Re: 's (not Andy's) protocol

[Guest guest]

,

Have been following with interest your ideas on chelation vs non. Seems to

me, and of course this is just my uneducated opinion, that there must be a

good blend between Andy's protocol and your suggestions of creating an

optimal metal transport system, thus really maximizing everthing everyone is

trying to do on this list. I know you have mentioned selenite

selenium/selenium supplementation and others such as boron, zinc, magnesium,

boron, zinc picolinate. Other than the use of the chelators, DMSA/ALA, are

these not the same supplements that Andy suggests using with his protocol?

I'm just trying to understand if the only difference you have with Andy's

protocol is in the use of chelators per se, because, if I understand you

correctly, the redistributing of the mercury with chelators causes more harm

than good. Also, I believe you have stated you have not seen good benefits

with adults using chelators--do you know if they used the more conservative

Andy schedule or used the DAN or some other program?

Thanks for your feedback,

[Guest guest]

One thing I would like to see answered is why do those who advocate

using the supplements to enhance metal transport not think that these

supplements alone would cause the mercury to redistribute any less

than using DMSA AND those supplements?? I mean, is my question clear

here-- what I am saying is that if you have two kids one using the

selenium et. al protocol and one using DMSA AND all those

supplements, then why would the child using DMSA be at a higher risk

for metal redistribution dangers than the other child-- to me, it

seems like the child using the DMSA is going to have even less metal

redistribution than the other child because the DMSA is a chelator

and will help the body excrete it properly.

If anyone can answer this question, I'd appreciate it since this has

been something I have been wondering about for some time, but had

forgotten to ask till I saw momlaw's post.

W

> ,

>

> because, if I understand you

> correctly, the redistributing of the mercury with chelators causes

more harm > than good.

[Guest guest]

I need to clarify-- my first paragraph said the opposite of what I

wanted to say (because I typed in the word " not " and I didnt need

to), which is:

why do those who advocate using the supplements to enhance metal

transport think that using these supp's alone would cause the mercury

to redistribute any less than using DMSA AND those supp's in

combination?

W

[Guest guest]

its non selenite selenium, specifically .85mcg/lb selenomethionine

one day and same dose methyselenocysteine the next.

i think the difference with andy is he does not place so much weight

on selenium (tasmania and new zealand where i live are very short on

selenium........also is scotland, england and probably many parts of

the usa but some areas like south dekota are not.....just a btw do

you notice how few texans are on this board!)

also imo enzymes by restoring amino acid digestion do provide more

minerals in a balanced way

andy does not really hold with metalliothionine building which is a

zinc based protien for the sequestration of heavy metals, as far as i

can see from pfieffer zinc, selenium manganese are important here but

imo thier mt promotors are not that well balanced, indeed composite

formulas are trying to make a size that fits all and you are better

to use individual supplements......

zinc picolinate may only be of use for short term loading zinc into

the brain becuse it sems to have processing issues with vlcfa's which

make me migrainy at least......

my observation of chelating adults is inferential from the net, they

seem to have rigidty and other neural issues.......

i know adults who have used this so called protocol of mine both with

amalgams and with them removed and i know there is very substantial

mercury brain laoding so you can see what works.......

> ,

>

> Have been following with interest your ideas on chelation vs non.

Seems to

> me, and of course this is just my uneducated opinion, that there

must be a

> good blend between Andy's protocol and your suggestions of creating

an

> optimal metal transport system, thus really maximizing everthing

everyone is

> trying to do on this list. I know you have mentioned selenite

> selenium/selenium supplementation and others such as boron, zinc,

magnesium,

> boron, zinc picolinate. Other than the use of the chelators,

DMSA/ALA, are

> these not the same supplements that Andy suggests using with his

protocol?

>

> I'm just trying to understand if the only difference you have with

Andy's

> protocol is in the use of chelators per se, because, if I

understand you

> correctly, the redistributing of the mercury with chelators causes

more harm

> than good. Also, I believe you have stated you have not seen good

benefits

> with adults using chelators--do you know if they used the more

conservative

> Andy schedule or used the DAN or some other program?

>

> Thanks for your feedback,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> its non selenite selenium, specifically .85mcg/lb selenomethionine

> one day and same dose methyselenocysteine the next.

>

> i think the difference with andy is he does not place so much weight

> on selenium (tasmania and new zealand where i live are very short on

> selenium........also is scotland, england and probably many parts of

> the usa but some areas like south dekota are not.....just a btw do

> you notice how few texans are on this board!)

>

,

Do you happen to know how Minnesota, USA stacks up for selenium??

When our foodstuffs come from here, there, and everywhere (even

organics) does this matter so much?? Or is selenium more of a water

issue??

We have reverse osmosis water filtration, could that foul up selenium

supply?

Thanks,

Lissy

[Guest guest]

i think you pick it up in your beef if its there

interestingly i don't think i have ever seen a hair test on this

board with high selenium, probably the reference range is on the low

side of what the body can use optimally

a low cost way to find out is to simply buy some selenomethionine and

take it daily as per the .85mcg/lb and you should notice a general

improvement of more robustness, its difficult to quantify within

several days.

> > its non selenite selenium, specifically .85mcg/lb

selenomethionine

> > one day and same dose methyselenocysteine the next.

> >

> > i think the difference with andy is he does not place so much

weight

> > on selenium (tasmania and new zealand where i live are very short

on

> > selenium........also is scotland, england and probably many parts

of

> > the usa but some areas like south dekota are not.....just a btw

do

> > you notice how few texans are on this board!)

> >

>

> ,

>

> Do you happen to know how Minnesota, USA stacks up for selenium??

>

> When our foodstuffs come from here, there, and everywhere (even

> organics) does this matter so much?? Or is selenium more of a water

> issue??

>

> We have reverse osmosis water filtration, could that foul up

selenium

> supply?

>

> Thanks,

> Lissy

[Guest guest]

> ,

>

> Have been following with interest your ideas on chelation vs non.

Seems to

> me, and of course this is just my uneducated opinion, that there

must be a

> good blend between Andy's protocol and your suggestions of creating

an

> optimal metal transport system, thus really maximizing everthing

everyone is

> trying to do on this list. I know you have mentioned selenite

> selenium/selenium supplementation and others such as boron, zinc,

magnesium,

> boron, zinc picolinate. Other than the use of the chelators,

DMSA/ALA, are

> these not the same supplements that Andy suggests using with his

protocol?

either largely so, or completely so. Some may differ a little,

but you basically have the right idea.

> I'm just trying to understand if the only difference you have with

Andy's

> protocol is in the use of chelators per se, because, if I understand

you

> correctly, the redistributing of the mercury with chelators causes

more harm

> than good.

My understanding of what has said is that he believes

that chelation ITSELF is harmful (to adults). That is, the harm

is done WHEN the metals are REMOVED.

This differs from " redistribution " .

I believe he has also said this is speculative on his part.

I mention the difference because redistribution is discussed

quite a bit here, -- so it is good to make the distinction.

> Also, I believe you have stated you have not seen good

benefits

> with adults using chelators--do you know if they used the more

conservative

> Andy schedule or used the DAN or some other program?

There are certainly many adults who have chelated a number

of ways and stayed messed up or gotten much worse! DAN

is actually pretty mild compared to a lot of what is

out there.

On the other hand, there are lots of adults who have had

very good benefits from chelation.

You may want to reread what has said about the data

he is considering. And he, of course, is free to expand

upon it. I posted a commentary when the topic first came up.

Moria

[Guest guest]

--

The Pfeiffer program is not a " one size fits all " type of strategy.

I have two sons on the program--one NT and one autistic. They

take many of the same supplements and some in different amounts

even though they weigh almost the same amount. they also take different

ones as well and the amount has changed here and there based on the

most current lab results. Even the MTP is different for each son--the autistic

one gets about twice as much as the NT one...FWIW

[ ] Re: 's (not Andy's) protocol

its non selenite selenium, specifically .85mcg/lb selenomethionine

one day and same dose methyselenocysteine the next.

i think the difference with andy is he does not place so much weight

on selenium (tasmania and new zealand where i live are very short on

selenium........also is scotland, england and probably many parts of

the usa but some areas like south dekota are not.....just a btw do

you notice how few texans are on this board!)

also imo enzymes by restoring amino acid digestion do provide more

minerals in a balanced way

andy does not really hold with metalliothionine building which is a

zinc based protien for the sequestration of heavy metals, as far as i

can see from pfieffer zinc, selenium manganese are important here but

imo thier mt promotors are not that well balanced, indeed composite

formulas are trying to make a size that fits all and you are better

to use individual supplements......

zinc picolinate may only be of use for short term loading zinc into

the brain becuse it sems to have processing issues with vlcfa's which

make me migrainy at least......

my observation of chelating adults is inferential from the net, they

seem to have rigidty and other neural issues.......

i know adults who have used this so called protocol of mine both with

amalgams and with them removed and i know there is very substantial

mercury brain laoding so you can see what works.......

> ,

>

> Have been following with interest your ideas on chelation vs non.

Seems to

> me, and of course this is just my uneducated opinion, that there

must be a

> good blend between Andy's protocol and your suggestions of creating

an

> optimal metal transport system, thus really maximizing everthing

everyone is

> trying to do on this list. I know you have mentioned selenite

> selenium/selenium supplementation and others such as boron, zinc,

magnesium,

> boron, zinc picolinate. Other than the use of the chelators,

DMSA/ALA, are

> these not the same supplements that Andy suggests using with his

protocol?

>

> I'm just trying to understand if the only difference you have with

Andy's

> protocol is in the use of chelators per se, because, if I

understand you

> correctly, the redistributing of the mercury with chelators causes

more harm

> than good. Also, I believe you have stated you have not seen good

benefits

> with adults using chelators--do you know if they used the more

conservative

> Andy schedule or used the DAN or some other program?

>

> Thanks for your feedback,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>