Re: What to start on, long-term effects of DMSA and/or ALA

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: mildcasedad

====Hi, Good ?'s, comments interspersed.

What to start on:

-What are good litmus tests for determining whether to start ALA-only,

DMSA+ALA, or DMSA-only?

=====>You only really need Ala, but some people have side effects i.e.

increased spaciness, on Ala and Dmsa controls that. Others find Ala alone is

just fine.

-If ALA is going to remove the mercury, etc in the end anyway, why

worry about starting on it alone, or with DMSA+ALA?

[Or is this flat-out idiotic given that mercury will do more damage

if moved to the brain for any duration?]

-To completely confirm, cycles of ALA only can go on for longer than

3 days, but DMSA+ALA or DMSA alone should stop at ~3 days, correct?

====>For kids who do better when " on " a round, you can continue longer, but

start with just 3 days the first few rounds, just to get a baseline feel for

how he/she is going to do.

-Would there be any harm in starting on a longer duration (e.g. up

to a week, during the holidays) for 1-2 cycles if he can handle it and

doesn't show side effects?

-What specifically happens in the body during the " off period " (e.g.

that makes a break of >= " days on " needed)?

=====>Metals continually get excreted and then eventually settle down, the

body rests.

Long-term affects of DMSA and ALA (alone/separately)

-Jepson/ claim a rat study showed that rats who chelated (on

DMSA?) at an early stage of development had adverse long-term affects

on behavior. [Then again, they may not have supplemented with needed

minerals/vitamins which may have helped, so the results may/may-not be

conclusive.]

====>Yes, they gave no supplements and I think used HUGE amounts of the

chelators, not what the protocol is here. And I think they chelated rats with NO

metals, you wouldn't do that with a child.

-How much of a concern is this, and has it been born out by other

studies?

====>I don't believe so.

-How pronounced are the long-term affects of DMSA (e.g. on the liver

and bone marrow suppression, if I recall, though I can't find it now)

at these low dosage rates?

====>The low dosages suggested here, e.g. 1/4 mg per lb, are safe and not

harmful to the liver and/or bone marrow suppression.

Good luck,

-Are there any studies showing long term affects of ALA on

individuals? DMSA?

-How well is that known/understood at this point?

Many thanks in advance.

[Guest guest]

>

> Hi,

>

> I've been mining the archives as well as I can, but still have some

> scattered questions if people could be so kind:

>

> What to start on:

> -What are good litmus tests for determining whether to start ALA-only,

> DMSA+ALA, or DMSA-only?

There aren';t any.

> -If ALA is going to remove the mercury, etc in the end anyway, why

> worry about starting on it alone, or with DMSA+ALA?

The side effect profile can be quite different, there may be some lead around,

there are

theoretical reasons to expect DMSA to help somewhat in combination with ALA.

> [Or is this flat-out idiotic given that mercury will do more damage

> if moved to the brain for any duration?]

No, lots of people use ALA only and it seems to work fine.

> -To completely confirm, cycles of ALA only can go on for longer than

> 3 days, but DMSA+ALA or DMSA alone should stop at ~3 days, correct?

No, they can all go on for a long time IF you tolerate them. Tolerance of side

effects or of

the parents giving the doses is the usual issue. They all shouild be AT LEAST 3

days.

> -Would there be any harm in starting on a longer duration (e.g. up

> to a week, during the holidays) for 1-2 cycles if he can handle it and

> doesn't show side effects?

This is fine. There would be no harm.

> -What specifically happens in the body during the " off period " (e.g.

> that makes a break of >= " days on " needed)?

For practical reasons for most people they need some recovery time. It has

never been

completely clear if this was necessary, it is simply the way chelation has

always been done

and I wasn't really interested in changing things just to change them when

coming up with

a protocol - I specified things that the laws of nature require but didn't

innovate beyond

that. In this sense it is a conservative constraint.

> Long-term affects of DMSA and ALA (alone/separately)

are essentially unknown, as for almost everything that goes down people's

gullets for the

long term.

> -Jepson/ claim a rat study showed that rats who chelated (on

> DMSA?)

using an inappropriate and harmful protocol.

>at an early stage of development had adverse long-term affects

> on behavior.

As expected given the use of a harmful and inappropriate protocol. Why do you

think I

spend so much time hammering on the DAN! protocol (and others) to get people

not to

do them to their kids?

> [Then again, they may not have supplemented with needed

> minerals/vitamins which may have helped, so the results may/may-not be

> conclusive.]

> -How much of a concern is this,

None.

> and has it been born out by other studies?

There is a human trial showing if you use the dangerous harmful and

inappropriate DMSA

10 mg/kg every 8 hours on lead poisoned children their IQ's don't improve.

There is more than adequate evidence that using a proper protocol that meets

textbook

criteria based on kinetics is essential, but since MD is a liberal arts degree

this technical

knowledge doesn't seem to affect medical practice.

> -How pronounced are the long-term affects of DMSA (e.g. on the liver

> and bone marrow suppression, if I recall, though I can't find it now)

> at these low dosage rates?

They are rare, transient and small at lower doses, and even at higher doses they

are not

long term, they are prompt and go away promptly on discontinuation of the

harmful and

inappropriate protocol.

> -Are there any studies showing long term affects of ALA on

> individuals?

Probably some on once a day dosing for its antioxidant properties. Not really

relevant.

>DMSA?

Really none that are relevant.

> -How well is that known/understood at this point?

Obviously not very.

However, there are 2 things to say that will cause all sane people to stop

worrying about

these questions (but won't affect most MD's).

1. If you have a little baby who gets brain damage because doctors poison him,

and it is so

severe he becomes autistic, if you do NOT chelate him there is a 93% chance he

will need

to be institutionallized as an adult because he won't be able to take care of

himself, much

less work. These are existing, well established statistics.

2. The Rx drugs inevitably eventually needed by autistic people ARE all known to

have

profoundly negative long term effects, e. g. antipsychotics such as Risperdal.

So the choice is doing something that you don't even know if it has a long term

risk (and

have no real reason to expect there to be one beyond satanically evil doctors

trying to talk

parents into keeping their chidlren autistic) that can make the kid normal so

they grow up

and have a fulfilling life of their own, versus a 93% chance of being

institutionalized and

put on drugs that are known to have profoundly negative long term risks. This

choice

doesn't require much intelligence to make. You chelate the kid. All the risks

are on the

not-chelated side, all the benefits are on the chelated side of the equation.

>

> Many thanks in advance.

>

You're welcome. Don't obsess on the unknowables or you'll start trying to

decide where

you need to live so your house isn't under the next giant meteorite that falls.

All the

knowables say chelate, and say that if there is a long term risk it is modest

and less than

the risks of being autistic.

Andy

[Guest guest]

> So the choice is doing something that you don't even know if it has

a long term risk (and

> have no real reason to expect there to be one beyond satanically

evil doctors trying to talk

> parents into keeping their chidlren autistic) that can make the kid

normal so they grow up

> and have a fulfilling life of their own, versus a 93% chance of

being institutionalized and

> put on drugs that are known to have profoundly negative long term

risks. This choice

> doesn't require much intelligence to make. You chelate the kid.

All the risks are on the

> not-chelated side, all the benefits are on the chelated side of the

equation.

Thanks so much, Andy, for your perspective and for the considerable

thoughtfulness that went into this reply. You do have some great

points here (per usual).

The thing that's probably a bit harder for us is that he's always been

a mild case (hence the moniker) and has improved a lot after MB-12,

supplements, and quite a bit now after getting his yeast under control.

If you're pulling your kid out of an autistic abyss, I can only

presume you would take more chances. When you're treating a kid who

increasingly seems like he'll be ok in life, though perhaps not

achieve full potential if the " needs chelation " prognosis is never

fulfilled, it may be a different equation.

Hypothetically, would full normalcy now be a good tradeoff if it meant

say cancer at 25, or brittle bone collapse at 35? Without having any

idea of what those potentially adverse affects are, decisions come harder.

[Guest guest]

I'm not Andy but after reading this I am wondering why you think those

things are a risk at all. My son was mild too, but I was not going to

let him have a substandard life and probably a lifelong health

conditions because he suffered metal poisoning as a child that was not

treated. You do realize that childhood Lead exposure is linked to

brain damage, cancer, criminal behavior, gout, heart problems..the

list goes on. And that mercury toxicity will make you go insane at

some point in your 20's. Reading the actual science on what happens to

the body when exposed to these poisons is reason enough to get your

child better.

I did not take more chances because my son was " severe " because he

wasn't. I did not want him to spend the rest of his life feeling bad

inside and thinking he was stupid when in fact he doesn't need to.

I also have seen first hand what metals do to you when you get older,

as a child with mercury and Lead poisoning, I became a teen with

severe depression and chronic fatigue. I ended up panic attacks,

anxiety, and migraines. Now in my 30's I am recovering with treatment,

but I have chronic adrenal and thyroid problems, a liver that don't

work well....and who knows if I will get cancer someday. The risks are

higher. I was pretty much normal as a kid, other than trouble learning

math/reading and making friends. I was shy and an outcast. And for me

that was very painful to grow up that way. Why would I want that for

my kid? Because it's easy, because I didn't think he was " sick " enough?

I'm not saying chelation is for everyone..it does require a commitment

and a lot of work. No doubt there, but if you can give your child a

chance at a normal life..why wouldn't you.

Bone collapse is not one I have heard of as a side effect. I would

think that if one were supplementing properly with minerals this would

not be an issue.

and chelation does not cause cancer...heavy metals do that by

suppressing the immune system and causing dna damage to cells.

I think many times people try to scare parents with horror

stories...so I can't blame anyone for being cautious. We all have to

do our own research though..don't dismiss something that could cure

your child because of misinformation.

The potentially adverse affects of a toxic body are far greater. And

have been proven that these things happen to the body in the presence

of toxic metals. And bear in mind that what we do here, on this

board..is not like other chelation protocols which yes, are scary. And

chelation with dmsa is an FDA approved treatment for heavy metal

poisoning in children.

So for us, my son would probably have been somewhat ok in life, but he

certainly would not have achieved full potential, or even the

potential he is at now...he has come such a long way and many of his

disabilities are gone. I am pretty sure he did not want to spend his

life being the learning disabled kid who couldn't dress himself or

make friends. No one wants that. Just something to consider from the

perspective of someone who grew up with metal poisoning. It really

robbed me of many things, and I wish some had chelated me then.

>

>

> > So the choice is doing something that you don't even know if it has

> a long term risk (and

> > have no real reason to expect there to be one beyond satanically

> evil doctors trying to talk

> > parents into keeping their chidlren autistic) that can make the kid

> normal so they grow up

> > and have a fulfilling life of their own, versus a 93% chance of

> being institutionalized and

> > put on drugs that are known to have profoundly negative long term

> risks. This choice

> > doesn't require much intelligence to make. You chelate the kid.

> All the risks are on the

> > not-chelated side, all the benefits are on the chelated side of the

> equation.

>

> Thanks so much, Andy, for your perspective and for the considerable

> thoughtfulness that went into this reply. You do have some great

> points here (per usual).

>

> The thing that's probably a bit harder for us is that he's always been

> a mild case (hence the moniker) and has improved a lot after MB-12,

> supplements, and quite a bit now after getting his yeast under control.

>

> If you're pulling your kid out of an autistic abyss, I can only

> presume you would take more chances. When you're treating a kid who

> increasingly seems like he'll be ok in life, though perhaps not

> achieve full potential if the " needs chelation " prognosis is never

> fulfilled, it may be a different equation.

>

> Hypothetically, would full normalcy now be a good tradeoff if it meant

> say cancer at 25, or brittle bone collapse at 35? Without having any

> idea of what those potentially adverse affects are, decisions come

harder.

>

[Guest guest]

>

> If you're pulling your kid out of an autistic abyss, I can only

> presume you would take more chances. When you're treating a kid who

> increasingly seems like he'll be ok in life, though perhaps not

> achieve full potential if the " needs chelation " prognosis is never

> fulfilled, it may be a different equation.

For me the hump to get over in thinking about the risk/benefit was: does my

child actually

have metals in his body or not? Since the risk of chelation is in moving the

metals, then

there is little risk to doing a trial if there aren't metals there. The risks to

leaving them in

are *not returning to normalcy, even if there's some improvement with time, plus

plenty of

known health risks for the future such as cancer.

My son was quite high-functioning (gifted and verbal) so I understand your

hesitation. I

hesitated myself, especially after his hair test was only suspicious but met no

counting

rules. But chelation has done more than get rid of his autistic symptoms -- it

has made

him healthy. He glows now! People who have no idea of his history comment on it.

Kids

these days, generally, are missing that glow of good health -- so many of the

ones who

aren't noticeably affected by vaccines are pale and wan that a kid with good

rosy color and

bright eyes stands out.

> Hypothetically, would full normalcy now be a good tradeoff if it meant

> say cancer at 25, or brittle bone collapse at 35? Without having any

> idea of what those potentially adverse affects are, decisions come harder.

I think the potentially adverse effects of being metal-toxic *are known -- look

at the long

list of diseases and symptoms on the front of " Amalgam Illness " . You're

comparing known

very bad outcomes with the unknown -- which is unknown, sure, but for which the

evidence is piling up on the side of health.

Nell

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Jada. At least two problems with my original thought:

a) I've wanted to do it, but found my wife's concern over this exact

point hard to deflate and argue with

I completely forgot to also weigh the long term effects of the metals

You're completely right. I don't want to rob him of anything either,

and my gut has always been telling me to do it with caution but to

***DO*** it ***NOW***. It's very hard for me to sit still and wait

for my wife to come to the same conclusion, or keep trying to pull her

there. We've come a good distance already, but that doesn't always

seem to matter.

Bone collapse was only used as a hypothetical. Yet another thing I've

probably missed as well is that DMSA *has* been used for a few decades

so any potential ill-effects like this should be known to a decent

degree already, and when you add in the scales tips by far to one side.

I'm very sorry you've had to go through what you have to this point,

but can offer my best hopes for your improved health now and my great

appreciation - sharing your story here very likely made improving

another life even easier.

Thank you.

[Guest guest]

DMSA and DMPS have been used worldwide since the 1950's, as usual the US was

rather

late on the scene.

Andy

> Thanks, Jada. At least two problems with my original thought:

> a) I've wanted to do it, but found my wife's concern over this exact

> point hard to deflate and argue with

> I completely forgot to also weigh the long term effects of the metals

>

> You're completely right. I don't want to rob him of anything either,

> and my gut has always been telling me to do it with caution but to

> ***DO*** it ***NOW***. It's very hard for me to sit still and wait

> for my wife to come to the same conclusion, or keep trying to pull her

> there. We've come a good distance already, but that doesn't always

> seem to matter.

>

> Bone collapse was only used as a hypothetical. Yet another thing I've

> probably missed as well is that DMSA *has* been used for a few decades

> so any potential ill-effects like this should be known to a decent

> degree already, and when you add in the scales tips by far to one side.

>

> I'm very sorry you've had to go through what you have to this point,

> but can offer my best hopes for your improved health now and my great

> appreciation - sharing your story here very likely made improving

> another life even easier.

>

> Thank you.

>

[Guest guest]

> >

> > If you're pulling your kid out of an autistic abyss, I can only

> > presume you would take more chances. When you're treating a kid who

> > increasingly seems like he'll be ok in life, though perhaps not

> > achieve full potential if the " needs chelation " prognosis is never

> > fulfilled, it may be a different equation.

>

> For me the hump to get over in thinking about the risk/benefit was:

does my child actually

> have metals in his body or not? Since the risk of chelation is in

moving the metals, then

> there is little risk to doing a trial if there aren't metals there.

Now there's an interesting twist I hadn't thought of.

The risks to leaving them in

> are *not returning to normalcy, even if there's some improvement

with time, plus plenty of

> known health risks for the future such as cancer.

Bingo, and a major hole in my thinking.

> My son was quite high-functioning (gifted and verbal) so I

understand your hesitation. I

> hesitated myself, especially after his hair test was only suspicious

but met no counting

> rules.

This is sounding like our case. As is probably typical, gifts are

tempered with some deficits compared to any norm. Though even those

are improving, putting any cap on things by *NOT* doing something

doesn't seem to me like the right course.

But chelation has done more than get rid of his autistic symptoms --

it has made

> him healthy. He glows now! People who have no idea of his history

comment on it. Kids

> these days, generally, are missing that glow of good health -- so

many of the ones who

> aren't noticeably affected by vaccines are pale and wan that a kid

with good rosy color and

> bright eyes stands out.

Thanks for sharing, this is quite compelling.

>

> > Hypothetically, would full normalcy now be a good tradeoff if it meant

> > say cancer at 25, or brittle bone collapse at 35? Without having any

> > idea of what those potentially adverse affects are, decisions come

harder.

>

> I think the potentially adverse effects of being metal-toxic *are

known -- look at the long

> list of diseases and symptoms on the front of " Amalgam Illness " .

You're comparing known

> very bad outcomes with the unknown -- which is unknown, sure, but

for which the

> evidence is piling up on the side of health.

Thanks for this too, Nell. You're dead-on. I was forgetting this in

my arguments.

As related in the response to Jada, it's not my decision alone.

However, my part in that is now quite clear, and the desire to start

*NOW* has never been stronger.

Thank you.

[Guest guest]

> If you're pulling your kid out of an autistic abyss, I can only

> presume you would take more chances. When you're treating a kid who

> increasingly seems like he'll be ok in life, though perhaps not

> achieve full potential if the " needs chelation " prognosis is never

> fulfilled, it may be a different equation.

Yes it is. The risks are dramatically reduced and ti becomes a no brainer to

chelate him.

The less severe they are the better they respond and the easier time they have

of it.

>

> Hypothetically, would full normalcy now be a good tradeoff if it meant

> say cancer at 25, or brittle bone collapse at 35?

Why would any sane person even imagine these kinds of things when there are

thousands

of pharmaceutical drugs in common lifelong use that have no studies on long term

effects,

and almost none of the chemicals (natural or otherwise) in the food you eat has

such

studies?

>Without having any

> idea of what those potentially adverse affects are, decisions come harder.

No they don't. There is no technical reason to think there should be any

negative long

term effects. The whole idea of worrying about them is nuts. The long term

effects of

plasticizers in your water bottles are far more rational to worry about - those

ARE known

hormone mimics.

Andy

[Guest guest]

>

> As related in the response to Jada, it's not my decision alone.

> However, my part in that is now quite clear, and the desire to start

> *NOW* has never been stronger.

FWIW, my husband thought chelation was loony before we started. I told him we

would do

5 rounds only and then reassess, and if anything horrible happened before that,

we would

stop immediately. What happened was that my son responded very positively on the

first

round, and for years was so much happier and better functioning on-round that

there was

never any doubt chelation was doing good things. I knew when I overheard my

husband

going on about the wonders of chelation at a cocktail party that empirical

science had

won.

In retrospect, I think my fears were largely about stepping that much farther

away from

the old relationship I had with doctors, which was do what I was told. The

earlier biomed

steps were more commonsense, taking the junk out of his diet, etc. Starting

chelation was

saying, " OK, I have to make this decision myself and bear the consequences

myself

because I can no longer trust doctors to take care of my child " . That's a tough

step for a

lot of people to make, but it's not really about the safety of chelation.

The other thing you might tell your wife is that less-affected kids almost

always respond

very well to chelation...

Nell

[Guest guest]

> -If ALA is going to remove the mercury, etc in the end anyway, why

> worry about starting on it alone, or with DMSA+ALA?

I chelated all four of my kids, and now myself, with just ALA.

> -To completely confirm, cycles of ALA only can go on for longer than

> 3 days, but DMSA+ALA or DMSA alone should stop at ~3 days, correct?

I have given ALA for more than 3 days at a time.

> -Would there be any harm in starting on a longer duration (e.g. up

> to a week, during the holidays) for 1-2 cycles if he can handle it and

> doesn't show side effects?

So long as he is doing well, I would say you can do that. I have done

it. Watch for yeast overgrowth and demineralization. Be sure to give

a longer rest period when you stop the ALA.

> Long-term affects of DMSA and ALA (alone/separately)

At my house, long term effects of ALA were elimination of 75% of food

intolerances, and tolerance of required supplements. ALA was one of

the first steps my son needed for recovery.

Dana

[Guest guest]

As Andy has mentioned, DMPS and DMASA will clean up the organs from

neck down. Therefore, by the time you add ALA, there is no chance for

ALA to tow the metals to the brain. ALA passes throgh BBB, the others

don't.

Kaylee

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: mildcasedad

> ====Hi, Good ?'s, comments interspersed.

>

>

>

> What to start on:

> -What are good litmus tests for determining whether to start ALA-

only,

> DMSA+ALA, or DMSA-only?

>

>

>

> =====>You only really need Ala, but some people have side effects

i.e. increased spaciness, on Ala and Dmsa controls that. Others find

Ala alone is just fine.

>

>

> -If ALA is going to remove the mercury, etc in the end anyway, why

> worry about starting on it alone, or with DMSA+ALA?

> [Or is this flat-out idiotic given that mercury will do more

damage

> if moved to the brain for any duration?]

> -To completely confirm, cycles of ALA only can go on for longer

than

> 3 days, but DMSA+ALA or DMSA alone should stop at ~3 days,

correct?

>

> ====>For kids who do better when " on " a round, you can continue

longer, but start with just 3 days the first few rounds, just to get

a baseline feel for how he/she is going to do.

>

>

> -Would there be any harm in starting on a longer duration (e.g. up

> to a week, during the holidays) for 1-2 cycles if he can handle

it and

> doesn't show side effects?

> -What specifically happens in the body during the " off period "

(e.g.

> that makes a break of >= " days on " needed)?

>

> =====>Metals continually get excreted and then eventually settle

down, the body rests.

>

> Long-term affects of DMSA and ALA (alone/separately)

> -Jepson/ claim a rat study showed that rats who chelated

(on

> DMSA?) at an early stage of development had adverse long-term

affects

> on behavior. [Then again, they may not have supplemented with

needed

> minerals/vitamins which may have helped, so the results may/may-

not be

> conclusive.]

>

> ====>Yes, they gave no supplements and I think used HUGE amounts

of the chelators, not what the protocol is here. And I think they

chelated rats with NO metals, you wouldn't do that with a child.

>

>

> -How much of a concern is this, and has it been born out by other

> studies?

>

> ====>I don't believe so.

>

>

> -How pronounced are the long-term affects of DMSA (e.g. on the

liver

> and bone marrow suppression, if I recall, though I can't find it

now)

> at these low dosage rates?

>

> ====>The low dosages suggested here, e.g. 1/4 mg per lb, are safe

and not harmful to the liver and/or bone marrow suppression.

>

> Good luck,

>

>

>

>

> -Are there any studies showing long term affects of ALA on

> individuals? DMSA?

> -How well is that known/understood at this point?

>

> Many thanks in advance.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Dana-- If we want to start ALA but my son cannot tolerate minerals

etc is it ok to start ALA

At the time I started ALA at my house, the only supplement my son

tolerated was HNI enzymes. He started losing his intolerances at

about round 10. Most intolerances were gone at about round 50.

>>and when should we start using minerals and which ones;/

I think I would start with 100% of each mineral, as individual

supplements. Add them one at a time, so you know what he needs.

Certain minerals have signs of deficiency that you can look for. For

example, low calcium sometimes causes kids to press on their eyes.

Low zinc many times causes oral behaviors.

The most effective mineral for my son was selenium, he did need that

for quite a while.

>>Is there a place to find a list of minerals to use and dosages in

between rounds of ALA?

For me, I have to take minerals on the " on " days as well as the " off "

days, or I have problems. I take the minerals about 60-90 minutes

after the ALA.

I just went to my local health food store and looked at bottles of

multi minerals, and individual minerals, to get an idea of what was

out there.

>>Were there any side effects negatively when using ALA?

Yeast overgrowth, and mineral deficiency for me.

Dana

[Guest guest]

What a wonderful thread, thank you to everyone for sharing their

experience & insights and to the original poster for the questions.

There were answers in this thread to some questions that I also had &

I am so pleased to read about the experience of others, especially

with regards to progress when chelating children with " mild " autistic

symptoms.

> I knew when I overheard my husband going on about the wonders of

> chelation at a cocktail party that empirical science had won.

This statement surprised me! How many members of this list actually

bring up the subject of chelation at dinner parties?

[Guest guest]

> What a wonderful thread, thank you to everyone for sharing their

> experience & insights and to the original poster for the questions.

> There were answers in this thread to some questions that I also had &

> I am so pleased to read about the experience of others, especially

> with regards to progress when chelating children with " mild " autistic

> symptoms.

>

> > I knew when I overheard my husband going on about the wonders of

> > chelation at a cocktail party that empirical science had won.

>

> This statement surprised me! How many members of this list actually

> bring up the subject of chelation at dinner parties?

[Guest guest]

>

> I have read every response in this thread and I am a little

worried now.

>

> My son's porphyrins test results show remarkable mercury

toxicity as well most likely lead and aluminum. We saw our DAN

yesterday and he told us that it has been a while since he has seen

such high levels of mercury in a child.

>

> My son is going to be 3 yrs old in a couple of months and is non-

verbal. We lost our verbal and happy child after his 18 months

vaccinations. He has been diagnosed as moderate to severely

autistic.

>

> A few here have mentioned that kids less affected respond better

to chelation........ does this mean that chelation may not work as

well for my little guy? This scares me.

No, if he is more affected, it means that his body is more

compromised already. Chelation is that more important (if that is

possible), and the process that much longer (probably) with more

variables, i.e. more (or more significant) immune issues, digestive

issues, endocrine issues, other imbalances, etc.

>

> We will be doing our 5th round of DMSA this weekend at 8mgs.

When do you suggest we add ALA?

Are you seeing anything?

>

[Guest guest]

> This statement surprised me! How many members of this list actually

> bring up the subject of chelation at dinner parties?

I didn't at first. But as my son started to get better and better, I decided to

be straight-

forward about it. So when I took him to an eye doctor, for example, I wrote down

DMSA in

the " what meds does he take " section, and the doctor asked me about it. His hair

was

standing on end but I was just matter of fact about it. Once you get past caring

what doctors

think about you, it is fun to mess with their heads.

I've done the same thing both socially and with other doctors. I figure if

enough people do

this, it will stop sounding so freaky.

Nell

[Guest guest]

I am pretty up front about it, but that may very well go to my

tendencies to be honest and open, even when it is uncomfortable and,

perhaps, even inappropriate.....

Anne

>

> > This statement surprised me! How many members of this list

actually

> > bring up the subject of chelation at dinner parties?

>

> I didn't at first. But as my son started to get better and better,

I decided to be straight-

> forward about it. So when I took him to an eye doctor, for

example, I wrote down DMSA in

> the " what meds does he take " section, and the doctor asked me

about it. His hair was

> standing on end but I was just matter of fact about it. Once you

get past caring what doctors

> think about you, it is fun to mess with their heads.

>

> I've done the same thing both socially and with other doctors. I

figure if enough people do

> this, it will stop sounding so freaky.

>

> Nell

>

[Guest guest]

> My son is going to be 3 yrs old in a couple of months and is

non-verbal.

What my son needed for language is written here

http://www.danasview.net/issues.htm

> A few here have mentioned that kids less affected respond better

to chelation........ does this mean that chelation may not work as

well for my little guy? This scares me.

My son has a dx of " classic Kanner's autism " , severe, low functioning.

Today he is no longer autistic, altho he still has delays in

language. Chelation was one of the *first* steps to his recovery, but

it was required. His story is here, if you want to read it

http://www.danasview.net/myson.htm

> We will be doing our 5th round of DMSA this weekend at 8mgs. When

do you suggest we add ALA?

I chelated with ALA only, so in my opinion, add it whenever you want.

Dana