Re: Questions Regarding Conflicts with ARI

July 5, 2006

First of all, these are not contridictions. The DAN! concensus papers is exactly

that: a concensus. These are suggestions, based on parent reports and

doctor/researcher findings. It is stated repeatedly in all of the DAN!

presentations, literature and online that these suggestions are general, and

that they are to be applied to the treatment of a particular child with great

thought and care. Nowhere does it say these are hard and fast rules that are

going to fit each kid.

Your doctor may be a great doctor, or your doctor may be not-so-great. The

question is, point by point, how does your child respond to the treatments he is

on? That should be your only real criteria. Take those responses and talk them

over with your doctor and make plans based on that team. You are the team

leader however, so if your doc doesn't respond to your insight, fire him/her.

I suggest that you go online and download the DAN! videos from ARI. Watch

them all. I have watched them all, over and over. This is the best source I

know for curent information as well as aplication using the DAN! spirit of

treating individuals, not averages.

barb1283 <barb1283@...> wrote:

Refering to copy of " Treatment Options

for Mercury in Autism. " , Consensus Position Papers

from Autism Research Institute or ARI

linked at Generation Rescue site

there are some conflicts of what many people here recommend (and

also my own DAN! doctor.

One is on page 6 of that report that says they do not recommend

hair analysis or unprovoked urine tests, but recommend provoked

urine tests. This is what my Dan! doctor did. I imagine she is

following these guidelines (?). Another doctor I go to did not like

the fact that I was given a chelating provoking agent, saying it was

too dangerous but he is not a DAN! doctor, and people here too.

On page 9, they recommend glutathione supplements by transdermal, iv

or subcutaneous and state they have no evidence that oral glut

supplements have any benefit. Andy disagreed with needing at least

transdermal glut in at least one post I read. My DAN! doctor didn't

mention glut at all.

Also on page 9, it states that it is recommended that gut problems

are addressed before chelating, bacterial infections, like E coli,

or yeast infections yet my DAN! doctor maintains I have yeast

infection but is avoiding DMSA to deal because of that rather than

treat the yeast infection first. This isn't a contradiction with

anything here I've read so far but I noted that it is a

contradiction with these papers and what my DAN! doctor is doing.

Does anyone have any input on these contradictions? You would think

this paper put together by Autism Research Institute would be pretty

good to follow. Is it safe to say there is a fair amount of

disagreement on treatment protocol for chelating mercury???

---------------------------------

Sneak preview the all-new .com. It's not radically different. Just

radically better.

July 6, 2006

> One is on page 6 of that report that says they do not recommend

> hair analysis or unprovoked urine tests, but recommend provoked

> urine tests.

Hair analysis is recommended for diagnosing heavy metal toxicity in

standard medical textbooks, and a subset of affected children do show

high levels of Hg and/or lead on hair tests. Because Hg can get stuck

in tissues and organs and *not show up on a hair (or blood) test,

Andy figured out a way to use the hair test to look at the effects of

Hg -- the way it deranges mineral transport -- and get a decent idea

of whether Hg is causing trouble.

Provoked urine tests can be dangerous, as you've read here. Over the

years I've read countless posts of kids and adults having bad

episodes after doing them.

> Also on page 9, it states that it is recommended that gut problems

> are addressed before chelating,

If I had followed this bit of DAN advice my son would still be ill

and we'd never have gotten to chelation. From my own experience and

reading about the experiences of others, Andy is right -- the gut is

messed up *because of the metals, and you can't make it right until

you get rid of them.

> Does anyone have any input on these contradictions?

IMO the trouble begins with the idea of consensus. If you're coming

up with a plan that everyone has to agree with, by definition the

most original thinking is going to get left out. I think medicine by

committee just isn't a good way to go.

The reason I went with Andy's protocol is that after reading various

lists for a long time, the people following his protocol got better

with way fewer problems. The people doing various other protocols

experienced some terrible regressions, and the percentage of

recovering kids was much lower. The other big reason is that after

allowing my kids to be poisoned because I did what a doctor told me,

I am *very wary of doing what another doctor tells me to do,

especially if they're asking me to try something that has no history

of safety or doesn't make sense (Buttar's protocol, for example).

People seem to pick doctors for all kinds of reasons -- I see

recommendations saying, " She's really nice " or " He cares so much

about our kids " or " He's a good Christian " . Those things don't matter

At All. What matters is how well the treatment works and how safe it

is. And thank heavens for the internet and these lists, because now

we can share that information and make our own decisions.

> Is it safe to say there is a fair amount of

> disagreement on treatment protocol for chelating mercury???

Yep! LOL

Nell

>

July 6, 2006

If they don't recommend hair tests it's probably because they don't understand

or know about the counting rules. If one did a hair test and didn't know about

the counting rules they would be likely to dismiss mercury as a possible issue.

Gut issues never really heal until one deals with the metal issues. It means

lots of lucrative office visits...

S S