Re: Latest hair analysis back.-Andy

[Guest guest]

Some test to test variation would account for the Aluminum. But the

others look significant to me. No?

The essentials are not out of whack except for really low zinc and

magnesium, which I figure are depleted from chelation and I should

double his doses. So, then if the essentials are straightforward, I

should expect the toxics to be relatively straighforward as well.

<AndyCutler@a...> wrote:

>

> Some test to test variation is to be expected, this is not

significant.

> Also if the essentials are not normal, how those are out of whack

is

> often reflected in how the toxics are out of whack.

>

> Andy. . . . . . .

>

> > The following results were all from DDI for my son . I have

not listed everything, but rather the areas that were abnormal from

the start. Everything else has remained very low.

> >

> > I have completed 126 days of chelation broken into 21 rounds

since last September. All were using Andy's protocol with either

oral DMSA, DMPS or ALA or a combination of DMSA/ALA or DMPS/ALA.

> >

> > Here are the three sets of results for some toxic metals:

> >

> > Oct '03 May '04

Oct '04

> > Mercury 0.20

0.15 0.06

> >

> > Lead 3.30

1.6 2.9

> >

> > Alum. 13.0

9.3 10

> >

> > Antimony 0.25 0.13

0.18

> >

> > Silver 0.65

0.22 0.52

> >

> >

> >

> > In chelation, if the child is an excreter through the hair, one

would expect the values to initially go up and then go down.

appears not to excrete Mercury through the hair. Would it make sense

that he is excreting other metals through the hair but not the

mercury? It is more plausible to me that he is currently being

exposed to high levels of lead, antimony and silver.

> >

> > Can anyone give me their take?

> >

> > Thank you very much.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

PS-

never met any of the counting rules. He appears not to have

deranged mineral transport. I don't know if that makes the

interpretation of his hair analyses any more or less difficult.

has been making slow but steady progress throughout chelation.

There does not appear to be any difference between on and off days.

Andy, when you say that these results are not significant, do you

include the mercury result as well? I thought that the drop from .20

to .15 and then to .06 showed a significant effect of chelation and

was giving myself quite a pat on the back. Are you saying that it

may not in fact reflect a significant drop in mercury levels?

Thanks.

> >

> > Some test to test variation is to be expected, this is not

> significant.

> > Also if the essentials are not normal, how those are out of whack

> is

> > often reflected in how the toxics are out of whack.

> >

> > Andy. . . . . . .

> >

> > > The following results were all from DDI for my son . I

have

> not listed everything, but rather the areas that were abnormal from

> the start. Everything else has remained very low.

> > >

> > > I have completed 126 days of chelation broken into 21 rounds

> since last September. All were using Andy's protocol with either

> oral DMSA, DMPS or ALA or a combination of DMSA/ALA or DMPS/ALA.

> > >

> > > Here are the three sets of results for some toxic metals:

> > >

Oct '03 May '04 Oct '04

Mercury 0.20 0.15 0.06

> > >

Lead 3.30 1.6 2.9

> > >

Alum. 13.0 9.3 10

> > >

Antimony 0.25 0.13 0.18

> > >

Silver 0.65 0.22 0.52

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > In chelation, if the child is an excreter through the hair, one

> would expect the values to initially go up and then go down.

> appears not to excrete Mercury through the hair. Would it make

sense

> that he is excreting other metals through the hair but not the

> mercury? It is more plausible to me that he is currently being

> exposed to high levels of lead, antimony and silver.

> > >

> > > Can anyone give me their take?

> > >

> > > Thank you very much.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

> Some test to test variation would account for the Aluminum. But the

> others look significant to me. No?

Maybe, maybe not. The second test could be an " all low " test where the

toxics are lower than they shoudl be, with tests 1 and 3 which are

pretty similar being accurate.

or it could be hair representing more or less months 0, 3 and 6 of

chelation when you'd expect to see that.

> The essentials are not out of whack except for really low zinc and

> magnesium, which I figure are depleted from chelation

A lot more likely due to mercury induced mineral tranpsort derangement.

> and I should double his doses.

I would.

> So, then if the essentials are straightforward, I

> should expect the toxics to be relatively straighforward as well.

Yeah, if. The problem is the no man's land between deranged mineral

transport and normal mineral transport, kind of hard to tell where you

are in it. Looking at some of the examples in my book Hair Test

Interpretation: Finding Hidden Toxicities may help.

> <AndyCutler@a...> wrote:

> >

> > Some test to test variation is to be expected, this is not

> significant.

> > Also if the essentials are not normal, how those are out of whack

> is

> > often reflected in how the toxics are out of whack.

> >

> > Andy. . . . . . .

> >

> > > The following results were all from DDI for my son . I have

> not listed everything, but rather the areas that were abnormal from

> the start. Everything else has remained very low.

> > >

> > > I have completed 126 days of chelation broken into 21 rounds

> since last September. All were using Andy's protocol with either

> oral DMSA, DMPS or ALA or a combination of DMSA/ALA or DMPS/ALA.

> > >

> > > Here are the three sets of results for some toxic metals:

> > >

> > > Oct '03 May '04

> Oct '04

> > > Mercury 0.20

> 0.15 0.06

> > >

> > > Lead 3.30

> 1.6 2.9

> > >

> > > Alum. 13.0

> 9.3 10

> > >

> > > Antimony 0.25 0.13

> 0.18

> > >

> > > Silver 0.65

> 0.22 0.52

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > In chelation, if the child is an excreter through the hair, one

> would expect the values to initially go up and then go down.

> appears not to excrete Mercury through the hair. Would it make sense

> that he is excreting other metals through the hair but not the

> mercury? It is more plausible to me that he is currently being

> exposed to high levels of lead, antimony and silver.

> > >

> > > Can anyone give me their take?

> > >

> > > Thank you very much.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

> never met any of the counting rules. He appears not to have

> deranged mineral transport. I don't know if that makes the

> interpretation of his hair analyses any more or less difficult.

When you get my book, look in the counting rules section for the part

about normal versus unusual versus suspicious versus definitely

deranged mineral transport.

> has been making slow but steady progress throughout chelation.

> There does not appear to be any difference between on and off days.

>

> Andy, when you say that these results are not significant, do you

> include the mercury result as well? I thought that the drop from .20

> to .15 and then to .06 showed a significant effect of chelation and

> was giving myself quite a pat on the back. Are you saying that it

> may not in fact reflect a significant drop in mercury levels?

It is unclear. It may be you made great progress here, and if the

other elements weren't bouncing around I would agree that you did. My

guess is that you are and you are seening the effects of mineral

transport derangement being cleared so some of the other elements can

be dumped out into the circulation where they get into the hair.

> Thanks.

>

>