Guest guest Posted October 23, 2001 Report Share Posted October 23, 2001 >I just finished chelating my 4 year old (43 pounds) >50mg of DMSA (kirkman) every 4 hours for 60 hours this >weekend. So far so good. Do I do 3 days on and 4 >days off or 3 days on and 11 days off? Also when do I >start ALA? Thanks. > >===== >Always > >Ana Brushingham Dear Ana, Some things Andy has adamant/clear/defined answers for. Other things are fuzzier. Both of the things you just asked I'd put in the " fuzzier " group. 3/4 verses 3/11 is pretty fuzzy. 3/11 gives your child a longer " rest period " , and takes longer (since you wait longer for next " on " period). If you have real concerns about your child's liver or kidneys or the like, you may want 3/11. If you observe some side effects that you think are seriously hard on your child, you may want 3/11 (as well as to reduce dose or other possible actions!) Most of us are pretty anxious to " get on with " this whole thing, which means there is usually a tendency toward 3/4. I'll tell you my personal method, just as a " filler " here (since there is not much else I can think of to say). I do a combination of 3/4 and 3/11. I usually start " on " periods on a Thursday or Friday. So, every week, about Tuesday or Wednesay, I decide whether to chelate that week. The default answer (if " all is well " is " yes " ). If I am pretty sleep deprived, or " coming down with something " or having some sort of big physical (or immune) challenge, then the answer is " no " . Some people might call this 3/4, since I DO chelate every week IF healthy and well rested. I also have sometimes skipped if I'm going to be travelling or attending an event where it would be really difficult to take a pill every 3 hours. So, I end up skipping (and doing 3/11) for various reasons. It is " mostly " 3/4, but with a real willingness to skip. When to start ALA is likewise a matter of some mixed opionions (although I think there is more substance to this than with 3/4 vs 4/11). One theory I've heard mentioned says don't use ALA within 3 months of mercury exposure, then (if > 3 months) it is okay. The DAN! theory says to do urine testing and to start ALA when mercury in urine is low or non-existant (I don't know the exact wording-- I'm trying to tell you the general idea). My understanding (which is also " fuzzy " ) is that if one takes/gives ALA and DOES in fact move mercury INTO the brain, the OVERALL mercury in the body is still being reduced (by the ALA), so, if one keeps doing this the mercury (moved to the brain) will ALSO be removed. I find this idea somewhat reassuring, since I started taking ALA (mySELF, not a kid) about 1 month after amalgam replacements (which " counts " as mercury exposure)-- I didn't know all this then (I probly knew SOME of it, and don't remember which parts I'd heard.) I beleive I also read something somewhere that had a suggestion to use DMSA alone for some set number of cycles, then add the ALA. I have a reasonable amount of faith that whatever you decide on (no doubt after much consideration) will work fine. Just my opinion/faith on the matter. Moria [doing chelation on mySELF-- ALA only, am on about round 22] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2001 Report Share Posted October 30, 2001 Ana, Our allergist adminsiters the shots without glycerine or phenols. He injected my daughter with each individually as a test and she had obvious negative reactions to them, so he just uses saline and charges me a couple of dollars more. K. | I found out what the allergy shots contain. They are | given sub Q and have buffered saline, phyenols and | glycerin plus what ever the food is :example corn etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2001 Report Share Posted October 30, 2001 Thats great but I need to go to your doctor (who is he?) because our guy will not change his mind about DMSA. Thanks --- The Kramer Family <nmkramer@...> wrote: > Ana, > > Our allergist adminsiters the shots without > glycerine or phenols. He injected my daughter with > each individually as a > test and she had obvious negative reactions to them, > so he just uses saline and charges me a couple of > dollars more. > > K. > > | I found out what the allergy shots contain. They > are > | given sub Q and have buffered saline, phyenols and > | glycerin plus what ever the food is :example corn > etc. > > > ===== Always Ana Brushingham __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2002 Report Share Posted May 21, 2002 --- ana brushingham <Brushingham@...> wrote: > Andy > > We just got back the results from Dr. Holmes office. > > My son's yeast is high on the urine test but on the > stool it is completely normal. She has him on > metranidazole for 18 days and Sporanox for 24 days. > I > am concerned that the stool test was normal. What > is > going on? Thanks > > Ana > I'm not Andy, but I'll relate what I learned from a similar test result. According to Pam at Great Plains Lab, it's not unusual to get a normal stool test because it is possible to miss catching evidence of yeast or other nasties as the stuff flows by them; sort of like measuring the amount of moss on a stone by sampling the river water that flows by it. I suppose if they found something it would be helpful, but not finding anything should not be interpreted as not having anything. Max __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2002 Report Share Posted May 23, 2002 > We just got back the results from Dr. Holmes office. > My son's yeast is high on the urine test but on the > stool it is completely normal. She has him on > metranidazole for 18 days and Sporanox for 24 days. I > am concerned that the stool test was normal. What is > going on? Most likely she used Great Plains labs which finds yeast metabolites in urine samples all the other labs don't find them in. The other labs urine tests show yeast when the stool test does and not otherwise. Andy . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . >Thanks > > Ana > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2002 Report Share Posted May 24, 2002 | > We just got back the results from Dr. Holmes office. | > My son's yeast is high on the urine test but on the | > stool it is completely normal. She has him on | > metranidazole for 18 days and Sporanox for 24 days. I | > am concerned that the stool test was normal. What is | > going on? | | Most likely she used Great Plains labs which finds yeast metabolites | in urine samples all the other labs don't find them in. The other | labs urine tests show yeast when the stool test does and not | otherwise. | | Andy . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . I disagree with what I assume your implication is, that if the stool doesn't show yeast there is none. -- From a May 8 post by Dr. J. McCandless -- " : Stool samples often miss yeast, particularly the colonies buried deep in the crypts (anerobes), so I mainly screen with the OAT and use stools for parasites and culture sensitivities. It's hard to think that an OAT wouldn't put out metabolites, however. It's a good question; I'll call Bill Shaw at Great Plains and see what he says about this. Jaquelyn " My daughter has never shown yeast on a stool test but is most definitely a Nystatin responder. The OAT showed yeast metabolites. My daughter reacted negatively to FOS, which I was told feeds the anerobes. K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2002 Report Share Posted May 24, 2002 --- The Kramer Family <nmkramer@...> wrote: > | > | Most likely she used Great Plains labs which finds > yeast metabolites > | in urine samples all the other labs don't find > them in. The other > | labs urine tests show yeast when the stool test > does and not > | otherwise. > | > | Andy . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . > > > I disagree with what I assume your implication is, > that if the stool doesn't show yeast there is none. > > ... That's not how I interpreted Andy's post. I read his post as saying that GPL foung metabolites when others do not (hence GPL is better?). The other labs find metabolites in urine if and only if the stool test shows evidence of yeast also (i.e. another lab would not produce a result with no yeast evidence in the stool but yes in the urine). Again, I interpreted that statement as a positive testimonial of GPL. So, Andy, how do we interpret your comments? Max Max __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2002 Report Share Posted May 24, 2002 > I disagree with what I assume your implication is, > that if the stool doesn't show yeast there is none. I am familar with the methodologies used by the different laboratories that offer the OAT, and with their well known and well understood reliability in all OTHER areas of chemistry. If the Metametrix or Great Smokies OAT shows evidence of yeast, despite a lack of such evidence in the stool test, I would suggest treating for yeast. If any other OAT shows evidence of yeast but the stool test does not, I would NOT suggest treating for yeast solely on that basis unless there are other clear indications that would independently lead you to treat for yeast even if you didn't have the OAT results. Any laboratory test can be wrong for a number of reasons. I am simply expressing my personal opinion based on the results I have seen from different types of tests as to what the most likely state of affairs is if you have conflicting test data. Andy . . .. . . . . . . . . . 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.