Re: Advice in Portland, Oregon area

[Guest guest]

> I'll just ask this point-blank. There are two local DAN! docs (one

is

> an MD and one is an ND) in the Portland, OR area both of whom get

high

> praise from everyone I've spoken with.

From what you say it is really easy to guess who they are, too. I

have met the MD and he is a very nice guy.

>I've also spoken with both and

> they are knowledgeable and generous with their time when I have

> questions about chelation. If you are in the Portland, OR area, I'm

> sure you know who I'm talking about, so I won't specifically mention

names.

>

> I would like to get advise from anyone who has taken their kids to

> either of these docs for chelation and how their experience went.

For

> that matter, any advice on anything folks in the Portland, OR area

have

> done with regards to chelation would be greatly appreciated.

>

> We went to an initial visit with the MD and he is recommending a

> challenge test with DMPS/Glutiathone IV

The fact that the doc doing it is a really great guy doesn't make this

any less nuts. . .. . . . . . . . .

> because the overall dose is much

> lower than for the oral test (oral test would be 250mg which I know

Andy

> Cutler has said is risky.)

The IV even at the lower dose is incredibly more dangerous.

See www.dmpsbackfire.com for horror stories. About 1 person in 6 goes

through that if they do DMPS injections.

> He also ordered hair, stool, and urine

> (metabolix) tests to determine the health of the GI tract. The

method

> of chelation (could be DMPS, DMSA, ALA, verious doses, etc...) will

be

> decided after these tests are done. For what it's worth, he has

> chelated many adults and older children over the years and those

> patients generally reported less problems when treated with DMPS

than

> with DMSA.

A bad sign given the 17% adverse reaction rate to DMPS. He must have

been using DMSA every other day which will make about half the people

who do it have weak legs and go crazy if they stick with it long

enough.

>

> The ND would perform the same tests, but would do the DMSA challenge

> first (I think she said 40mg oral). I think she would probably

stick to

> the DAN! protocol of DMSA/ALA.

I think the challenge test is totally worthless, but they may have

reasons (like persecutory licensing boards) to do it anyway. Why not

ask them if it would be OK to simply collect a timed urine cycle

during a chelation round and just do a first chelation round and

collect the pee for a while? That would be a lot safer than any other

challenge protocol and also would let you see if he responded

positively as well as giving you lab results.

Andy . . . . .. . . . . .

>

> Whoever we go with, we will probably insist on the

> low-dose/high-frequency technique Andy recommends simply because it

> sounds like it has all advantages except for the inconveniece of

> frequent doses (pretty minor in my book).

[Guest guest]

> The IV even at the lower dose is incredibly more dangerous.

>

> See www.dmpsbackfire.com for horror stories. About 1 person in 6 goes

> through that if they do DMPS injections.

I get it, so the thing you REALLY hate is the DMPS IV. I understand

why, say, 80mg every 8 hours orally for 24 hours would be safer than IV.

But why would the 250mg oral be safer than IV? Does the DMPS go into

the blood more gradually when taken orally?

Thanks,

Bart

[Guest guest]

> > The IV even at the lower dose is incredibly more dangerous.

> >

> > See www.dmpsbackfire.com for horror stories. About 1 person in 6

goes

> > through that if they do DMPS injections.

>

> I get it, so the thing you REALLY hate is the DMPS IV.

I don't love it, hate it, or have any particular emotional

relationship with it. I simply know what the odds and outcomes are.

>I understand

> why, say, 80mg every 8 hours orally for 24 hours would be safer than

IV.

> But why would the 250mg oral be safer than IV? Does the DMPS go

into

> the blood more gradually when taken orally?

The two factors that are different between iv and oral administration

are that when given orally it takes about 2 hours to get into the

bloodstream while by iv administration it takes about 1 minute. Due

to this the peak plasma concentration on iv administration is

dramatically higher (during that 1 minute the DMPS doesn't get into

the rest of the body so it is all in the few liters of plasma

available, while on oral administration it slowly comes in over 2

hours and has time to disttribute throughout the body into a volume

that is about as many liters as the person weighs in pounds).

Also, oral absorption is 50-60%. So a 250 mg oral dose is equivalent

to a 125-150 mg iv. . . .. . .

>

> Thanks,

> Bart

You are welcome.

Andy . . .. . . . .