Re: factors involved in how well children will do with chelation????

[Guest guest]

> Do we not have to consider how severely a child is affected symptom

> wise by mercury toxicity when we consider how well they will do when

> chelation is used to treat them?

No, you really don't. If mercury is the only problem it just takes

longer the more toxic they are until they pass the point where there is

permanent brain damage, which is actually a lot farther along tham nost

people think.

> Meaning a child who is not as

> severe to start with will they do better than a child who is very

> severe to start with? Say for instance a five year old autistic

> child who has never spoken a real word compared to a five year old

> who is clearly autistic but who speaks in sentences. If they are

> tested and they both are equally toxic are we not wishing for the

> stars that the two could do equally well with chelation?

Well, I have seen examples of both doing equally well, so I don't think

we are wishing for the stars.

I think the operational view is to just chelate, hope for the best, but

not get your heart set on a particular outcome. Whether they get 100%

cured or just a lot better isn't going to change your decision to

chelate so I don't think it is worth worrying about it so much.

> I have always wanted to ask this question but I did not want to

> offend anyone. Please that is not my intent.

No offense taken.

The question of what the ultimate outcome will be is very interesting

and important for some life planning issues. However I think it is too

early to really have any accurate way to predict that.

The two dominant factors controlling outcome are:

selection of the right protocol versus a poor one, and

chelating for as long as necessary rather than stopping when things are

slower and there aren't so many problems as long as massive stacks of

supplements are gobbled down with a dreamatically restricted diet.

> Pam

[Guest guest]

Pam,

I don't think it has to do with the original condition of the child. I

think the real kicker is how well they get rid of the mercury. You might

have a child that is not severe, but just cannot excrete the stuff, no

matter which method people try.

Barb

[ ] factors involved in how well children will do with

chelation????

>

>

> Do we not have to consider how severely a child is affected symptom

> wise by mercury toxicity when we consider how well they will do when

> chelation is used to treat them? Meaning a child who is not as

> severe to start with will they do better than a child who is very

> severe to start with? Say for instance a five year old autistic

> child who has never spoken a real word compared to a five year old

> who is clearly autistic but who speaks in sentences. If they are

> tested and they both are equally toxic are we not wishing for the

> stars that the two could do equally well with chelation?

>

> I have always wanted to ask this question but I did not want to

> offend anyone. Please that is not my intent.

>

> Pam

>

>

>

>

>

>

> =======================================================

>

[Guest guest]

> Do we not have to consider how severely a child is affected symptom

> wise by mercury toxicity when we consider how well they will do when

> chelation is used to treat them? Meaning a child who is not as

> severe to start with will they do better than a child who is very

> severe to start with?

My son was very severe to start with. Chelation helped him, but it

seemed that after about a week or two of improvements after each

round, he would regress again. I learned that he also needed

anti-virals, plus several supplements. I can say tho, that chelation

allowed him to eat any foods he wanted, and also allowed him to

tolerate the supplements that he apparently needed.

Say for instance a five year old autistic

> child who has never spoken a real word compared to a five year old

> who is clearly autistic but who speaks in sentences. If they are

> tested and they both are equally toxic are we not wishing for the

> stars that the two could do equally well with chelation?

Based only on my experience with my son, who never said a word until

age 4, and was not really " talking " until about age 6, and then it was

only single words with occasional 2-word phrases, and now at age 8-1/2

I am having difficulty getting him to shut up, I would say you would

not be wishing for the stars, but it sure did take longer than I read

for most kids. I started biomedical with my son when he was age 3-1/2.

Dana

[Guest guest]

>

> Do we not have to consider how severely a child is affected

symptom

> wise by mercury toxicity when we consider how well they will do

when

> chelation is used to treat them? Meaning a child who is not as

> severe to start with will they do better than a child who is very

> severe to start with? Say for instance a five year old autistic

> child who has never spoken a real word compared to a five year old

> who is clearly autistic but who speaks in sentences. If they are

> tested and they both are equally toxic are we not wishing for the

> stars that the two could do equally well with chelation?

I think it is really really unpredictable. Some kids who are

severe appear to make tremendous gains (gains bigger than what

a high functioning child could make) -- others don't improve.

It may be that the degree of ASD one starts with IS a factor,

but if so it is one of several factors, and we are no where

near being able to " predict " or sort out these factors, at

least IMO.

>

> I have always wanted to ask this question but I did not want to

> offend anyone. Please that is not my intent.

I think there are a lot of questions we all think about-- at

least I know I sure think about a lot of things!

good wishes,

Moria