Heavy met

[Guest guest]

I have reviewed 3 of the 5 patients we did a double post chelation UA tests for

heavy metals. For each patient we mailed a split sample to great smokies,

doctors data and metametrix. There were many problems with the results. First in

two of the patients great smokies and doctors data had significant differences

between the blind sample and the named sample. There were some significant

differences between labs as well, mostly on the extant of levels. Some would

have a metal at normal or low slightly elevated when others would have very high

levels. In one of the patients doctors data, which has the best reputation, had

a lead level of 6.5 in the named sample and 12 in the blind sample. This a huge

difference, their ref range is below 5. In the same patient great smokies had a

nickel level of 115.9 in the named and 3.2 in the blind sample. Nickel was not

detected by doctors data, and metametrix does not test for it.

So it looks like we do not have any reliable labs for testing heavy metal

contamination, even though the EPA uses doctors data.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/1/2005 12:57:01 AM Eastern Standard Time,

alonmarcus writes:

So it looks like we do not have any reliable labs for testing heavy metal

contamination, even though the EPA uses doctors data.

 

 

 

 

Have you any experience with provocative urine testing?

 

Thanks,

Chris

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Have you any experience with provocative urine testing?

>>>>>Yes and all the samples i was talking about were provocative urines

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

 

> So it looks like we do not have any reliable labs for testing heavy

metal contamination, even though the EPA uses doctors data.

>

 

Is there any reason to believe that the named samples and blind

samples were identical? Even if they were from the same patient and

from the same urine sample, how do we know that the concentration of

heavy metals within the sample would be evenly spread throughout the

urine, and that when the sample was divided, that each part would be

the same?

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

Is there any reason to believe that the named samples and blind

samples were identical? Even if they were from the same patient and

from the same urine sample, how do we know that the concentration of

heavy metals within the sample would be evenly spread throughout the

urine, and that when the sample was divided, that each part would be

the same?

>>>Because of process and the thorough mixing before splitting the samples

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

 

> >>>Because of process and the thorough mixing before splitting the

samples

 

Yeah, I don't really buy that. Please, thoroughly explain the process

that you use in your office in order to divide a urine sample into 2

parts.

 

Because the metals are in a " mixture " and not a " solution " (there is a

difference), and because the metals are more dense than the urine,

settling will occur just from pouring out the first part of the

sample. The second part of the sample will naturally have higher

levels of whatever metals are there.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

Because the metals are in a " mixture " and not a " solution " (there is a

difference), and because the metals are more dense than the urine,

settling will occur just from pouring out the first part of the

sample. The second part of the sample will naturally have higher

levels of whatever metals are there.

>>>>>>>The sample were placed in centrifuge

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/2/2005 7:08:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,

rw2 writes:

Looks like careful evaluation of symptoms and patterns is the only reasonable

alternative, unless there are foreign labs (European, Swiss) that are more

reliable. I seem to remember someone posting on this list to that effect some

time ago.

 

Roger

 

 

Do they use a different process?

 

Chris

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

Would you be willing to post your results somewhere, like on a webpage?

I've suspected this was generally the case, but have never systematically

checked it as you have. This is an important bit of information.

 

Looks like careful evaluation of symptoms and patterns is the only reasonable

alternative, unless there are foreign labs (European, Swiss) that are more

reliable. I seem to remember someone posting on this list to that effect some

time ago.

 

Roger

 

 

> " " <alonmarcus

>Re: Heavy met

>

>I have reviewed 3 of the 5 patients we did a double post chelation UA tests for

heavy metals. For each patient we mailed a split sample to great smokies,

doctors data and metametrix. There were many problems with the results. First in

two of the patients great smokies and doctors data had significant differences

between the blind sample and the named sample. There were some significant

differences between labs as well, mostly on the extant of levels. Some would

have a metal at normal or low slightly elevated when others would have very high

levels. In one of the patients doctors data, which has the best reputation, had

a lead level of 6.5 in the named sample and 12 in the blind sample. This a huge

difference, their ref range is below 5. In the same patient great smokies had a

nickel level of 115.9 in the named and 3.2 in the blind sample. Nickel was not

detected by doctors data, and metametrix does not test for it.

>So it looks like we do not have any reliable labs for testing heavy metal

contamination, even though the EPA uses doctors data.

>

>

>

 

 

 

---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

[Guest guest]

Roger

Lets wait until i get all the results. I think our nurse is already doing it.

When its done and after we get responses from all three labs, as they are part

of the experiment i will.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Looks like careful evaluation of symptoms and patterns is the only reasonable

alternative, unless there are foreign labs (European, Swiss) that are more

reliable. I seem to remember someone posting on this list to that effect some

time ago.

>>>>>>>>Roger, remember that the differences were mostly in levels. For the most

part there was agreement about presence. There were some big differences which

tell me that the labs are not that reliable but it still gives an idea if we see

heavy metals. May it will good to do hair as well and then correlate. What I

take out of it is to advise patients to only consider chelation if they are

clearly symptomatic, and nutritional approaches in other cases.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

 

> >>>>>>>The sample were placed in centrifuge

>

 

Then, Alon, that is probably the main problem, not the labs. A

centrifuge does not further mix a mixture or solution. Rather, it

speeds up the separation process. When the test tubes are spinning

around, centripetal acceleration acts upon the mixture or solution,

thus causing the more dense (such as heavy metals) materials to settle

to the bottom of the test tube much faster than by gravity alone.

 

Before you start talking about the unreliability of various labs and

naming them by name, you really should makes sure your methods for

giving truly equal samples are more accurate.

 

By using a centrifuge, you made it worse than if you used nothing at all.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

Brian, we followed instructions from the labs. I believe after spinning it was

placed on a shaker. But i did not do the process it was set up by the labs

themselves not us (they actually paid for half of the cost). Anyway in truth i

am not sure what were the exact processing instructions as i was not involved. I

know there was active mixing before splitting the samples. The nurse at the

healthmedicine institute did all this. I just get to see the final results.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Brian, also in terms of different concentrations, if the samples were different

then why only one mineral for example the nickel in one sample was so much less

and the rest of the metals matched much more closely. That is definitely not

sample management error. In this sample the reading are as followed

 

Named UA Blind UA

Lead 6.84 6.68

mercury 7.74 9.33

aluminum 78.5 65.1

antimony 0.36 0.37

arsenic 38.2 41.1

barium 1.46 1.37

bismuth 0.86 0.89

cadmium 1.30 1.39

cesium 8.3 7.9

gallium 1.46 1.55

nickel 3.2 115.9

niobium

platinum

rubidium 1.691 1.743

thallium 0.13

thorium

tin 10.9 11.1

tungsten 0.16 0.26

uranium

 

creatinine 31.32 31.11

 

As you can see this is not sample problem. For this patient DD had no nickel

found at all. That again is not sample handling. These are real problematic

findings.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/4/2005 1:49:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

alonmarcus writes:

As you can see this is not sample problem. For this patient DD had no nickel

found at all. That again is not sample handling. These are real problematic

findings.

 

 

 

 

I am glad you posted the numbers. I am actually much more at ease. I

would say all but nickel were within " Reasonable " tolerance.

 

It is interesting what happened with nickel though.

 

Have you contacted the lab and ask them what might have happened?

 

Chris

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Have you contacted the lab and ask them what might have happened?

 

Chris

>>>>>>They will receive all the five patient samples and will respond since they

are a part of the study. Having such a big difference in nickel is not OK. Also

all the tests had problems so I am not at ease at all. I will see the nurse

tomorrow and find out exactly what was the process procedures for the samples

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/4/2005 1:48:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

alonmarcus writes:

Have you contacted the lab and ask them what might have happened?

 

Chris

>>>>>>They will receive all the five patient samples and will respond since

they are a part of the study. Having such a big difference in nickel is not OK.

Also all the tests had problems so I am not at ease at all. I will see the

nurse tomorrow and find out exactly what was the process procedures for the

samples

 

 

 

 

I agree the results for nickel were way out of line. However, from what

I remember, I do not agree that the balance of the tests were overly

problematic.

 

What percentage of accuracy are you expecting?

 

I think you may be surprised at the " accuracy " of labs doing the standard

tests in WM.

 

My 2 cents,

 

Chris

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Brian, by the way the more i think about it the more i realize that the handling

of the UA cannot effect the results at all. All metals in our body must be in

solution or we get big problems. All the metals are carried to the kidneys by

the blood and therefor must be in solution or you would die very quickly from

clots. They are either protein bound or soluble in other ways. This is even true

from most h2o.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I agree the results for nickel were way out of line. However, from what

I remember, I do not agree that the balance of the tests were overly

problematic.

>>>>>Chris i am talking about the other tests in contexts. I agree the other

metals were within expectable lab error. When i get all the results i will try

to post them

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Regarding processing of the UA. The nurse was instructed to shake the container

vigorously before splitting the samples by the labs and she did so. I wander

however if this is necessary.

As far as results. It looks like we were able to only do three patients.

 

First

All three labs did creatinine as mg/dl. while all three labs were internally

fairly consistent they did not agree with each other. Patient #1 (which is the

one with nickel previously reported) had Great smockies (GS)- 31.32 and 31.11.

Doctors Data (DD)-36 and 35. Metametrix (Meta) 32 and 33.

Patient#2 GS-33.29 and 33.77. DD-38 and 38. Meta-30 and 31.

Patient#3GS- 38.06 and 38.15. DD-43 and 43. Meta-35 and 35.

As can be seen there are some problems here which cannot be explained by

excepted lab error.

 

As for the rest of the metals

For patient #1 (i already posted great smokies).

Aluminium. DD found none in both tests (meta does not test)

 

Antimony. DD Non in one and 0.3 in other (within ref range) (meta does not test)

 

Arsenic. DD 32 and 31, Meta 0.33 and 0.31 (very similar)

 

Bismuth. DD 1 and 1, (meta does not test)

 

Cadmium. DD 0.8 and 0.7 (Meta 0.0033 and 0.0030)

very different between labs, data is within ref range and meta is in the highly

toxic range

 

Lead. DD 6.5 and 12 (Meta 0.012 and 0.011)

data is almost 1/2 in one test than second at data. good agreement in other the

other test.

 

Mercury DD 14 and 11 (Meta 0.023 and 0.022)

good agreement all in the highly toxic range

 

Nickel DD none in both tests (Meta does not test)

 

Platinum .DD none in both tests (Meta does not test)

 

Thallium DD none in one test and 0.08 in the second. (Meta does not test)

 

Thorium DD none in both tests (Meta does not test)

 

Tin DD 7.6 and 7.8 (Meta does not test)

 

Tungsten DD none in one test and 0.1 in the other (Meta does not test)

 

Uranium DD none in both tests. (Meta does not test)

 

 

In conclusion, one cannot trust these test as far as levels are concerned. The

question becomes about what to do if test are positive for some level as these

metals are toxic. Since these were chelated levels the question also arises what

are the none chelated levels. I have a feeling if a patient also has higher

levels in UA without chelation then they are LESS likely to get in trouble as

they excrete the metals. Those that have low level without chelation and high

with chelation are probably at higher risk but i have no evidence to support

this. I know Dr Dorman did some 10 children at low exposure risk, i will try to

get his numbers. He did a two hour post DMPS collection and used doctors data.

That may give us some idea as far as levels normally found these days.