Guest guest Posted May 19, 2005 Report Share Posted May 19, 2005 > ---Steve, I fear this is misleading many people about what > they might expect from a low-dose frequent chelation. My experience, > and those of most of the people I'm personally acquainted with, is > that even low-dose chelation produces the same effects as those you > attribute only to Buttar's protocol. -- wrong. The effects I am referring to are not the standard yeast problems. They are the " stim hell " problems that seem to be the norm with Buttar, accrding to his own data. >I have been on this list for 5 > years and I have also seen all the reports on chelatingkids. -- chealting kids specifically does not advocate the Cuytler protocol. In fact it is forbidden to discuss that protocol on that list. So this is a misleading comment >We got yeast and terrible parasites on a dose of > initially 12 mgs every 4 hours,(he had had a clear, no yeast or > parasites prior to chelating), we also got stimming from the very > first round, crankiness, vomiting, 2 bouts of high fever. I didn't > stop, and in fact was told the same thing then that Buttar tells > patients, by Andy. Chelation is not without risks, but lower the > dose. I do think you and the many people who haven't experiences > these think that this doesn't happen if you follow the " rules. " It > just isn't so. -- lower the dose is good advice. We did several rounds with just 6mg of DMSA or ALA. Even now we are only using 12.5mg of each every 2 to 3 hours and we have done 35 rounds. I am sorry you had these awful experiences, Rose. But in my years of reading this list and others it seems to me that they are not the norm with low-dose, high-frequency chelating. Whereas they are the norm with the Buttar protocol. Several parents who have had problems with the Buttar protocol have reported improvements when switching to Andy's dosing schedule. This needs to be discussed, and parents who try the Buttar protocol and get problems should be made aware that there is an alternative that could possibly help them. > I don't think it's right to attribute this sort of pain to only > Buttar's protocol. If you haven't experienced it, count your > blessings, but I know too many people whose kids have, so I know it > ain't just mine. I realize that if you experience success on one > protocol, that you tend to see it from your own perspective, and > that's mine. -- I know for a fact that my son does better on a dosing shcedule even tighter than that recommended by Andy. So I can't see how once a day dosing would be of equivalent efficacy or safety >There was no difference for us in transferring to > Buttar's and it appears that this is the case for all of the people I know who have made the switch. -- most people who have switched to the Buttar protocol have had many rounds of chelation already behind them. But perhaps you're right. We won't know unless we can debate this without invective >Some, like you experienced for low- > dose, have absolutely no problems. Others have lots, and I have read > them all, and my reaction is, " been there, done that on low-dose > frequent " -- we had plenty of problems, esp. yeast. Even bacteria once or twice. We still get some problems, esp. if I don't keep the dosing schedule down to every 2 hours. But the problems are temporary and the improvements are lasting. The difference is BY BUTTAR'S OWN DATA that parents should not expect improvements for months when using his protocol and they should expect regressions initially. Parents using his protocol have referred to months of " stim hell " . This is very rare on Andy's protocol. I accept what you say about your own experiences with low-dose, high- frequency, and I accept that some parents have had enormous success with Buttar and no serious side-effects (I know two personally - one did very many rounds of the Andy protocol before switching; the other has a child who was only mildly autistic) Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2005 Report Share Posted May 19, 2005 > > ---Steve, I fear this is misleading many people about what > > they might expect from a low-dose frequent chelation. My > experience, > > and those of most of the people I'm personally acquainted with, is > > that even low-dose chelation produces the same effects as those > you > > attribute only to Buttar's protocol. > Steve replied: > -- wrong. The effects I am referring to are not the standard yeast > problems. They are the " stim hell " problems that seem to be the > norm with Buttar, accrding to his own data. --that's what I'm referring to on the low-dose chelation, it's exactly the same thing everybody I've been personally acquainted with got for their kids on low-dose. And it preceded the yeast. From the very first round, we got stimming with low-dose, and later, within 3 months, got yeast out the wazoo > Rose: I have also seen all the reports on chelatingkids. Steve:> -- chealting kids specifically does not advocate the Cuytler > protocol. In fact it is forbidden to discuss that protocol on that > list. So this is a misleading comment > ==this just isn't true, I've seen Cutler's name mentioned so many times there. You aren't on the list and you've been misled, his protocal is mentioned all the time, it's just not allowed to argue with others about it there. > >We got yeast and terrible parasites on a dose of > > initially 12 mgs every 4 hours,(he had had a clear, no yeast or > > parasites prior to chelating), we also got stimming from the very > > first round, crankiness, vomiting, 2 bouts of high fever. I didn't > > stop, and in fact was told the same thing then that Buttar tells > > patients, by Andy. Chelation is not without risks, but lower the > > dose. I do think you and the many people who haven't experiences > > these think that this doesn't happen if you follow the " rules. " It > > just isn't so. > > -- lower the dose is good advice. We did several rounds with just > 6mg of DMSA or ALA. Even now we are only using 12.5mg of each every > 2 to 3 hours and we have done 35 rounds. > > I am sorry you had these awful experiences, Rose. But in my years of > reading this list and others it seems to me that they are not the > norm with low-dose, high-frequency chelating. Whereas they are the > norm with the Buttar protocol. Several parents who have had problems > with the Buttar protocol have reported improvements when switching > to Andy's dosing schedule. This needs to be discussed, and parents > who try the Buttar protocol and get problems should be made aware > that there is an alternative that could possibly help them. > ---it is discussed on the other list, and no problems talking about it there > > > I don't think it's right to attribute this sort of pain to only > > Buttar's protocol. If you haven't experienced it, count your > > blessings, but I know too many people whose kids have, so I know > it > > ain't just mine. I realize that if you experience success on one > > protocol, that you tend to see it from your own perspective, and > > that's mine. > Steve-- I know for a fact that my son does better on a dosing shcedule > even tighter than that recommended by Andy. So I can't see how once > a day dosing would be of equivalent efficacy or safety > Rose:> >There was no difference for us in transferring to > > Buttar's and it appears that this is the case for all of the > people I know who have made the switch. > > Steve-- most people who have switched to the Buttar protocol have had > many rounds of chelation already behind them. But perhaps you're > right. We won't know unless we can debate this without invective > -Rose: -True, but from what I can see on the reports on chelatingkids2, I honestly don't see a difference for kids who start without any previous chelation--some are stimmy and some aren't. Very few show regression, but I think if you look through the loveletters here, you'll also see reports of regression. I honestly know too many people who have been stimmy, whining, cranky, with the moms calling me asking me whether they are doing the right thing with low-dose because after their first round they see regression. That's not invective, it's just observation. I was just trying to say that if you paint this as easy you are setting people up for stopping. That's why Buttar tells people to expect the worst, and to lower the dose. It's *exactly* what I've told every friend whose child started chelating and they started freaking out. Rose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2005 Report Share Posted May 19, 2005 > --that's what I'm referring to on the low-dose chelation, it's > exactly the same thing everybody I've been personally acquainted with > got for their kids on low-dose. -- that's very odd because most people I know and most people on this list don't report this. Some people I know haven't even had problems with the Buttar protocol. But people who do have these problems usually find they go when the dose is reduced or when appropriate supplments are introduced, or at least that is my impression from most people I have communicated with. I guess it is possible that people have approached you knowing that you have had these problems and this has skewed your sample. But our differing understandings emphasise the need for rational discussion of this subject >this just isn't true, I've seen Cutler's name mentioned so many > times there. You aren't on the list and you've been misled, his > protocal is mentioned all the time, it's just not allowed to argue > with others about it there. -- I was a member of this list about two years ago. At that time they had a list of rules they sent out once you joined the list, plus reposted every month. One of those rules was that Andy Cutler and his protocol were not to be discussed. But I noticed they allowed discussion as long as it was negative. Perhaps the rules have changed since then. At that time it was also specifically a pro- DAN website and criticism of DAN and their protocol was verboten. Once again, this may have changed. > ---it is discussed on the other list, and no problems talking about it there -- great. Unfortunately every time we try to talk about it here Mark derails the discussion (this can be proved by reference to the archives) >I was just trying to say that if > you paint this as easy you are setting people up for stopping. That's > why Buttar tells people to expect the worst, and to lower the dose. -- I have never painted chelation as being easy. Can you point out any post where I have said this? But I am saying that the side- effects can be managed thru good supplementation and other measures. My point was that we have not been able to have discussions of Buttar's protocol on this list because Mark attacks people who propose ideas that conflict with his ideas (once again this can be proved through reference to the archives, and I can provide half-a- dozen examples if challenged to do so) It would be good to have a discussion of listmate's experiences with different protocols and their methods of dealing with side-effects Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2005 Report Share Posted May 19, 2005 > --that's what I'm referring to on the low-dose chelation, it's > exactly the same thing everybody I've been personally acquainted with > got for their kids on low-dose. / Steve:-- that's very odd because most people I know and most people on this list don't report this. Some people I know haven't even had problems with the Buttar protocol. But people who do have these problems usually find they go when the dose is reduced or when appropriate supplments are introduced, or at least that is my impression from most people I have communicated with. I guess it is possible that people have approached you knowing that you have had these problems and this has skewed your sample. But our differing understandings emphasise the need for rational discussion of this subject --Just a clarification, actually, this fits none of the profiles of the people. I actually don't advertise the problems we've had at all, didn't even much report them to anybody else who wasn't already doing it. In most other cases, it's people I convinced in the area to try it or people from the area who I met on various lists. For a time we had a little group of people, and one of them had a recovered child (thru DMSA suppositories by Dr. Mercola, btw). I actually didn't complain or warn about problems, I have been an ardent advocate for chelation in the local area. There was a newspaper article in our local paper in which I advocated, even had our picture on the paper, and lots of people called me from that. So I didn't play up the problems at all. As I said, I've been at this a long time. I've never known one mom who didn't worry alot about what was going on, even on the low dose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2005 Report Share Posted May 19, 2005 >I've never > known one mom who didn't worry alot about what was going on, even on > the low dose -- I worried so much that it took me almost a year to start chelation. then I sweated thru every oneof the 1st 10 rounds. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 > I guess it is possible that people have approached you knowing > that you have had these problems and this has skewed your sample. Or for you. However statistical fluctuations really can be quite impressive when relatively small numbers are involved - ask anyone who counts cards at blackjack - and keeping careful score in your head and making recourse to statistical tables can be quite helpful. Beyond that is the issue of sample bias. Really, most of it is inadvertent - people find what they are looking for, notice what they expect to see, etc. Also there probably are correlations between certain symptoms and biochemical response that we are unaware of but that lead different parents to talk to very different sets of people because their children are different and each parent is trying to find people with children like their own. Due to these and many other factors, reasonable people will often disagree. Andy . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 >>>--Just a clarification, actually, this fits none of the profiles of the people. I actually don't advertise the problems we've had at all, didn't even much report them to anybody else who wasn't already doing it. --- There could be a lot of different reasons why people " like you " seem to " find you " which could skew statistical data. I homeschool my twice exceptional kids (well, multiply exceptional). I often really hit if off with other moms of " kids like mine " and we end up helping each other. I don't for one minute believe that this means my kids are anywhere near " normal " . I think it is because similar circumstances tend to put us in proximity and then small details clue us that " THIS is someone I want to talk to " -- little things about assumptions we make or don't make, how we do or do not react to things which would be a big red flag for others but isn't for us. Yes, sometimes they e-mail me because of things I have said on some list which directly addresses issues they are struggling with. But lots of folks e-mail me that I don't hit it off with. The ones where we really talk a lot are folks who have really difficult kids who are difficult in similar ways to how mine are difficult. Other folks think I am " too radical " or " exagerating " or whatever. <shrug> This tendency to " find " folks like oneself can be uncanny and seem kind of " psychic " or can easily convince one that " folks like me are really The Norm " when they aren't. In my case, I think kids with very high IQ's who also have learning disabilities are more likely to wind up homeschooled because they don't fit in the gifted program, they don't fit in the special ed. program, and they don't fit in the regular classroom. I think gifted kids are more likely to have gifted parents and bright folks are more likely to be computer nerds than " average " . I think folks who are overwhelmed with very demanding kids desperately need support groups but they also have great difficulty finding the support they need through meeting folks face-to-face, so they turn to online resources a lot. Etc. So, folks like me with kids like mine end up in the same forums I end up in and we often readily click. Nonetheless, I still sometimes need a reality check because my kids seem so " normal " to me! As someone said in a lecture I attended: She didn't know her kids were gifted because " All the other physicist's kids are like mine " (her husband is a physicist). :-P Which isn't to suggest that your observations aren't valid and true for the folks you talk to. It is just to say that I am personally careful to distinguish between statistical norms and my personal observations about me, my kids, and others who gravitate to me. Also, folks living in your geographic area may all have similar chelation experiences because they have been poisoned in a similar fashion -- have similar lifestyles, all live near a defunct gold mine, whatever. It may be very valuable information and I certainly don't discourage you from sharing it. But I think arguments start on this list when this line gets blurred between hard scientific data and personal observations. I think it is really important to respect what a person says about their own experiences and I think people get defensive and tempers flare when someone feels their personal experiences are being dismissed because it disagrees with harder numbers. But I think it is equally important to not make the mistake of dismissing scientific data because it disagrees with one's own experiences, as if anecdotal evidence can trump harder figures. Both types of data have value. But they need to be clearly distinguished. And neither should be used to refute the other because they really aren't comparable. Just my 2 cents. Michele in California calif.michele@... webmaster@... Visit Michele's World! of (Twice) Exceptional Homeschooling http://www.califmichele.com It is not so very important for a person to learn facts. For that he does not really need a college. He can learn them from books. The value of an education in a liberal arts college is not learning of many facts but the training of the mind to think something that cannot be learned from textbooks. -Albert Einstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 OK, but given that, then that would mean that all of what anybody says here is just their own observations, and I can fully accept that. I actually brought this up because of the agenda here to suggest that Buttar's patients experiences are different from low- dose. I don't see that in my friends. Moreover, and I think this is the key, in the reports I've read on chelating kids, where I don't know the people, have never met their kids, and they aren't reporting to me but to everyone. Further, I don't see a difference between reports about Buttar's protocol and reports on reactions here. The stimminess is pretty commonly reported here and on other boards as a consequence of chelation. Here's the subjectivity that led to objectivity: When I experienced it with my child, I looked for similar reports so that I could continue with some reassurance, and I began to see it as the norm. Regression was also not uncommon, and the advise, given often when we started this then, was " lower the dose " . it was almost a mantra because it was so often advised. So my personal experience did led me to see things I might not have seen if my child was one of the fortunate few. > >>>--Just a clarification, actually, this fits none of the profiles of the people. I actually don't advertise the problems we've had at all, didn't even much report them to anybody else who wasn't already doing it. > --- > There could be a lot of different reasons why people " like you " seem to " find you " which could skew statistical data. I homeschool my twice exceptional kids (well, multiply exceptional). I often really hit if off with other moms of " kids like mine " and we end up helping each other. I don't for one minute believe that this means my kids are anywhere near " normal " . I think it is because similar circumstances tend to put us in proximity and then small details clue us that " THIS is someone I want to talk to " -- little things about assumptions we make or don't make, how we do or do not react to things which would be a big red flag for others but isn't for us. Yes, sometimes they e-mail me because of things I have said on some list which directly addresses issues they are struggling with. But lots of folks e-mail me that I don't hit it off with. The ones where we really talk a lot are folks who have really difficult kids who are difficult in similar ways to how mine are difficult. > Other folks think I am " too radical " or " exagerating " or whatever. <shrug> > > This tendency to " find " folks like oneself can be uncanny and seem kind of " psychic " or can easily convince one that " folks like me are really The Norm " when they aren't. In my case, I think kids with very high IQ's who also have learning disabilities are more likely to wind up homeschooled because they don't fit in the gifted program, they don't fit in the special ed. program, and they don't fit in the regular classroom. I think gifted kids are more likely to have gifted parents and bright folks are more likely to be computer nerds than " average " . I think folks who are overwhelmed with very demanding kids desperately need support groups but they also have great difficulty finding the support they need through meeting folks face-to-face, so they turn to online resources a lot. Etc. So, folks like me with kids like mine end up in the same forums I end up in and we often readily click. Nonetheless, I still sometimes need a reality check because my kids seem so " normal " to me! > As someone said in a lecture I attended: She didn't know her kids were gifted because " All the other physicist's kids are like mine " (her husband is a physicist). :-P > > Which isn't to suggest that your observations aren't valid and true for the folks you talk to. It is just to say that I am personally careful to distinguish between statistical norms and my personal observations about me, my kids, and others who gravitate to me. Also, folks living in your geographic area may all have similar chelation experiences because they have been poisoned in a similar fashion -- have similar lifestyles, all live near a defunct gold mine, whatever. It may be very valuable information and I certainly don't discourage you from sharing it. But I think arguments start on this list when this line gets blurred between hard scientific data and personal observations. I think it is really important to respect what a person says about their own experiences and I think people get defensive and tempers flare when someone feels their personal experiences are being dismissed because it disagrees with harder numbers. But I think it is equally important to not make the > mistake of dismissing scientific data because it disagrees with one's own experiences, as if anecdotal evidence can trump harder figures. Both types of data have value. But they need to be clearly distinguished. And neither should be used to refute the other because they really aren't comparable. > > Just my 2 cents. > > > > > > > > Michele in California > > calif.michele@s... > webmaster@c... > > > Visit Michele's World! of (Twice) Exceptional Homeschooling > http://www.califmichele.com > > It is not so very important for a person to learn facts. For that he does not really need a college. He can learn them from books. The value of an education in a liberal arts college is not learning of many facts but the training of the mind to think something that cannot be learned from textbooks. > -Albert Einstein > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 > > >>>--Just a clarification, actually, this fits none of the profiles > of the people. I actually don't advertise the problems we've had at > all, didn't even much report them to anybody else who wasn't already > doing it. > > --- > > There could be a lot of different reasons why people " like you " > seem to " find you " which could skew statistical data. I homeschool > my twice exceptional kids (well, multiply exceptional). I often > really hit if off with other moms of " kids like mine " and we end up > helping each other. I don't for one minute believe that this means > my kids are anywhere near " normal " . I think it is because similar > circumstances tend to put us in proximity and then small details clue > us that " THIS is someone I want to talk to " -- little things about > assumptions we make or don't make, how we do or do not react to > things which would be a big red flag for others but isn't for us. > Yes, sometimes they e-mail me because of things I have said on some > list which directly addresses issues they are struggling with. But > lots of folks e-mail me that I don't hit it off with. The ones where > we really talk a lot are folks who have really difficult kids who are > difficult in similar ways to how mine are difficult. > > Other folks think I am " too radical " or " exagerating " or whatever. > <shrug> > > > > This tendency to " find " folks like oneself can be uncanny and seem > kind of " psychic " or can easily convince one that " folks like me are > really The Norm " when they aren't. In my case, I think kids with > very high IQ's who also have learning disabilities are more likely to > wind up homeschooled because they don't fit in the gifted program, > they don't fit in the special ed. program, and they don't fit in the > regular classroom. I think gifted kids are more likely to have > gifted parents and bright folks are more likely to be computer nerds > than " average " . I think folks who are overwhelmed with very > demanding kids desperately need support groups but they also have > great difficulty finding the support they need through meeting folks > face-to-face, so they turn to online resources a lot. Etc. So, > folks like me with kids like mine end up in the same forums I end up > in and we often readily click. Nonetheless, I still sometimes need a > reality check because my kids seem so " normal " to me! > > As someone said in a lecture I attended: She didn't know her kids > were gifted because " All the other physicist's kids are like mine " > (her husband is a physicist). :-P > > > > Which isn't to suggest that your observations aren't valid and true > for the folks you talk to. It is just to say that I am personally > careful to distinguish between statistical norms and my personal > observations about me, my kids, and others who gravitate to me. > Also, folks living in your geographic area may all have similar > chelation experiences because they have been poisoned in a similar > fashion -- have similar lifestyles, all live near a defunct gold > mine, whatever. It may be very valuable information and I certainly > don't discourage you from sharing it. But I think arguments start on > this list when this line gets blurred between hard scientific data > and personal observations. I think it is really important to respect > what a person says about their own experiences and I think people get > defensive and tempers flare when someone feels their personal > experiences are being dismissed because it disagrees with harder > numbers. But I think it is equally important to not make the > > mistake of dismissing scientific data because it disagrees with > one's own experiences, as if anecdotal evidence can trump harder > figures. Both types of data have value. But they need to be clearly > distinguished. And neither should be used to refute the other > because they really aren't comparable. > > > > Just my 2 cents. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Michele in California > > > > calif.michele@s... > > webmaster@c... > > > > > > Visit Michele's World! of (Twice) Exceptional Homeschooling > > http://www.califmichele.com > > > > It is not so very important for a person to learn facts. For that > he does not really need a college. He can learn them from books. The > value of an education in a liberal arts college is not learning of > many facts but the training of the mind to think something that > cannot be learned from textbooks. > > -Albert Einstein > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 >The stimminess is pretty > commonly reported here and on other boards as a consequence of > chelation. -- " Pretty commonly " is the key phrase. It may not be corect to say or imply that it is the norm, given good management of the chelation process. Am I imagining things or have quite a few listmates reported that their kids do better on chelation days than off-days? Surely you have noticed some of those posts in your many years on these lists, Rose? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 The stimminess is pretty > commonly reported here and on other boards as a consequence of > chelation. Here's the subjectivity that led to objectivity: When I > experienced it with my child, I looked for similar reports so that I > could continue with some reassurance, and I began to see it as the > norm. Regression was also not uncommon, and the advise, given often > when we started this then, was " lower the dose " . I skim CK2 because I'm curious about how TD-DMPS is going. My sense of things there is that many have tried DMSA or ALA, and many of them had gut problems -- but it isn't at all clear whether they started with high dose and *then lowered it, or whether they used a 3-4 hr dosing schedule including nighttime doses, or what. And you can't really ask because that's considered inflammatory. I think a really well-designed poll that's in a place a lot of people can get to (maybe generationrescue?) would go a long way towards making things clearer. Love Letters feels dated now, the polls here have so few votes -- a good poll with accompanying files with side effect detail would IMO be a fantastic resource for all of us. Nell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 > Steve:> -- chelating kids specifically does not advocate the Cutler > > protocol. In fact it is forbidden to discuss that protocol on that list. So this is a misleading comment > > > Rose: this just isn't true, I've seen Cutler's name mentioned so many > times there. You aren't on the list and you've been misled, his > protocal is mentioned all the time, it's just not allowed to argue > with others about it there. A friend was kind enough to forward me the rules of CK2. One of these rules reads: " Any discussion of, or reference to Andy Cutler and his protocol are prohibited.. he is just too controversial for our list, and this is generally a DAN support group. We are all on the same page and there should be no need for discussion of his protocol or views of Physicians-- DAN physicians in particular! The autism mercury group gives you plenty of room for discussing things that have to do with him and his protocol and views. This will result in dismissal from the group. " As I noted, you are allowed to mention Andy only in order to criticise him, and most people of CK2 are following the DAN protocol, which is a high-dose, low-frequency protocol. So looking at their results on ALA, DMSA etc compared with the Buttar protocol is not really an instructive contrast. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 > >The stimminess is pretty > > commonly reported here and on other boards as a consequence of > > chelation. > > -- " Pretty commonly " is the key phrase. It may not be corect to say or > imply that it is the norm, given good management of the chelation > process. Am I imagining things or have quite a few listmates reported > that their kids do better on chelation days than off-days? > > Surely you have noticed some of those posts in your many years on these > lists, Rose? ==on the last point, yes, some kids seem to stim after, some before.. no disagreement there. I just see it as similar to what I have read as what Buttar labels " regression " or the annoying things you hate the most, you will see. It's very similar to what Andy told us to expect from his protocol: Every autism symptom may be more prevalent at first On the idea that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 >I just see it as similar to what I have read > as what Buttar labels " regression " or the annoying things you hate > the most, you will see. It's very similar to what Andy told us to > expect from his protocol: Every autism symptom may be more prevalent > at first -- I thin the " stim hell " described by parents using the Buttar protocol is different from what most parents see on the Cutler protocol, but hopefully as more reports roll in we will get a clearer idea Are you saying that from what you have read on various lists the size and frequency of dosing are more or less irrelevant to efficacy and safety? Do you think DMSA and ALA could also safely be given in convenient large one-off doses every 2nd day? Thanks Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 > > > Steve:> -- chelating kids specifically does not advocate the Cutler > > > protocol. In fact it is forbidden to discuss that protocol on > that list. So this is a misleading comment > > > > > Rose: this just isn't true, I've seen Cutler's name mentioned so > many > > times there. You aren't on the list and you've been misled, his > > protocal is mentioned all the time, it's just not allowed to argue > > with others about it there. > > A friend was kind enough to forward me the rules of CK2. One of these > rules reads: > > " Any discussion of, or reference to Andy Cutler and his protocol are > prohibited.. he is just too controversial for our list, and this is > generally a DAN support group. We are all on the same page and there > should be no need for discussion of his protocol or views of > Physicians-- DAN physicians in particular! The autism mercury group > gives you plenty of room for discussing things that have to do with > him and his protocol and views. > This will result in dismissal from the group. " > > As I noted, you are allowed to mention Andy only in order to > criticise him, and most people of CK2 are following the DAN protocol, > which is a high-dose, low-frequency protocol. So looking at their > results on ALA, DMSA etc compared with the Buttar protocol is not > really an instructive contrast. > > Steve ==yes, what they mean by no Andy Cutler discussion in practice is the bashing of people for not doing low-dose, and the bashing of DAN, but I just did a search there and A.C. protocol, where to find Andy Cutler book, low-dose version of Buttar protocol and responses is on there. It isn't every day, but I'd say there is a regular mention of this, and nobody gets kicked off. When Mandy posted there that she was trying it the low way, no slams, no warnings against this. Do I wish they wouldn't have this statement? Yes, I think it gives an easy way to slam the group, but it's praxis is very different, and frankly, I just tend to learn alot more variety of things there than I do there. I'm not trying to start anything, it's just that there is a greater diversity of postings of what people are doing. I won't even bring up here what they are talking about there now, it would have me get ridiculed by Andy, and I don't care to do that anymore. Life's too short. Now, if I would start advocating Buttar's protocol here as the safest, best, I'd get reamed. A mom recently posted that she was doing it and was summarily told that this group follows Andy's recommendations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 > > Now, if I would start advocating Buttar's protocol here as the > safest, best, I'd get reamed. A mom recently posted that she was > doing it and was summarily told that this group follows Andy's > recommendations. -- do it. That's what the thread was set up to do. The brief is to recount your real-life experiences. I it shouldn't bother you, you've argued with Andy before and held your own, and I doubt he would reply in this context, anyway. I think I saw the post you are referring to, and it read to me like she was being offered advice not an order. If I'm right his post was in the last few days, and a search through the archives would quickly sort out the facts. There certainly is a lot of heated argument etc on this site, but there are not rules about what can and can't be discussed Re CK2, the fact remains these rules exist and they would get rid of them if they had become out of date. They repost the rules every month - very unususual - and the site is quite strictly monitored. I had a friend who was warned several times for fairly innocuous postings Anyway, the key point is not freedom of speech, it is that CK2 is predominantly a pro-DAN site advocating high-dose, low frequency protocols (including Buttar). Lets not muddy the waters, that is what MOST people on that site practice and the list owners are explicit about their stance. I was a member for about 8 months and given that they still post the same rules I doubt it has changed much. I talk to ohter members of CK2 and this is what they tell me Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 > Now, if I would start advocating Buttar's protocol here as the > safest, best, I'd get reamed. A mom recently posted that she was > doing it and was summarily told that this group follows Andy's > recommendations. I found that statement very odd, since I have not done things per Andy's recommendations, so therefore " this group " , which presumably includes me since I have posted here for more than 3 years, is not all following Andy's recommendations. Dana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 >> >>> Now, if I would start advocating Buttar's protocol here as the >>> safest, best, I'd get reamed. A mom recently posted that she was >>> doing it and was summarily told that this group follows Andy's >>> recommendations. >>I found that statement very odd, since I have not done things per >>Andy's recommendations, so therefore " this group " , which >>presumably includes me since I have posted here for more than 3 >>years, is not all following Andy's recommendations. >>Dana ------ I know why some folks feel that way. I think it is partly a communication STYLE issue. When I asked about Cilantro, I was initially told " don't do it -- it isn't safe " and folks MISquoted Andy to me (offlist) in discouraging me from using it. It took quite a few posts to be " heard " that I am NOT trying to invent a cilantro-based chelation protocol but, instead, I am trying to understand what has ALREADY happened to me because I happen to have been eating cilantro almost daily for about 6 months before I ever even heard of this list. People have busy lives. Miscommunication in e-mail is common. Some folks are more sensitive to percieved " criticism " than others and more easily put off. I used to be real thin-skinned. My personal medical drama with an obscure, recently discovered form of CF forced me to learn to keep talking in the face of people making assumptions that were not on the mark and in the face of this type of communication difficulty. But I do understand why there is that perception here. I wish I had a magic wand to wave to make it go away. But as long as humans exist who have different life experiences, different communication styles, different personality types, etc. this type of friction will occur. I have concluded that one of the reasons these issues occur on this list is because Andy has been actively attacked at times and, understandably, gets defensive. Sheesh. Quit acting like he is some kind of " god " and you will notice that HE is not trying to promote himself as having all the answers or as the only person here who knows stuff. My background and experience is very different from most folks here. But my comments have been welcomed with open arms -- I think because I do not feel any need to " fight against " the views of others in presenting my experiences and observations. I have not done a formal chelation protocol for myself or my kids. I don't have any particular plans to do so. I mostly don't discuss chelation because I know almost nothing about it. But I have made comments about parasites, ear infections, gut problems and other things which are reasonably common topics on this list and which I do have experience with. My career-military husband often says " The best defense is a good offense " . I think a lot of folks end up attacking others when they feel defensive. But it isn't really necessary. When I speak from my experience and stand FOR something, I find that I don't necessarily have to be " against " anyone else. We may not even disagree particularly. It is sometimes like the six blind men and the elephant arguing about whether it is like a tree (the leg) or a snake (the trunk) a spear (the tusk), etc. When I really listen to others and they really listen to me, we usually find that it adds to our understanding and gives a more complete picture. But that only happens if neither party tries to dismiss the observations of the other. Peace, Michele in California calif.michele@... webmaster@... Visit Michele's World! of (Twice) Exceptional Homeschooling http://www.califmichele.com It is not so very important for a person to learn facts. For that he does not really need a college. He can learn them from books. The value of an education in a liberal arts college is not learning of many facts but the training of the mind to think something that cannot be learned from textbooks. -Albert Einstein Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 > > > Now, if I would start advocating Buttar's protocol here as the > > safest, best, I'd get reamed. A mom recently posted that she was > > doing it and was summarily told that this group follows Andy's > > recommendations. > > > I found that statement very odd, since I have not done things per > Andy's recommendations, so therefore " this group " , which presumably > includes me since I have posted here for more than 3 years, is not all > following Andy's recommendations. > > Dana Yes, Rose continues to use the classic sophistic technique of proclaiming something that isn't so and then using it to prove her arguments (e. g. that she only gets positive TTFD reports because it is totally safe and then hollering at anyone who puts a negative report in her poll, and arguing with me every single time I address the issue). Anyone who has been on the list long enough may remember every once in a while I post that I have profound disagreements with Dana and leave it at that. She is also grown up enough to leave it at that. She says what she has to say, I say what I have to say, this helps list members decide what they want to do. I think Dana and I contributing productively to the list while having disagreements falls under the " reasonable people will often disagree " statement in my earlier discussion of this. As repeatedly discussed on list in the past, I put some emotion into certain kinds of posts because if I don't parents aren't able to hear the information and make rational decisions. E. g. the doctor tells the parent to use a protocol that is harmful to their child when a safe alternative exists. If I don't put a lot of emotion into the response, the parents always with 100% perfect certainly to let the doctor try to hurt their child - which even if inadvertent and unintentional still hurts the child - and then are on the list asking how to fix it when the answer sometimes is " you can't, the damage is permanent and irreversible, " and the rest of the time is generally not easy or quick. I do agonize over trying not to cause additional trauma to parents who are just trying to help their poor sick kid in how I do this. I am sure I am not always successful, which is unfortunate and sad. However, mad dogging the arguments rather than stating them and leaving it at that, attacking the other party (Rose calling me a liar a few TTFD arguments ago, accusing Steve of fraudulently voting in her poll recently) is disruptive, causes excessive argument, is not productive, detracts from the ability of list members to pay attention to the content of the argument, and invites further escalation. If you think some aspect of someone's personality or psychiatric status is relevant, just say it, try not to make it any more of an attack than it has to be, and leave it at that. Also be specific about it. Then drop it. Also please if quoting me off list (and I hope you'd extend this courtesy to anyone), either get permission to do it, or send a hotlink to the actual post so whomever is reading it can see the exact words and context. I would like to think that one of the merits of this list is that it is one of the rare ones where content is what matters, the emotional context is just there to help get the content expressed. So if people will try to say what they know however they have to say it, and not take it personally, we can all contribute to getting as many kids better as possible. Andy . . . . . . . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 > their personal experiences are being dismissed because it disagrees with harder numbers. But I think it is equally important to not make the > mistake of dismissing scientific data because it disagrees with one's own experiences, as if anecdotal evidence can trump harder figures. Both types of data have value. But they need to be clearly distinguished. And neither should be used to refute the other because they really aren't comparable. > > Just my 2 cents. Actually this is the heart of science, and is NOT easy. What can be said about " scientific data " in light of " anecdotal evidence, " and vice versa. This is what statistics was developed to be able to do. And also reasoned analysis leavened with common sense. Unfortunately there is much pointless dispute wherein neither statistical nor systematic error are considered when different sources of data are declared compatible or incompatible. Personally I do chase around systematic error, the credibility of the source, and statistics (using tables and calculations) before deciding what I think is going on. > Michele in California > > calif.michele@s... > webmaster@c... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 Rose, I have NOT seen lots of discussion of Andy's protocol on the chelating kids list. In fact, the few times he is mentioned, he is called " he-whose-name-cannot-be-mentioned " because if you do, you're kicked off the list. Barb [ ] Re: To Steve (Rose/Mark) > >> > ---Steve, I fear this is misleading many people about what >> > they might expect from a low-dose frequent chelation. My >> experience, >> > and those of most of the people I'm personally acquainted with, > is >> > that even low-dose chelation produces the same effects as those >> you >> > attribute only to Buttar's protocol. >> > Steve replied: >> -- wrong. The effects I am referring to are not the standard yeast >> problems. They are the " stim hell " problems that seem to be the >> norm with Buttar, accrding to his own data. > > --that's what I'm referring to on the low-dose chelation, it's > exactly the same thing everybody I've been personally acquainted with > got for their kids on low-dose. And it preceded the yeast. From the > very first round, we got stimming with low-dose, and later, within 3 > months, got yeast out the wazoo >> > > Rose: I have also seen all the reports on chelatingkids. > Steve:> -- chealting kids specifically does not advocate the Cuytler >> protocol. In fact it is forbidden to discuss that protocol on that >> list. So this is a misleading comment >> > ==this just isn't true, I've seen Cutler's name mentioned so many > times there. You aren't on the list and you've been misled, his > protocal is mentioned all the time, it's just not allowed to argue > with others about it there. > >> >We got yeast and terrible parasites on a dose of >> > initially 12 mgs every 4 hours,(he had had a clear, no yeast or >> > parasites prior to chelating), we also got stimming from the very >> > first round, crankiness, vomiting, 2 bouts of high fever. I > didn't >> > stop, and in fact was told the same thing then that Buttar tells >> > patients, by Andy. Chelation is not without risks, but lower the >> > dose. I do think you and the many people who haven't experiences >> > these think that this doesn't happen if you follow the " rules. " > It >> > just isn't so. >> >> -- lower the dose is good advice. We did several rounds with just >> 6mg of DMSA or ALA. Even now we are only using 12.5mg of each > every >> 2 to 3 hours and we have done 35 rounds. >> >> I am sorry you had these awful experiences, Rose. But in my years > of >> reading this list and others it seems to me that they are not the >> norm with low-dose, high-frequency chelating. Whereas they are the >> norm with the Buttar protocol. Several parents who have had > problems >> with the Buttar protocol have reported improvements when switching >> to Andy's dosing schedule. This needs to be discussed, and parents >> who try the Buttar protocol and get problems should be made aware >> that there is an alternative that could possibly help them. >> > ---it is discussed on the other list, and no problems talking about > it there >> >> > I don't think it's right to attribute this sort of pain to only >> > Buttar's protocol. If you haven't experienced it, count your >> > blessings, but I know too many people whose kids have, so I know >> it >> > ain't just mine. I realize that if you experience success on one >> > protocol, that you tend to see it from your own perspective, and >> > that's mine. >> > Steve-- I know for a fact that my son does better on a dosing > shcedule >> even tighter than that recommended by Andy. So I can't see how > once >> a day dosing would be of equivalent efficacy or safety >> > Rose:> >There was no difference for us in transferring to >> > Buttar's and it appears that this is the case for all of the >> people I know who have made the switch. >> >> Steve-- most people who have switched to the Buttar protocol have > had >> many rounds of chelation already behind them. But perhaps you're >> right. We won't know unless we can debate this without invective >> > -Rose: -True, but from what I can see on the reports on > chelatingkids2, I honestly don't see a difference for kids who start > without any previous chelation--some are stimmy and some aren't. Very > few show regression, but I think if you look through the loveletters > here, you'll also see reports of regression. I honestly know too many > people who have been stimmy, whining, cranky, with the moms calling > me asking me whether they are doing the right thing with low-dose > because after their first round they see regression. That's not > invective, it's just observation. I was just trying to say that if > you paint this as easy you are setting people up for stopping. That's > why Buttar tells people to expect the worst, and to lower the dose. > It's *exactly* what I've told every friend whose child started > chelating and they started freaking out. > > Rose > > > > > > > ======================================================= > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2005 Report Share Posted May 20, 2005 " Miscommunication in e-mail is common. " Well said Michele. People forget, especially us NT's that in print we have no facial expressions or tone of voice to explain the feeling of the message. You only learn that after reading many, many, many posts from a person how to figure out where they are coming from. in Oceanside, CA Fighting for one child, in hopes it helps another child. Updated 4-11-05 to include... ~Doing the best I can with the hand I was dealt~ --------------------------------- Mobile Take with you! Check email on your mobile phone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2005 Report Share Posted May 21, 2005 > Rose, > I have NOT seen lots of discussion of Andy's protocol on the chelating kids > list. In fact, the few times he is mentioned, he is called > " he-whose-name-cannot-be-mentioned " because if you do, you're kicked off the > list. I believe the rules also extend to getting kicked off the list for mentioning my protocol. This is an EXCELLENT list for people to read to find a vast number of absolutely tragic horror stories about what happens to kids when their parents get emotionally involved in personality issues and ignore the technical information that is essential for understanding how to make their chidlren better instead of worse. However with mention of certain people, protocols, opinions, and scientific information banned, the chelating kids 2 list is not a very good source of accurate information, or context. > Barb > ----- Original Message ----- > From: " rosefeurer " <rfeurer@n...> > >> > ---Steve, I fear this is misleading many people about what > >> > they might expect from a low-dose frequent chelation. My > >> experience, > >> > and those of most of the people I'm personally acquainted with, > > is > >> > that even low-dose chelation produces the same effects as those > >> you > >> > attribute only to Buttar's protocol. > >> > > Steve replied: > >> -- wrong. The effects I am referring to are not the standard yeast > >> problems. They are the " stim hell " problems that seem to be the > >> norm with Buttar, accrding to his own data. > > > > --that's what I'm referring to on the low-dose chelation, it's > > exactly the same thing everybody I've been personally acquainted with > > got for their kids on low-dose. And it preceded the yeast. From the > > very first round, we got stimming with low-dose, and later, within 3 > > months, got yeast out the wazoo > >> > > > > Rose: I have also seen all the reports on chelatingkids. > > Steve:> -- chealting kids specifically does not advocate the Cuytler > >> protocol. In fact it is forbidden to discuss that protocol on that > >> list. So this is a misleading comment > >> > > ==this just isn't true, I've seen Cutler's name mentioned so many > > times there. You aren't on the list and you've been misled, his > > protocal is mentioned all the time, it's just not allowed to argue > > with others about it there. > > > >> >We got yeast and terrible parasites on a dose of > >> > initially 12 mgs every 4 hours,(he had had a clear, no yeast or > >> > parasites prior to chelating), we also got stimming from the very > >> > first round, crankiness, vomiting, 2 bouts of high fever. I > > didn't > >> > stop, and in fact was told the same thing then that Buttar tells > >> > patients, by Andy. Chelation is not without risks, but lower the > >> > dose. I do think you and the many people who haven't experiences > >> > these think that this doesn't happen if you follow the " rules. " > > It > >> > just isn't so. > >> > >> -- lower the dose is good advice. We did several rounds with just > >> 6mg of DMSA or ALA. Even now we are only using 12.5mg of each > > every > >> 2 to 3 hours and we have done 35 rounds. > >> > >> I am sorry you had these awful experiences, Rose. But in my years > > of > >> reading this list and others it seems to me that they are not the > >> norm with low-dose, high-frequency chelating. Whereas they are the > >> norm with the Buttar protocol. Several parents who have had > > problems > >> with the Buttar protocol have reported improvements when switching > >> to Andy's dosing schedule. This needs to be discussed, and parents > >> who try the Buttar protocol and get problems should be made aware > >> that there is an alternative that could possibly help them. > >> > > ---it is discussed on the other list, and no problems talking about > > it there > >> > >> > I don't think it's right to attribute this sort of pain to only > >> > Buttar's protocol. If you haven't experienced it, count your > >> > blessings, but I know too many people whose kids have, so I know > >> it > >> > ain't just mine. I realize that if you experience success on one > >> > protocol, that you tend to see it from your own perspective, and > >> > that's mine. > >> > > Steve-- I know for a fact that my son does better on a dosing > > shcedule > >> even tighter than that recommended by Andy. So I can't see how > > once > >> a day dosing would be of equivalent efficacy or safety > >> > > Rose:> >There was no difference for us in transferring to > >> > Buttar's and it appears that this is the case for all of the > >> people I know who have made the switch. > >> > >> Steve-- most people who have switched to the Buttar protocol have > > had > >> many rounds of chelation already behind them. But perhaps you're > >> right. We won't know unless we can debate this without invective > >> > > -Rose: -True, but from what I can see on the reports on > > chelatingkids2, I honestly don't see a difference for kids who start > > without any previous chelation--some are stimmy and some aren't. Very > > few show regression, but I think if you look through the loveletters > > here, you'll also see reports of regression. I honestly know too many > > people who have been stimmy, whining, cranky, with the moms calling > > me asking me whether they are doing the right thing with low-dose > > because after their first round they see regression. That's not > > invective, it's just observation. I was just trying to say that if > > you paint this as easy you are setting people up for stopping. That's > > why Buttar tells people to expect the worst, and to lower the dose. > > It's *exactly* what I've told every friend whose child started > > chelating and they started freaking out. > > > > Rose > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ======================================================= > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2005 Report Share Posted May 21, 2005 >> > This is an EXCELLENT list for people to read to find a vast number of > absolutely tragic horror stories about what happens to kids when their > parents get emotionally involved in personality issues and ignore the > technical information that is essential for understanding how to make > their chidlren better instead of worse. > > However with mention of certain people, protocols, opinions, and > scientific information banned, the chelating kids 2 list is not a very > good source of accurate information, or context. -- I don't have any strong opinions on CK2. To me the key point was that talking about case studies of side-effects from that list when discussing Andy's frequent-dose protocol was misleading at best. I still can't believe it took half-a-dozen posts and an inervention from a listmate to establish this point. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2005 Report Share Posted May 21, 2005 > >> > ---Steve, I fear this is misleading many people about what > >> > they might expect from a low-dose frequent chelation. My > >> experience, > >> > and those of most of the people I'm personally acquainted with, > > is > >> > that even low-dose chelation produces the same effects as those > >> you > >> > attribute only to Buttar's protocol. > >> > > Steve replied: > >> -- wrong. The effects I am referring to are not the standard yeast > >> problems. They are the " stim hell " problems that seem to be the > >> norm with Buttar, accrding to his own data. > > > > --that's what I'm referring to on the low-dose chelation, it's > > exactly the same thing everybody I've been personally acquainted with > > got for their kids on low-dose. And it preceded the yeast. From the > > very first round, we got stimming with low-dose, and later, within 3 > > months, got yeast out the wazoo > >> > > > > Rose: I have also seen all the reports on chelatingkids. > > Steve:> -- chealting kids specifically does not advocate the Cuytler > >> protocol. In fact it is forbidden to discuss that protocol on that > >> list. So this is a misleading comment > >> > > ==this just isn't true, I've seen Cutler's name mentioned so many > > times there. You aren't on the list and you've been misled, his > > protocal is mentioned all the time, it's just not allowed to argue > > with others about it there. > > > >> >We got yeast and terrible parasites on a dose of > >> > initially 12 mgs every 4 hours,(he had had a clear, no yeast or > >> > parasites prior to chelating), we also got stimming from the very > >> > first round, crankiness, vomiting, 2 bouts of high fever. I > > didn't > >> > stop, and in fact was told the same thing then that Buttar tells > >> > patients, by Andy. Chelation is not without risks, but lower the > >> > dose. I do think you and the many people who haven't experiences > >> > these think that this doesn't happen if you follow the " rules. " > > It > >> > just isn't so. > >> > >> -- lower the dose is good advice. We did several rounds with just > >> 6mg of DMSA or ALA. Even now we are only using 12.5mg of each > > every > >> 2 to 3 hours and we have done 35 rounds. > >> > >> I am sorry you had these awful experiences, Rose. But in my years > > of > >> reading this list and others it seems to me that they are not the > >> norm with low-dose, high-frequency chelating. Whereas they are the > >> norm with the Buttar protocol. Several parents who have had > > problems > >> with the Buttar protocol have reported improvements when switching > >> to Andy's dosing schedule. This needs to be discussed, and parents > >> who try the Buttar protocol and get problems should be made aware > >> that there is an alternative that could possibly help them. > >> > > ---it is discussed on the other list, and no problems talking about > > it there > >> > >> > I don't think it's right to attribute this sort of pain to only > >> > Buttar's protocol. If you haven't experienced it, count your > >> > blessings, but I know too many people whose kids have, so I know > >> it > >> > ain't just mine. I realize that if you experience success on one > >> > protocol, that you tend to see it from your own perspective, and > >> > that's mine. > >> > > Steve-- I know for a fact that my son does better on a dosing > > shcedule > >> even tighter than that recommended by Andy. So I can't see how > > once > >> a day dosing would be of equivalent efficacy or safety > >> > > Rose:> >There was no difference for us in transferring to > >> > Buttar's and it appears that this is the case for all of the > >> people I know who have made the switch. > >> > >> Steve-- most people who have switched to the Buttar protocol have > > had > >> many rounds of chelation already behind them. But perhaps you're > >> right. We won't know unless we can debate this without invective > >> > > -Rose: -True, but from what I can see on the reports on > > chelatingkids2, I honestly don't see a difference for kids who start > > without any previous chelation--some are stimmy and some aren't. Very > > few show regression, but I think if you look through the loveletters > > here, you'll also see reports of regression. I honestly know too many > > people who have been stimmy, whining, cranky, with the moms calling > > me asking me whether they are doing the right thing with low-dose > > because after their first round they see regression. That's not > > invective, it's just observation. I was just trying to say that if > > you paint this as easy you are setting people up for stopping. That's > > why Buttar tells people to expect the worst, and to lower the dose. > > It's *exactly* what I've told every friend whose child started > > chelating and they started freaking out. > > > > Rose > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ======================================================= > > 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.