very OT: GF/CF, chelation, and choice in medicine (was Re: Re: Moria, Thanks for the valuable information

[Guest guest]

<<Jaquelyn said, in part: >>

>: I want to reinforce what you posted. I won't

>start chelation on a child that isn't on the GF/CF

>diet. Why bother trying to take out poisons while

>you're regularly putting them in in the food they

>eat?

Dear Jaquelyn,

Well, a couple of reasons would be:

1. gluetin and casein MAY become " non-poison " once the

mercury is detoxed (or may become a lot less " poison " )

2. mercury is a whole lot more poisonous than gluetin

and casein, at least in my book!

3. less poison is less poison, even if you consider them

both " equal " (which I do not)

It may be a reasonable thing for you to do to

specialize in a very specific way, but I would not

choose you as a doctor. I hope that you are helpful

to those who choose other treatment paths and can

refer folks to other appropriate practitioners.

While I don't think that you should have to broaden

your scope to treat everyone, likewise, I don't think

people should have to do it your way. If there are

a reasonable number of other choices, then they can

pick what's comfortable for them. Unfortunatly,

the number of " choices " for doctors who want to

supervise and direct chelation is rather limited.

Your comment leaves me wondering if you feel highly

critical of people who choose this " poison " . You can

inform me about this if you wish.

Here is my point-of-view: Given

the choice of supporting personal choice or supporting

practices that are " unhealthy " , I tend to choose

the former. I also see most EVERYTHING as having

some downside-- I often use " jogging " as an example

of a practice with unhealthy results (as well as

healthy results, of course). Can be quite hazardous for

some people. Some continue to do it anyway, even when

it has significant risk for them, personally, such

as repeated knee injuries.

I'm also a member of an organization called the Harm

Reduction Coalition. This is a philosphy of drug treatment

which says that reducing negative effects of drug use is

a useful strategy, and is worthwhile and legitimate. And

that people can make good and beneficial choices while

" addicted " to drugs, and should be supported in doing so.

My acupunturist (who sees eye-to-eye with me on such

things) tells me that some people find it odd that

she treats cigarette smokers by working to improve

the condition of their lungs (rather than insisting that

they stop smoking). I would happily recommend that

alcoholics take milk thistle (and have mentioned same

on this list)-- and liver cleanses would be a good idea.

Yes, drinking large amounts of alcohol has some pretty

bad effects-- but people are not about to stop doing it

(because of the good effects it has-- makes them feel

MUCH better). Much of my point in choosing alcohol and

jogging is that they are both very psycologically loaded

issues. If I pick making kids take psych drugs, or

mandatory vaccines, then it would be loaded a different

direction. I'm quite attached to being able to decide

for myself about all of these, regardless of what sort

of slant anyone has on them as practices.

I would add that very few people are willing to eat

" the ideal diet " -- whatever they may think that is.

I'm not, although I do seem to get closer to it at times.

You would clearly consider my diet very toxic, since it

includes sugar, casein and glutin.

Moria

[Guest guest]

Moria: I did not mean to imply I think gluten and

casein or even sugar in moderate amounts are poison

in general, but I do feel they are poison to children

with autism. Once they are responding to chelation,

I agree that some of them can gradually start to

resume eating those foods without apparent harm. I

do refer a lot of people to other practitioners; I

have just found the work to go better for me with the

children whose parents are willing to eliminate wheat

and casein until we get them pretty far along in

their healing. I also agree with you that mercury is

much more poison than casein and gluten and is very

likely the reason the kids get a leaky gut in the

first place and can't tolerate those foods. Most

adults with mercury poisoning don't seem to have the

leaky gut problem the way the kids do in my

experience. Didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings.

Jaquelyn

--- Original Message ---

From: Moria Merriweather <moriam@...>

Subject: very OT: GF/CF, chelation, and choice in

medicine (was Re: [ ] Re: Moria, Thanks

for the valuable information

><<Jaquelyn said, in part: >>

>>: I want to reinforce what you posted. I

won't

>>start chelation on a child that isn't on the GF/CF

>>diet. Why bother trying to take out poisons while

>>you're regularly putting them in in the food they

>>eat?

>

>Dear Jaquelyn,

>

>Well, a couple of reasons would be:

>1. gluetin and casein MAY become " non-poison " once

the

>mercury is detoxed (or may become a lot

less " poison " )

>2. mercury is a whole lot more poisonous than gluetin

>and casein, at least in my book!

>3. less poison is less poison, even if you consider

them

>both " equal " (which I do not)

>

>It may be a reasonable thing for you to do to

>specialize in a very specific way, but I would not

>choose you as a doctor. I hope that you are helpful

>to those who choose other treatment paths and can

>refer folks to other appropriate practitioners.

>

>While I don't think that you should have to broaden

>your scope to treat everyone, likewise, I don't think

>people should have to do it your way. If there are

>a reasonable number of other choices, then they can

>pick what's comfortable for them. Unfortunatly,

>the number of " choices " for doctors who want to

>supervise and direct chelation is rather limited.

>

>Your comment leaves me wondering if you feel highly

>critical of people who choose this " poison " . You can

>inform me about this if you wish.

>

>Here is my point-of-view: Given

>the choice of supporting personal choice or

supporting

>practices that are " unhealthy " , I tend to choose

>the former. I also see most EVERYTHING as having

>some downside-- I often use " jogging " as an example

>of a practice with unhealthy results (as well as

>healthy results, of course). Can be quite hazardous

for

>some people. Some continue to do it anyway, even when

>it has significant risk for them, personally, such

>as repeated knee injuries.

>

>I'm also a member of an organization called the Harm

>Reduction Coalition. This is a philosphy of drug

treatment

>which says that reducing negative effects of drug

use is

>a useful strategy, and is worthwhile and

legitimate. And

>that people can make good and beneficial choices

while

> " addicted " to drugs, and should be supported in

doing so.

>My acupunturist (who sees eye-to-eye with me on such

>things) tells me that some people find it odd that

>she treats cigarette smokers by working to improve

>the condition of their lungs (rather than insisting

that

>they stop smoking). I would happily recommend that

>alcoholics take milk thistle (and have mentioned same

>on this list)-- and liver cleanses would be a good

idea.

>Yes, drinking large amounts of alcohol has some

pretty

>bad effects-- but people are not about to stop doing

it

>(because of the good effects it has-- makes them feel

>MUCH better). Much of my point in choosing alcohol

and

>jogging is that they are both very psycologically

loaded

>issues. If I pick making kids take psych drugs, or

>mandatory vaccines, then it would be loaded a

different

>direction. I'm quite attached to being able to

decide

>for myself about all of these, regardless of what

sort

>of slant anyone has on them as practices.

>

>I would add that very few people are willing to eat

> " the ideal diet " -- whatever they may think that is.

>I'm not, although I do seem to get closer to it at

times.

>You would clearly consider my diet very toxic, since

it

>includes sugar, casein and glutin.

>

>Moria

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Moria,

I find your reply quite surprising here... . It sounds like you feel threatened

by the diet. Maybe I misunderstand. And I dont think you have autism.....maybe

you dont know what gluten and casein do to a child with autism that needs to be

on this diet. They aARE poison and very deleterious to the continued

development of the child's brain as most of our childrens brains are young

enough that they are not done developing. I dont think anyone was comparing the

poisonous level of mercury and gluten and casein and saying one was more

important to the other. I would also like to add that Dr holmes has stated that

she feels that as of yet, she is not sure that successfully chelated children

can go back to consuming G and C yet. I am hoping and praying that they

eventually can but many of our children did not have an opportunity for strong,

normal development before their bodies were harmed in some very serious ways--

which I think makes comparing the mercury poisoned adult to the mercury poisoned

infant a very precarious issue. Maybe you cant compare them. Maybe you as an

adult, are now lacking enzymes and have a leaky gut etc but luckily you already

have your language and social skills and motor development. Maybe they have

been impinged upon and made foggy but your basics had the chance to develop. We

are still trying to lift the fog and the damage so many of our children have

that chance to develop these skills.

I dont think we feel anyone should do it our way or that there is only one

way....but what if you knew one of your friends was suffering dearly from

mercury toxicity?? Would you encourage them to chelate even though they thought

it would be difficult or would you throw up your hands and say " well thats too

bad, good luck " ? When you find something that has a chance to improve their

well-being, that helps these incredible and precious children to learn and

function at a higher level, it is hard to not encourage it.

So adults, drink, smoke, binge, but these children are another story--what we do

for them might be different for what we do for ourselves and it just might be a

very important factor in their recovery. I have seen one common factor amongst

those people who feel their children chelated and recovered...they did the diet

for a couple of years. Maybe for some children, SOME, they do go hand in hand.

My best to each of us who are just trying to get ourselves or are children

healthy,

very OT: GF/CF, chelation, and choice in medicine (was Re:

[ ] Re: Moria, Thanks for the valuable information

<<Jaquelyn said, in part: >>

>: I want to reinforce what you posted. I won't

>start chelation on a child that isn't on the GF/CF

>diet. Why bother trying to take out poisons while

>you're regularly putting them in in the food they

>eat?

Dear Jaquelyn,

Well, a couple of reasons would be:

1. gluetin and casein MAY become " non-poison " once the

mercury is detoxed (or may become a lot less " poison " )

2. mercury is a whole lot more poisonous than gluetin

and casein, at least in my book!

3. less poison is less poison, even if you consider them

both " equal " (which I do not)

It may be a reasonable thing for you to do to

specialize in a very specific way, but I would not

choose you as a doctor. I hope that you are helpful

to those who choose other treatment paths and can

refer folks to other appropriate practitioners.

While I don't think that you should have to broaden

your scope to treat everyone, likewise, I don't think

people should have to do it your way. If there are

a reasonable number of other choices, then they can

pick what's comfortable for them. Unfortunatly,

the number of " choices " for doctors who want to

supervise and direct chelation is rather limited.

Your comment leaves me wondering if you feel highly

critical of people who choose this " poison " . You can

inform me about this if you wish.

Here is my point-of-view: Given

the choice of supporting personal choice or supporting

practices that are " unhealthy " , I tend to choose

the former. I also see most EVERYTHING as having

some downside-- I often use " jogging " as an example

of a practice with unhealthy results (as well as

healthy results, of course). Can be quite hazardous for

some people. Some continue to do it anyway, even when

it has significant risk for them, personally, such

as repeated knee injuries.

I'm also a member of an organization called the Harm

Reduction Coalition. This is a philosphy of drug treatment

which says that reducing negative effects of drug use is

a useful strategy, and is worthwhile and legitimate. And

that people can make good and beneficial choices while

" addicted " to drugs, and should be supported in doing so.

My acupunturist (who sees eye-to-eye with me on such

things) tells me that some people find it odd that

she treats cigarette smokers by working to improve

the condition of their lungs (rather than insisting that

they stop smoking). I would happily recommend that

alcoholics take milk thistle (and have mentioned same

on this list)-- and liver cleanses would be a good idea.

Yes, drinking large amounts of alcohol has some pretty

bad effects-- but people are not about to stop doing it

(because of the good effects it has-- makes them feel

MUCH better). Much of my point in choosing alcohol and

jogging is that they are both very psycologically loaded

issues. If I pick making kids take psych drugs, or

mandatory vaccines, then it would be loaded a different

direction. I'm quite attached to being able to decide

for myself about all of these, regardless of what sort

of slant anyone has on them as practices.

I would add that very few people are willing to eat

" the ideal diet " -- whatever they may think that is.

I'm not, although I do seem to get closer to it at times.

You would clearly consider my diet very toxic, since it

includes sugar, casein and glutin.

Moria

[Guest guest]

Hi Tracey,

I'll respond to the parts of your note that I think will get the

most mileage for us here, and hope I can skip some of the parts

that seem to me really unrelated:

>It sounds like you feel threatened by the diet. Maybe I misunderstand.

If I'm threatened by GF/CF, it is entirely subconcious.

What I was responding to was:

1. Jaqueline's statement that she REQUIRES that kids be GF/CF prior

to chelation-- (which I think could be pretty problematic for a lot

of people). I have an issue with doctors who require stuff--

although the nature of this issue does vary depending upon how

the doctor presents their practice and their requirements.

(I don't have an issue with ANY requirement in EVERY condition.)

This includes that I do not want to be REQUIRED to take Rx

drugs, have diagnostic tests done on me, etc. I want control

over my body, and am pretty adamant about it. Some of the

other stuff I said dealt with the conditions that make

REQUIREMENTS more or less problematic. (Jaqueline's followup

message makes it seem that she is presenting her requirements

in a pretty benign way, IMO, from what I can tell.)

2. her use of the word " poison " to describe G & C -- which

it may or may not be. (her followup also makes it clear that

she thinks it may or may not be.)

3. her (apparently rhetorical) question as to what the point is

of chelating when other poisons are being eaten. I sent a

(straight) answer to this question (even though I thought it

was a rhetorical one) pointing out what I believe are some

really good reasons to chelate while ingesting other poisons.

I'd be pleased as punch if this were to result in some

dialog on the subject. I think this is a

VERY interesting topic: If you don't do EVERYTHING right

does it matter what you do? This is quite an important

topic to me--- very relavant to all kinds of things.

Like if you aren't GF/CF is there any point to chelate?

Or, if you drink, do you have to stop to improve your

health? Or exercise, saving money, saving the world, evaluating

potential options, diets, the meaning of " good " and " evil " ,

when are actions " useless " , and on and on.

Or the examples I brought up, about drug use,

or alcohol, for example-- which are examples somewhat

more relevant to illness/medicine. It is also a decent

logic issue, IMO worthy of thought. I think it also may

relate to other logic issues that I can't articulate

at the moment.

There is also a sort of a topic involving #1 and #3 together--

which is: when would a doctor REQUIRE one thing in order to

do another? and why? why would my acupunturist not REQUIRE

a patient to stop smoking prior to treating them for lung

problems? why would the drug policies of this country not

encourage drug-users to IMPROVE their health by using drugs

more safely, instead requiring that they must stop using

drugs? How does seeing an action as inherently health-promoting

(jogging) or health-destroying (drinking a lot) limit our

options and our clarity? Now there is a topic.

>I dont think anyone was comparing the poisonous level of mercury and

gluten and casein and saying one was more important to the other.

Jaqueline was saying (I think) that there is no point (or little point)

in chelating kids who are eating G & C. To me, if I am to consider

WHAT GOOD IS CHELATING WHILE EATING G & C, then I have to consider the

RELATIVE merits or

drawbacks of eating G & C and mercury chelation. That is,

I have to make COMPARISONS-- various ones, including the

relative poisonousness of these. Perhaps that is not

EXACTLY the same as whether " one is more important to the other " ,

but it is certainly in the neighborhood. If you take

Jaquline's question (the one that I think was rhetorical)

and consider it, can you do so without COMPARING

G & C vs. mercury, even if indirectly? I cannot.

I'd have to think hard to explain the path my thinking

takes and why this comparison is in that path. Let me

know if you want me to try....

>I dont think we feel anyone should do it our way or that there is only one

way....

1. who is the " we " and " our " in this sentence? Please explain this.

2. if you will go back and reread 's post (the one

I was responding to, not the one after that) you will see

that what she says is that she will not do chelation with

kids who are not GF/CF. That's what I was referring to in

my statement " I don't think people should have to do it your

way. " If you are referring to anything else I've said,

please explain.

> When you find something that has a chance to improve their well-being,

that helps these incredible and precious children to learn and function at

a higher level, it is hard to not encourage it.

What did I say that gives you the idea that I am against

encouraging the well-being of precious children?

>So adults, drink, smoke, binge, but these children are another story--what

we do for them might be different for what we do for ourselves and it just

might be a very important factor in their recovery.

I don't think anyone is another story. I think what we do matters

in our recovery or illness or health, for EVERYONE. I wasn't saying

these actions are unimportant for adults. It is pretty hard for

me to really respond here, since I think you are responding to

an idea that I don't know about/didn't say/don't have. So --um--

it is hard to " argue " -- I'm more just-- lost? I may have only

muddled it more. Tell me what you think I said, and then I'll

try to respond

Finally, (this is a JOKE): you say you think I've learned

to communicate -- I'd say that is darned questionable -- what

I'm saying does not seem to be coming through very well!

I will respond to the issue of poisoned adults vs. kids tomorrow.

Moria

[Guest guest]

Moria Merriweather wrote:

> Hi Tracey,

>

> I'll respond to the parts of your note that I think will get the

> most mileage for us here, and hope I can skip some of the parts

> that seem to me really unrelated:

>

> >It sounds like you feel threatened by the diet. Maybe I

> misunderstand.

>

Wow you two are really going.

Im not so sure that with some kids that even if chelated and relieved of

the mercury burden that all their gut bug problems would be solved. Some

of the burden may also be related to virii problems from the mmr.

[Guest guest]

Moria,

Thanks for the conversation...I did get it. And please, dont misunderstand

me and think I was even remotely referring to you helping or not helping

" precious children " , as that thought would never cross my mind about you Moria.

I have seen you work your ass off to help many precious children here including

my own and I truly appreciate that. I do see that we are talking about some

separate issues entirely but I enjoyed talking , as sometimes this feels like

writing into space. It is hard when we, you and I , have had some " bad "

experiences with the medical community (i am presuming here a bit) to trust them

at all or to hear you " have to " do anything. If anything , this experience

makes us a little more along the line of " kick ass girls " ....atleast speaking

for myself. LOL !! I just hope people realized that for many children, GFCF is

an important part of the puzzle in healing their little bodies , that was the

only point I was attempting to make. Anyway, thank you for all that you have

done for my understanding and peace of mind in this process of healing my son

and thank you for sharing your thoughts, whether or not any of us see completely

eye to eye all the time, it is good to think all of this out together. Have a

good night.

P.S. Sorry for the couple of " bad " words guys but sometimes they just apply

Re: very OT: GF/CF, chelation, and choice in medicine (was Re:

[ ] Re: Moria, Thanks for the valuable information

Hi Tracey,

I'll respond to the parts of your note that I think will get the

most mileage for us here, and hope I can skip some of the parts

that seem to me really unrelated:

>It sounds like you feel threatened by the diet. Maybe I misunderstand.

If I'm threatened by GF/CF, it is entirely subconcious.

What I was responding to was:

1. Jaqueline's statement that she REQUIRES that kids be GF/CF prior

to chelation-- (which I think could be pretty problematic for a lot

of people). I have an issue with doctors who require stuff--

although the nature of this issue does vary depending upon how

the doctor presents their practice and their requirements.

(I don't have an issue with ANY requirement in EVERY condition.)

This includes that I do not want to be REQUIRED to take Rx

drugs, have diagnostic tests done on me, etc. I want control

over my body, and am pretty adamant about it. Some of the

other stuff I said dealt with the conditions that make

REQUIREMENTS more or less problematic. (Jaqueline's followup

message makes it seem that she is presenting her requirements

in a pretty benign way, IMO, from what I can tell.)

2. her use of the word " poison " to describe G & C -- which

it may or may not be. (her followup also makes it clear that

she thinks it may or may not be.)

3. her (apparently rhetorical) question as to what the point is

of chelating when other poisons are being eaten. I sent a

(straight) answer to this question (even though I thought it

was a rhetorical one) pointing out what I believe are some

really good reasons to chelate while ingesting other poisons.

I'd be pleased as punch if this were to result in some

dialog on the subject. I think this is a

VERY interesting topic: If you don't do EVERYTHING right

does it matter what you do? This is quite an important

topic to me--- very relavant to all kinds of things.

Like if you aren't GF/CF is there any point to chelate?

Or, if you drink, do you have to stop to improve your

health? Or exercise, saving money, saving the world, evaluating

potential options, diets, the meaning of " good " and " evil " ,

when are actions " useless " , and on and on.

Or the examples I brought up, about drug use,

or alcohol, for example-- which are examples somewhat

more relevant to illness/medicine. It is also a decent

logic issue, IMO worthy of thought. I think it also may

relate to other logic issues that I can't articulate

at the moment.

There is also a sort of a topic involving #1 and #3 together--

which is: when would a doctor REQUIRE one thing in order to

do another? and why? why would my acupunturist not REQUIRE

a patient to stop smoking prior to treating them for lung

problems? why would the drug policies of this country not

encourage drug-users to IMPROVE their health by using drugs

more safely, instead requiring that they must stop using

drugs? How does seeing an action as inherently health-promoting

(jogging) or health-destroying (drinking a lot) limit our

options and our clarity? Now there is a topic.

>I dont think anyone was comparing the poisonous level of mercury and

gluten and casein and saying one was more important to the other.

Jaqueline was saying (I think) that there is no point (or little point)

in chelating kids who are eating G & C. To me, if I am to consider

WHAT GOOD IS CHELATING WHILE EATING G & C, then I have to consider the

RELATIVE merits or

drawbacks of eating G & C and mercury chelation. That is,

I have to make COMPARISONS-- various ones, including the

relative poisonousness of these. Perhaps that is not

EXACTLY the same as whether " one is more important to the other " ,

but it is certainly in the neighborhood. If you take

Jaquline's question (the one that I think was rhetorical)

and consider it, can you do so without COMPARING

G & C vs. mercury, even if indirectly? I cannot.

I'd have to think hard to explain the path my thinking

takes and why this comparison is in that path. Let me

know if you want me to try....

>I dont think we feel anyone should do it our way or that there is only one

way....

1. who is the " we " and " our " in this sentence? Please explain this.

2. if you will go back and reread 's post (the one

I was responding to, not the one after that) you will see

that what she says is that she will not do chelation with

kids who are not GF/CF. That's what I was referring to in

my statement " I don't think people should have to do it your

way. " If you are referring to anything else I've said,

please explain.

> When you find something that has a chance to improve their well-being,

that helps these incredible and precious children to learn and function at

a higher level, it is hard to not encourage it.

What did I say that gives you the idea that I am against

encouraging the well-being of precious children?

>So adults, drink, smoke, binge, but these children are another story--what

we do for them might be different for what we do for ourselves and it just

might be a very important factor in their recovery.

I don't think anyone is another story. I think what we do matters

in our recovery or illness or health, for EVERYONE. I wasn't saying

these actions are unimportant for adults. It is pretty hard for

me to really respond here, since I think you are responding to

an idea that I don't know about/didn't say/don't have. So --um--

it is hard to " argue " -- I'm more just-- lost? I may have only

muddled it more. Tell me what you think I said, and then I'll

try to respond

Finally, (this is a JOKE): you say you think I've learned

to communicate -- I'd say that is darned questionable -- what

I'm saying does not seem to be coming through very well!

I will respond to the issue of poisoned adults vs. kids tomorrow.

Moria