion about this (though we dose every 4), > only that Andy is not alone in his recommendations. > Marisol BLAH BLAH BLAH.... I think Andy is wonderful, and I USE THE 8 HOUR PROTOCOL!! OH MY!! That means that every time he insists on someone using the 4 hour protocol, I'm gonna get all upset.... NOT Seems like there is always someone ready to get upset because someone thinks differently. I also think there is always someone ready to jump on that wagon and make the aurgument last longer than it should. Andy is full of helpful information, and I appreciate him for that. I don't have to agree, or think he's right about everything he says. I have a mind of my own and I don't base my discisions on one man's advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2001 Report Share Posted July 17, 2001 Hi all, I am a few hundred messages behind so I hope this hasn't been beaten to death and I don't want to appear to be offensive to you, Kaye, but strictly scientifically and from a very traditional medical standpoint the 8 hour dosing with a drug with only a 4 hour life is a no-no. It may not do your child any harm to give this every 8 hours ( and in that your are fortunate ) but every time you dose him/her it is as if you are stopping and starting each time you do, instead of maintaining the push and pull of a constant blood level. 8 hours doesn't make sense at all. Some love it because it is simpler,and they say their child does just fine with it and is improving - but just think what this really means - that their child would do FABULOUSLY , getting even better results , if they were dosing every 4 . And my biggest concern is that they are wasting much time and good money using the drug improperly. Time is more important in this case. And furthermore you might even be able to use a smaller dose every 4 hours enabling the body to handle the oxidative stress larger doses may cause. It is simply not a matter of believing or not believing Andy, May Kaye. In this case it is a matter of common sense and the science of good medicine. Jeannie > > For whatever it's worth, > > Andy is not the only advocate for 4hr dosing over 8 hr. I consulted > with > > another doctor who felt strongly in favor of every 4 as well. I'm > not > > saying that I have a strong opinion about this (though we dose > every 4), > > only that Andy is not alone in his recommendations. > > Marisol > > BLAH BLAH BLAH.... I think Andy is wonderful, and I USE THE 8 HOUR > PROTOCOL!! OH MY!! That means that every time he insists on someone > using the 4 hour protocol, I'm gonna get all upset.... NOT > > Seems like there is always someone ready to get upset because someone > thinks differently. I also think there is always someone ready to > jump on that wagon and make the aurgument last longer than it should. > > Andy is full of helpful information, and I appreciate him for that. I > don't have to agree, or think he's right about everything he says. I > have a mind of my own and I don't base my discisions on one man's > advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2001 Report Share Posted July 17, 2001 Jeannie, Thanks so much for posting this, it is nice to hear another opinion on it. And also, this particular topic is never " beaten to death " . At least not so far--- it seems to always be under discussion, and always relevant. Given the inconvienience of doing the 4-hour thing at night, the topic never dies! Moria [who gets up at night] [doing chelation on mySELF: ALA only, 100 mg every 3 - 4 hours, mostly 3/4 or 3/11, with some major variations. On round 11.] At 02:48 PM 7/17/2001 -0000, you wrote: >Hi all, >I am a few hundred messages behind so I hope this hasn't been beaten >to death and I don't want to appear to be offensive to you, >Kaye, but strictly scientifically and from a very traditional medical >standpoint the 8 hour dosing with a drug with only a 4 hour life is a >no-no. > >It may not do your child any harm to give this every 8 hours ( and in >that your are fortunate ) but every time you dose him/her it is as if >you are stopping and starting each time you do, instead of >maintaining the push and pull of a constant blood level. > >8 hours doesn't make sense at all. Some love it because it is >simpler,and they say their child does just fine with it and is >improving - but just think what this really means - that their child >would do FABULOUSLY , getting even better results , if they were >dosing every 4 . And my biggest concern is that they are wasting >much time and good money using the drug improperly. Time is more >important in this case. > >And furthermore you might even be able to use a smaller dose every 4 >hours enabling the body to handle the oxidative stress larger doses >may cause. It is simply not a matter of believing or not believing >Andy, May Kaye. In this case it is a matter of common sense and the >science of good medicine. >Jeannie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2001 Report Share Posted July 17, 2001 I'll address this in parts.... > > > For whatever it's worth, > > > Andy is not the only advocate for 4hr dosing over 8 hr. I > consulted > > with > > > another doctor who felt strongly in favor of every 4 as well. I'm > > not > > > saying that I have a strong opinion about this (though we dose > > every 4), > > > only that Andy is not alone in his recommendations. > > > Marisol > > > > BLAH BLAH BLAH.... I think Andy is wonderful, and I USE THE 8 HOUR > > PROTOCOL!! OH MY!! That means that every time he insists on someone > > using the 4 hour protocol, I'm gonna get all upset.... NOT > > > > Seems like there is always someone ready to get upset because > someone > > thinks differently. I also think there is always someone ready to > > jump on that wagon and make the aurgument last longer than it > should. > > > > Andy is full of helpful information, and I appreciate him for that. > I > > don't have to agree, or think he's right about everything he says. > I > > have a mind of my own and I don't base my discisions on one man's > > advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2001 Report Share Posted July 17, 2001 I do plan on testing this after some time on the 8 > hour dosing. I figure if this is true, and I do see better results > when I change to the 4 hour dosing, not only will it help Logan, but > it may be enough proof to change some of the opposing views that I'm > getting from others. In order to do this, though, I am staying on the > 8 hour dose for 5 rounds (we are on the 5th round now) to see the > results before changing to the 4 hour dosing. After 5 rounds of the 4 > hour dosing, I plan on making my observations as to which seemed more > effective. > Unless you have identical twins with identical exposures, there is no way to do a good test of 8 hour vs. 4 hour. We chelated our son from last summer to the end of the year, on 8 hour or three times a day. Then we switched to 4 hours, and he did better, enough better to convince us. BUT who is to say, maybe we were pulling out arsenic (which we know we were) and other metals at first, and he did better this year not because of the change in dosing like we think, but because after so many months of chelation, we were finally pulling out mercury. My point is, you really can't come up with a convincing proof for someone who doesn't want to be convinced. Just worry about convincing yourself, or doing what is safest. I would opt for the four hour, because it should be the safer protocol, and in my opinion, it is also more effective. Lorilyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 17, 2001 Report Share Posted July 17, 2001 > > > I do plan on testing this after some time on the 8 > > hour dosing. I figure if this is true, and I do see better results > > when I change to the 4 hour dosing, not only will it help Logan, but > > it may be enough proof to change some of the opposing views that I'm > > getting from others. In order to do this, though, I am staying on the > > 8 hour dose for 5 rounds (we are on the 5th round now) to see the > > results before changing to the 4 hour dosing. After 5 rounds of the 4 > > hour dosing, I plan on making my observations as to which seemed more > > effective. > > > > Unless you have identical twins with identical exposures, there is >no way to do a good test of 8 hour vs. 4 hour. Maybe not a scientific one, because of other possible factors, but a good enough one for me to determine which dose I prefer. > We chelated our son from last summer to the end of the year, on 8 >hour or three times a day. Then we switched to 4 hours, and he did >better, enough better to convince us. BUT who is to say, maybe we >were pulling out arsenic (which we know we were) and other metals at >first, and he did better this year not because of the change in >dosing like we think, but because after so many months of chelation, >we were finally pulling out mercury. My point is, you really can't >come up with a convincing proof for someone who doesn't want to be >convinced. I'm not too worried about convincing others. I am more concerned with getting the best results for my child. But if I have tried both dosing schedules and find one that works best, I can then lay to rest debates like this one. I can say that I have tried both and this one worked best for me... period. I cross my fingers that Andy IS right about the 4 hour dosing doing a better job. That would be wonderful to see even MORE improvements then I am now!! But, like I said in my previous posts about this, I'm not going to take anyone's word for anything until I see facts to support it, or I substantiate it myself. >Just worry about convincing yourself, or doing what is safest. I >would opt for the four hour, because it should be the safer >protocol, and in my opinion, it is also more effective. > Lorilyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2001 Report Share Posted July 18, 2001 Okay, this is the best I can do to describe constant blood levels. When you use a pump to flush/pump water out of a waterbed for example, you want to get all the water out by creating a constant flow i.e. keeping the flow going smoothly without stopping. You can still get all the water out if you pump and then stop and then pump and then stop, but which is faster and which one allows you to see results without constantly having to prime the pump ? Does that make better sense to you ? Jeannie In @y..., " Kaye " <Cozart3@h...> wrote: > --- In @y..., " Lorilyn Teasdale " <kteasda1@p...> wrote: > > > > > > I do plan on testing this after some time on the 8 > > > hour dosing. I figure if this is true, and I do see better results > > > when I change to the 4 hour dosing, not only will it help Logan, > but > > > it may be enough proof to change some of the opposing views that > I'm > > > getting from others. In order to do this, though, I am staying on > the > > > 8 hour dose for 5 rounds (we are on the 5th round now) to see the > > > results before changing to the 4 hour dosing. After 5 rounds of > the 4 > > > hour dosing, I plan on making my observations as to which seemed > more > > > effective. > > > > > > > Unless you have identical twins with identical exposures, there is > >no way to do a good test of 8 hour vs. 4 hour. > > Maybe not a scientific one, because of other possible factors, but a > good enough one for me to determine which dose I prefer. > > > We chelated our son from last summer to the end of the year, on 8 > >hour or three times a day. Then we switched to 4 hours, and he did > >better, enough better to convince us. BUT who is to say, maybe we > >were pulling out arsenic (which we know we were) and other metals at > >first, and he did better this year not because of the change in > >dosing like we think, but because after so many months of chelation, > >we were finally pulling out mercury. My point is, you really can't > >come up with a convincing proof for someone who doesn't want to be > >convinced. > > I'm not too worried about convincing others. I am more concerned with > getting the best results for my child. But if I have tried both > dosing schedules and find one that works best, I can then lay to rest > debates like this one. I can say that I have tried both and this one > worked best for me... period. I cross my fingers that Andy IS right > about the 4 hour dosing doing a better job. That would be wonderful > to see even MORE improvements then I am now!! But, like I said in my > previous posts about this, I'm not going to take anyone's word for > anything until I see facts to support it, or I substantiate it myself. > > >Just worry about convincing yourself, or doing what is safest. I > >would opt for the four hour, because it should be the safer > >protocol, and in my opinion, it is also more effective. > > Lorilyn 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.