Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 I guess then it leaves a great deal to be desired about the Great Plains Laboratory. To include a write up in their Newsletter that: 1) their special projects manager did not know anything about. 2) And that their head Physician does not endorse. WoW, what this incidenttells me is that GPL is pretty confused. It still says nothing about whether the product is effective or not. If they should however come back with a bad review, I think I will take it with a grain of salt. Best Regards, . At 17:12 21/02/2002 +0000, you wrote: >Lori Knowles sent the below message with permission to post. If you >have questions, please direct them to her. If I get any more info, I >will forward it. Lori's email is lknowles@... (that's gpl - >short for " Great Plains Laboratory " ). > > >Thanks, > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >I talked with Dr. Shaw this morning and he told me that he has never >specifically endorsed PCA products for chelation. The " studies " >referred to is probably related to the Great Plains newsletter that >came out April of last year in which he writes about all the >chelation alternatives. Specifically regarding PCA chelation therapy, >the article mentions that " animal studies as well as clinical >experience with humans seem to indicate that this agent is more >effective and less toxic than pharmaceutical chelating agents such as >DMSA and DMPS. " Dr. Shaw is referring to what the manufacturers of >this product ares saying, not what he himself believes about it. >There have not been solid studies performed for this chelation agent >as compared to DMSA, which the FDA has ruled as safe and effective >for lead toxicity in children. > >Dr. Shaw, however, is interested in this chelation method and is >willing to provide a free follow-up hair analysis for a small number >of people who are both : 1)heavy metal toxic and 2) are using/or plan >to use this chelation method . Being able to personally follow the >progress of individuals using PCA will be helpful in more effectiving >evaluating this product's effectiveness. > >Any questions or interest in participating in a PCA study should be >directed to me at mailto:lknowles@... > >Thank you, > >Lori Knowles >Special Projects Manager >Great Plains Laboratory > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 I thought it read that they were quoting someone else and that they don't know if it is effective or not but are willing to work with a few parents to see if it does work well - amazing how differently we can read things isn't it? Cheers H Re: [ ] PCA / Great Plains I guess then it leaves a great deal to be desired about the Great Plains Laboratory. To include a write up in their Newsletter that: 1) their special projects manager did not know anything about. 2) And that their head Physician does not endorse. WoW, what this incidenttells me is that GPL is pretty confused. It still says nothing about whether the product is effective or not. If they should however come back with a bad review, I think I will take it with a grain of salt. Best Regards, . At 17:12 21/02/2002 +0000, you wrote: >Lori Knowles sent the below message with permission to post. If you >have questions, please direct them to her. If I get any more info, I >will forward it. Lori's email is lknowles@... (that's gpl - >short for " Great Plains Laboratory " ). > > >Thanks, > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >I talked with Dr. Shaw this morning and he told me that he has never >specifically endorsed PCA products for chelation. The " studies " >referred to is probably related to the Great Plains newsletter that >came out April of last year in which he writes about all the >chelation alternatives. Specifically regarding PCA chelation therapy, >the article mentions that " animal studies as well as clinical >experience with humans seem to indicate that this agent is more >effective and less toxic than pharmaceutical chelating agents such as >DMSA and DMPS. " Dr. Shaw is referring to what the manufacturers of >this product ares saying, not what he himself believes about it. >There have not been solid studies performed for this chelation agent >as compared to DMSA, which the FDA has ruled as safe and effective >for lead toxicity in children. > >Dr. Shaw, however, is interested in this chelation method and is >willing to provide a free follow-up hair analysis for a small number >of people who are both : 1)heavy metal toxic and 2) are using/or plan >to use this chelation method . Being able to personally follow the >progress of individuals using PCA will be helpful in more effectiving >evaluating this product's effectiveness. > >Any questions or interest in participating in a PCA study should be >directed to me at mailto:lknowles@... > >Thank you, > >Lori Knowles >Special Projects Manager >Great Plains Laboratory > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 > Lori Knowles sent the below message with permission to post. If you > have questions, please direct them to her. If I get any more info, I > will forward it. Lori's email is lknowles@g... (that's gpl - > short for " Great Plains Laboratory " ). Dear , and all, There is also some discussion of PCA on the autism treatment list. Here are a couple of posts you might find of interest: /message/40756 /message/40268 /message/40537 to read all the messages this week on this topic: /messagesearch?query=PCA In addition, there is a discussion today of what " ionic " minerals are. I would also like to comment on this statement (from Lori at GPL): > Dr. Shaw, however, is interested in this chelation method and is > willing to provide a free follow-up hair analysis for a small number > of people who are both : 1)heavy metal toxic and 2) are using/or plan > to use this chelation method . Other than as an item of curiousity, I do not understand the hair testing comment. Hair does NOT accurately reflect the level of mercury in the body. In fact, nothing I'm aware of does. (A tissue biopsy of the brain MIGHT, but is not under consideration except in animal studies.) I don't mean this as simply " a dig " . I think what to test to " prove " that some chelation method works is quite unclear and thus " a problem " . However, the fact that I don't have some " simple solution " does not make me think that hair levels of mercury prove ***anything***. One more thing: since DMSA and DMPS do not cross the BBB, (and therefore do not remove mercury from the brain), saying a product is " better " that DMSA/DMPS still leaves unaddressed the issue of brain mercury. best wishes, Moria p.s. I am writing this through the web interface, so I can't actually copy Lori..... unless I remember to COPY this after I post it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2002 Report Share Posted February 21, 2002 Agelena, Could you possibly be any more ignorant and defensive to a " post " that is simply saying, " Please be careful with your children health. " " This is not proven. " A newsletter is just that, " news " , as in, what's " new " , hence the origin of the word news. Dr. Shaw was simply alerting everyone who reads that newsletter that, there is a new, product/technique/theory, what have you and what the " manufacturers " themselves are saying about their own product. I for one am thankful for his " letting us know " about a new product. For now I can make a decision for myself. Don't get upset because you thought it was " the magic bullet " that all of us parents hope for, but know doesn't exist. That is what some manufacturers prey upon. You also made some unfounded comments, as is most of your post, which you should apologize for: 1) Lori, the Special Projects Manager obviously knew about the newsletter. What she didn't know was that people where on this group saying Dr. Shaw endorses PCA. 2)That GPL is confused. To the contrary, GPL and Dr. Shaw have said very clearly that they " do not specifically endorsed PCA products for chelation. " And that " there have not been solid studies performed for this chelation agent as compared to DMSA,... " And to further show his dedication to researching this product he has offered to personally follow the progress of a small number of individuals using PCA as it will be helpful in more effectively evaluating this product. All they need to be is interested in this chelation method, willing to provide a free follow-up hair analysis and are both : 1)heavy metal toxic and 2) are using/or plan to use this chelation method . Re: [ ] PCA / Great Plains I guess then it leaves a great deal to be desired about the Great Plains Laboratory. To include a write up in their Newsletter that: 1) their special projects manager did not know anything about. 2) And that their head Physician does not endorse. WoW, what this incidenttells me is that GPL is pretty confused. It still says nothing about whether the product is effective or not. If they should however come back with a bad review, I think I will take it with a grain of salt. Best Regards, . At 17:12 21/02/2002 +0000, you wrote: >Lori Knowles sent the below message with permission to post. If you >have questions, please direct them to her. If I get any more info, I >will forward it. Lori's email is lknowles@... (that's gpl - >short for " Great Plains Laboratory " ). > > >Thanks, > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >I talked with Dr. Shaw this morning and he told me that he has never >specifically endorsed PCA products for chelation. The " studies " >referred to is probably related to the Great Plains newsletter that >came out April of last year in which he writes about all the >chelation alternatives. Specifically regarding PCA chelation therapy, >the article mentions that " animal studies as well as clinical >experience with humans seem to indicate that this agent is more >effective and less toxic than pharmaceutical chelating agents such as >DMSA and DMPS. " Dr. Shaw is referring to what the manufacturers of >this product ares saying, not what he himself believes about it. > which the FDA has ruled as safe and effective >for lead toxicity in children. > >Dr. Shaw, however, is interested in this chelation method and is >willing to provide a free follow-up hair analysis for a small number >of people who are both : 1)heavy metal toxic and 2) are using/or plan >to use this chelation method . Being able to personally follow the >progress of individuals using PCA will be helpful in more effectiving >evaluating this product's effectiveness. > >Any questions or interest in participating in a PCA study should be >directed to me at mailto:lknowles@... > >Thank you, > >Lori Knowles >Special Projects Manager >Great Plains Laboratory > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2002 Report Share Posted February 23, 2002 The reason why we decided to use PCA is because my son looked awful when we chelated him with DMSA. THis is what the newsletter says, " Animal studies as well as clinical experience with humans seem to indicate that this agent is MORE EFFECTIVE AND LESS TOXIC THAN PHARMACUETICAL CHELATING AGENTS SUCH AS DMSA AND DMPS. Furthermore, PCF (PCA), does not remove beneficial elements. " ALso, earlier in the article it talks about the side effects of DMSA. ( vomiting, nausea, stomach pain, diarrhea, elevatedliver enzymes, nuetropenia, eosinophilia, increased platelets, drowsiness, dizziness, sleepiness, rash, decreased urination, cardiac arrhythmia, leg and knee pain, and flu like symptoms.) THAT is why we changed over and THAT is why I presented this option to this group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2002 Report Share Posted February 23, 2002 , Please please please continue to share with the group. Our doctor has recommended we switch to PCA and I want as much info as possible before we begin. In a message dated 2/23/02 11:07:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, maryhe@... writes: > , could you please email me privately and tell me what has happened > with your son using PCA > Cheers H Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2002 Report Share Posted February 23, 2002 , could you please email me privately and tell me what has happened with your son using PCA Cheers H RE: [ ] PCA / Great Plains The reason why we decided to use PCA is because my son looked awful when we chelated him with DMSA. THis is what the newsletter says, " Animal studies as well as clinical experience with humans seem to indicate that this agent is MORE EFFECTIVE AND LESS TOXIC THAN PHARMACUETICAL CHELATING AGENTS SUCH AS DMSA AND DMPS. Furthermore, PCF (PCA), does not remove beneficial elements. " ALso, earlier in the article it talks about the side effects of DMSA. ( vomiting, nausea, stomach pain, diarrhea, elevatedliver enzymes, nuetropenia, eosinophilia, increased platelets, drowsiness, dizziness, sleepiness, rash, decreased urination, cardiac arrhythmia, leg and knee pain, and flu like symptoms.) THAT is why we changed over and THAT is why I presented this option to this group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2002 Report Share Posted February 24, 2002 In a message dated 2/23/2002 6:14:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes: << , Please please please continue to share with the group. Our doctor has recommended we switch to PCA and I want as much info as possible before we begin. Evely >> I would also be interested in hearing more. :-) Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.