Best way to Chelate???

[Guest guest]

> > Is there a " best way " to chelate?

>

> Many many opinions. Depends who you ask

However, there is only one correct opinion.

You have to use real chelators, not things that people who don't know

any chemistry randomly and incorrectly assign the word to.

You have to use a chelator that is reasonably selective for what you

are trying to chelate.

The chelator has to actually get into the part of the body where the

toxin is.

The chelator has to be given often enough to maintain reasonably

steady blood levels, which is roughly once a half life or so.

For chelating mercury this means:

DMPS every 8 hours or more often,

DMSA every 4 hours or more often,

ALA every 3-4 hours.

This is the " rigid " part that is simply right or wrong. Like 1+1. it

equals 2 (if you are silly you will say no, in binary it is 10, but 10

in binary is two). That is the right answer. All other answers are

wrong answers. The pretense that it is legitimate to have any other

opinion is the same as the idea that people shouldn't have to know

arithmetic in order to do accounting, engineering calculations, etc.

The more flexible areas are amount to give, use of cilantro (which

does appear to have an active chelator of unknown pharmacology and

pharmacokinetics in it), what supplements to use (increaed oxidative

stress is an inherent part of chelation), etc.

The idea that ignorance (of the relevant chemistry on the part of

essentially all licensed and unlicensed health care practitioners)

somehow legitimizes opinions that are contrary to fact is not one I

think is socially productive. We aren't talking about which clothes

look the best on people, which foods are the tastiest, what music the

most pleasing, or anything else where there is some element of

personal preference involved.

ly, the debate between creationism/intelligent design and

evolution has a far more legitimate intellectual foundation than the

debate between correct and incorrect chelation protocols.

Andy . . . . . . . .

[Guest guest]

> Is there a " best way " to chelate? I've been doing the TD-DMPS with my

> son for just about a year now. I've been reading about other people

> using DSMA (sp?) as well as ALA. I was just wondering if there is

> a " best " one or if it depends upon the person.

>

> TIA,

>

> Patti

To clear the brain you must use ALA.

To have the TD-DMPS work most effectively (and not vastly increase

brain mercury levels) you must use it every 8 hours.

Otherwise there is much flexibility.

Andy . . . . .

[Guest guest]

Thanks Andy and All for your help. Thanks for your patience &

persistance!!!!!! It does take hearing the same thing several times

before it really sinks in: To quote......

For chelating mercury this means:

DMPS every 8 hours or more often,

DMSA every 4 hours or more often,

ALA every 3-4 hours

My question is this: Is it beneficial to sweat (infrared sauna) while

on a frequent dose chelation regimen? Personally I feel much more clear

headed after sweating in general. I'm about to start the DMSA & ALA

(frequent dosing of course). Is it recommended to lay off the sauna, or

use it as an adjunct if there are no adverse effects. If this question

has been answered or is in a book, just point me in the right direction.

Thanks!

Ned

[Guest guest]

Welcome back Andy…

**Thank you for your dedication**

Ps. an I like how you wrapped it up.

Kenny V

> > > Is there a " best way " to chelate?

> >

> > Many many opinions. Depends who you ask

>

> However, there is only one correct opinion.

>

> You have to use real chelators, not things that people who don't

know

> any chemistry randomly and incorrectly assign the word to.

>

> You have to use a chelator that is reasonably selective for what you

> are trying to chelate.

>

> The chelator has to actually get into the part of the body where the

> toxin is.

>

> The chelator has to be given often enough to maintain reasonably

> steady blood levels, which is roughly once a half life or so.

>

> For chelating mercury this means:

>

> DMPS every 8 hours or more often,

>

> DMSA every 4 hours or more often,

>

> ALA every 3-4 hours.

>

> This is the " rigid " part that is simply right or wrong. Like 1+1.

it

> equals 2 (if you are silly you will say no, in binary it is 10, but

10

> in binary is two). That is the right answer. All other answers are

> wrong answers. The pretense that it is legitimate to have any other

> opinion is the same as the idea that people shouldn't have to know

> arithmetic in order to do accounting, engineering calculations, etc.

>

> The more flexible areas are amount to give, use of cilantro (which

> does appear to have an active chelator of unknown pharmacology and

> pharmacokinetics in it), what supplements to use (increaed oxidative

> stress is an inherent part of chelation), etc.

>

> The idea that ignorance (of the relevant chemistry on the part of

> essentially all licensed and unlicensed health care practitioners)

> somehow legitimizes opinions that are contrary to fact is not one I

> think is socially productive. We aren't talking about which clothes

> look the best on people, which foods are the tastiest, what music

the

> most pleasing, or anything else where there is some element of

> personal preference involved.

>

> ly, the debate between creationism/intelligent design and

> evolution has a far more legitimate intellectual foundation than the

> debate between correct and incorrect chelation protocols.

>

> Andy . . . . . . . .

[Guest guest]

> Is there a " best way " to chelate? I've been doing the TD-DMPS with my

> son for just about a year now. I've been reading about other people

> using DSMA (sp?) as well as ALA. I was just wondering if there is

> a " best " one or if it depends upon the person.

It depends on the parent's philosophy, and what the child tolerates.

I used ALA for all four of my kids, with great results.

Dana

[Guest guest]

> Thanks Andy and All for your help. Thanks for your patience &

> persistance!!!!!! It does take hearing the same thing several times

> before it really sinks in: To quote......

> For chelating mercury this means:

> DMPS every 8 hours or more often,

> DMSA every 4 hours or more often,

> ALA every 3-4 hours

>

> My question is this: Is it beneficial to sweat (infrared sauna)

There are never any circumstances anyone should use most brands of

infrared sauna, and infrared sauna has no advantages over " regular " sauna.

Sweating induced by other means is helpful generally. I don't know if

it makes chelation work better or not.

>while

> on a frequent dose chelation regimen? Personally I feel much more clear

> headed after sweating in general.

Yes, the sweating is helpful.

> I'm about to start the DMSA & ALA

> (frequent dosing of course). Is it recommended to lay off the sauna, or

> use it as an adjunct if there are no adverse effects. If this question

> has been answered or is in a book, just point me in the right direction.

> Thanks!

> Ned

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 22/08/2005 00:37:19 GMT Daylight Time,

jtmcde@... writes:

just did a wknd. of Andy's dosing suggestions(8 hrs) after 8 mos. of

Buttar's protocol (every other day), both using td dmps. We managed

fine, and my son actually had a lot of relaxed extended play, unusual

for him at that length.

He babbled a lot too, he is non verbal.

I'm hooked, and excited...

and Ty/3 y.o. autism

>>>Hey well done

Here's to even more gains!

Mandi in UK

[Guest guest]

> > > Is there a " best way " to chelate?

> >

> > Many many opinions. Depends who you ask

>

> However, there is only one correct opinion.

<snip>

> The idea that ignorance (of the relevant chemistry on the part of

> essentially all licensed and unlicensed health care practitioners)

> somehow legitimizes opinions that are contrary to fact is not one I

> think is socially productive.

I DO think it is socially productive to tell people there

are many opinions. I didn't in any way " legitimize " it beyond

that. But the facts of how controversial and contentious

chelation is are useful IMO.

If some parent or mercury toxic adult were to come here, read

that the " best " and " only good " way to chelate is XYZ,

then go do that, this person would be terribly ill-prepared

for a very likely & very rude awakening. I refer to an

awakening in which they learn that there are MANY different

" best " opinions, and MANY people who are quite convinced

about all manner of ways to chelate. Possibly a rude

awakening in which their doctor or best pal laughs in their

face. This is something to know about. This is useful

information. I say it over and over again, in various ways.

Here is one way I've said it that I'm particularly fond of:

http://home.earthlink.net/~moriam/Andy_dose_sched.html

================================================================

" There is extreme disagreement about how to do mercury chelation.

This is just generally the case! It is the case " in general " about

the " big " things-- and it is also the case " in specific " about the

little tiny bitty details. Almost all of it is disagreed upon--

sometimes quite " hotly " . With this as background, it should come as

no surprise that one can find sources (including experts) who will

disagree with the recommendations given here. I assure you this is

the case. That also applies to any other mercury chelation advise.

Opinions vary as to what works best, what is wise, what is

dangerous, and what is foolish. Whether you wish to follow this

advise is up to you. It's a free country. "

=================================================================

I continue to think this is a worthwhile thing to know,

as well as a difficult thing to know.

Most people here know it all to well. But there are also

lots of people new to this undertaking. They would do well

to know that there are other lists/venues in which " Andy's "

methods are scoffed at, and other methods are treated

with great seriousness, great detail, great interest,

great reverence, and even some great results.

Now, I don't think this is the ONLY THING that is useful

to know. I do ALSO say that there is the ONE

method that I think is the safest effective method around.

This is a more complex message than " here is the best way

and the only real way " . I hope this more complex message

makes sense, and I think it does make sense to many people.

Notice that EVERYONE else (or darned near it) espousing

chelation BY ANY MEANS has just been declared to be too ignorant

to have a " legitimate " opinion. Now, this may be " true " , but

since this is not

a list for chemists, the people here are not likely

to be able to sort out anything at all on this basis.

In other words: you (Andy) are telling us these others are all

ignorant, but that does not increase our ability to determine

if that is so. If *I* knew the " relevant chemistry " I could

evaluate these others on that basis, but I don't, and

neither do most others reading this. These seems kind of

like asking me to blindly believe you on blind faith.....

> ly, the debate between creationism/intelligent design and

> evolution has a far more legitimate intellectual foundation than

the

> debate between correct and incorrect chelation protocols.

But only a chemist would see this -- a non-chemist would see

it differently. Actaully, even for " a chemist " we would have

to add a number of qualifiers.

In other words, this may be a great point, but you need

a room full of chemists with " the relevant " understanding,

to be able to appreciate it.

Moria

[Guest guest]

I just did a wknd. of Andy's dosing suggestions(8 hrs) after 8 mos. of

Buttar's protocol (every other day), both using td dmps. We managed

fine, and my son actually had a lot of relaxed extended play, unusual

for him at that length.

He babbled a lot too, he is non verbal.

I'm hooked, and excited...

and Ty/3 y.o. autism

-- In , " moriamerri " <moriam@e...> wrote:

>

> > > > Is there a " best way " to chelate?

> > >

> > > Many many opinions. Depends who you ask

> >

> > However, there is only one correct opinion.

>

> <snip>

>

> > The idea that ignorance (of the relevant chemistry on the part of

> > essentially all licensed and unlicensed health care practitioners)

> > somehow legitimizes opinions that are contrary to fact is not one I

> > think is socially productive.

>

> I DO think it is socially productive to tell people there

> are many opinions. I didn't in any way " legitimize " it beyond

> that. But the facts of how controversial and contentious

> chelation is are useful IMO.

>

> If some parent or mercury toxic adult were to come here, read

> that the " best " and " only good " way to chelate is XYZ,

> then go do that, this person would be terribly ill-prepared

> for a very likely & very rude awakening. I refer to an

> awakening in which they learn that there are MANY different

> " best " opinions, and MANY people who are quite convinced

> about all manner of ways to chelate. Possibly a rude

> awakening in which their doctor or best pal laughs in their

> face. This is something to know about. This is useful

> information. I say it over and over again, in various ways.

>

> Here is one way I've said it that I'm particularly fond of:

> http://home.earthlink.net/~moriam/Andy_dose_sched.html

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

> " There is extreme disagreement about how to do mercury chelation.

> This is just generally the case! It is the case " in general " about

> the " big " things-- and it is also the case " in specific " about the

> little tiny bitty details. Almost all of it is disagreed upon--

> sometimes quite " hotly " . With this as background, it should come as

> no surprise that one can find sources (including experts) who will

> disagree with the recommendations given here. I assure you this is

> the case. That also applies to any other mercury chelation advise.

> Opinions vary as to what works best, what is wise, what is

> dangerous, and what is foolish. Whether you wish to follow this

> advise is up to you. It's a free country. "

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

>

> I continue to think this is a worthwhile thing to know,

> as well as a difficult thing to know.

> Most people here know it all to well. But there are also

> lots of people new to this undertaking. They would do well

> to know that there are other lists/venues in which " Andy's "

> methods are scoffed at, and other methods are treated

> with great seriousness, great detail, great interest,

> great reverence, and even some great results.

>

> Now, I don't think this is the ONLY THING that is useful

> to know. I do ALSO say that there is the ONE

> method that I think is the safest effective method around.

>

> This is a more complex message than " here is the best way

> and the only real way " . I hope this more complex message

> makes sense, and I think it does make sense to many people.

>

> Notice that EVERYONE else (or darned near it) espousing

> chelation BY ANY MEANS has just been declared to be too ignorant

> to have a " legitimate " opinion. Now, this may be " true " , but

> since this is not

> a list for chemists, the people here are not likely

> to be able to sort out anything at all on this basis.

> In other words: you (Andy) are telling us these others are all

> ignorant, but that does not increase our ability to determine

> if that is so. If *I* knew the " relevant chemistry " I could

> evaluate these others on that basis, but I don't, and

> neither do most others reading this. These seems kind of

> like asking me to blindly believe you on blind faith.....

>

> > ly, the debate between creationism/intelligent design and

> > evolution has a far more legitimate intellectual foundation than

> the

> > debate between correct and incorrect chelation protocols.

>

> But only a chemist would see this -- a non-chemist would see

> it differently. Actaully, even for " a chemist " we would have

> to add a number of qualifiers.

>

> In other words, this may be a great point, but you need

> a room full of chemists with " the relevant " understanding,

> to be able to appreciate it.

>

> Moria