testing for environmental toxins

February 12, 2005

Alon, Mike and Roger,

What is your take on IV injection of chelating specific compounds to

provoke the release of the suspected heavy metal and then measuring

levels in a 24 hour urine sample? Seems to me biochemically pretty

straight forward, completely accurate and safe when administered and

supervised according to appropriate protocols. I agree with you that

the accuracy of EAV and AK, makes them little more than ouija board

entertainment. I am reminded of a patient who was clearly allergic to a

substance, and went to an EAV practitioner who told him that he was not

allergic to it anymore, and then nearly died from an anaphylactic

reaction to the food! That isn't to say that some do have success with

those methods, and with hair and blood testing as well. It's just that

their accuracy can't compare, and so why even consider a less accurate

approach?

Yehuda

I, personally think that environmental toxins is probably a bigger

contributor and that people who live longer are accumulating or holding

more

toxins, ie can cause more cellular damage.

>>>No question it is a problem but we still do not know with any

confidence what is the true impact.I cannot except muscle testing (O-ring

or any other version), EAV or any other electrodermal testing as

sufficient evidence (although interesting and with time may yield

evidence). Since we find environmental toxins in almost equal amounts in

healthy and sick population (i.e. one can find evidence to support either

argument) we are still functioning in a territory of belief.By the way we

just started our study testing 3 popular labs for heavy metal urine

testing. We are sending sample for 6 patients with split samples to each

lab. Thus we will find if they have both inter and intra agreement.

February 14, 2005

Yehuda

Your question is a little complicated. Depending on the patient, some can get

quite ill when undergoing IV chelation. Even oral DMSA chelation can make some

people quite ill. I usually recommend any chelation on individual bases and not

based only on laboratory findings. In very sensitive patients, ie those that

always feel side-effects from drugs etc, i usually assess liver detox (not the

genetic tests which are very expensive) and K function. I often first support

liver phase I and II detox and have the patient eat as much raw garlic,

cilantro, and eggs as possible for some time. I remeasure DMSA provoked urine

levels and see what changes i see (both clinically and in urine). At this point

if the patient needs additional intervention i recommend IV chelation. Most

patient do well without IV. Sometimes i do oral DMSA (contact Thorn research if

you want more detail) which is also quite effective. The problem i am having at

this point is that i am not sure we have a reliable way to measure heavy metals.

Hopefully the new study we are doing will give me more confidence in the labs

and tests.

February 14, 2005

Hi Alon,

Do you ever use DMPS either nasally or intravenously as a chelating

agent, particularly against mercury? Also, how about the use of EDTA,

which is pretty benign? And for that matter, how about IV vitamin C

drip?

Yehuda

Your question is a little complicated. Depending on the patient, some can

get quite ill when undergoing IV chelation. Even oral DMSA chelation can

make some people quite ill. I usually recommend any chelation on

individual bases and not based only on laboratory findings. In very

sensitive patients, ie those that always feel side-effects from drugs

etc, i usually assess liver detox (not the genetic tests which are very

expensive) and K function. I often first support liver phase I and II

detox and have the patient eat as much raw garlic, cilantro, and eggs as

possible for some time. I remeasure DMSA provoked urine levels and see

what changes i see (both clinically and in urine). At this point if the

patient needs additional intervention i recommend IV chelation. Most

patient do well without IV. Sometimes i do oral DMSA (contact Thorn

research if you want more detail) which is also quite effective. The

problem i am having at this point is that i am not sure we have a

reliable way to measure heavy metals. Hopefully the new study we are

doing will give me more confidence in the labs and tests.

February 14, 2005

As a testing protocol, there is much to be said for standardized chemicals (like

DMSA) to be used for measurement purposes. For treatment purposes over an

extended time, though, the drugs have a lot of problems. I know a lot of

practitioners with clinical experience using DMSA and other chelation drugs, and

many of them now prefer dietary and herbal methods. Following is an excerpt from

course material I use for students on the heavy metal issue - it is an

introduction to the section where I discus the side-effects and problems with

specific chelation drugs:

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

....

Synthetic chelation drugs are another option to the dietary

methods outlined above. Other health professionals who have used

the dietary HM protocols generally feel that the dietary methods

are potentially safer and just as thorough as the synthetics. The

dietary methods are usually slower. Rapid chelation and excretion

of heavy metals may place excessive stress on liver and kidneys

and are riskier.

The merits of herbal medicine vs. synthetic pharmaceuticals is an

ongoing debate that has many facets, but a major issue is the

risks that are involved when using a small number of synthetic

chemicals to achieve a result that could also be achieved with

more complex natural substances. Seaweeds, for example, which

contain a large class of compounds called algins and carageenans,

have broad-spectrum chelating properties based on the natural

variations in the specific character of the chelating sites on

these molecules. These sites are not all identical. Pharmaceutical

drugs, consisting of single, uniformly synthesized chemicals, rely

for their effects on a single mechanism. If everything goes as

planned, the client fits the clinically defined standard, and he

or she avoids doing or eating anything that might disrupt this

highly specific process, then a good result might be achieved.

However, if something does disrupt the expected action of the

drug, then heavy metals may not be excreted as planned, and may be

deposited in large concentrations in various body tissues. The

principle of not putting all your eggs in one basket is a general

one that reveals weaknesses in the pharmaceutical approach.

Another problem with using single-chemical drugs, is that their

action may be very specific for removing certain heavy metals, yet

ineffective or harmful if other heavy metals are present. Most

people suffering from heavy metal toxicity today will have a wide

range of various heavy metals present in their bodies. In such

situations, the best option is a chelating strategy designed to

handle such a broad array of possibilities, and natural herbs and

foods fit this requirement better. If synthetic drug chelators are

chosen for use in a given case, it is becoming more common for

practitioners to supplement them with aspects of the dietary HM

protocol. This way, side effects that might otherwise result from

the use of single-chemical drugs have a greater chance of being

minimized.

Personally, I prefer using herbs and foods that have been part of

traditional diets and have been shown to safely expel HMs from the

body. However, for people who are unable or unwilling to exercise

the self-discipline and effort that the dietary protocol requires,

perhaps chemical chelation methods offer reasonable alternatives.

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

> Yehuda L Frischman <

>testing for environmental toxins

>

>Alon, Mike and Roger,

>

>What is your take on IV injection of chelating specific compounds to

>provoke the release of the suspected heavy metal and then measuring

>levels in a 24 hour urine sample? Seems to me biochemically pretty

>straight forward, completely accurate and safe when administered and

>supervised according to appropriate protocols. I agree with you that

>the accuracy of EAV and AK, makes them little more than ouija board

>entertainment. I am reminded of a patient who was clearly allergic to a

>substance, and went to an EAV practitioner who told him that he was not

>allergic to it anymore, and then nearly died from an anaphylactic

>reaction to the food! That isn't to say that some do have success with

>those methods, and with hair and blood testing as well. It's just that

>their accuracy can't compare, and so why even consider a less accurate

>approach?

>

>Yehuda

>

---Roger Wicke, PhD, TCM Clinical Herbalist

contact: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/

Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute, Hot Springs, Montana USA

Clinical herbology training programs - www.rmhiherbal.org

February 15, 2005

What are the toxins you suspect and hopefully tested or confirmed in some

way? After you figure this one out then I would suggest looking at where

they might be located. We now have the benefit of many practitioners who

use this medicine to help lots of people with chronic problems. I think we

need to keep our mind open to this for the simple reason that live in a very

toxic world, which has created many new and unusual health problems.

Medicine has not been very effect and in fact can be cited as a major

contributor. Mercury and Arsenic are two biggees to consider. How many

alagams and root canals are there? Best of luck as this is a slow process.

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

>Yehuda L Frischman <

>

> testing for environmental toxins

>Sat, 12 Feb 2005 21:34:52 -0800