[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

It's kind of funny because, from one standpoint, the answer to this question is "No amount of mercury in the urine is unacceptable", because that's where the body gets rid of it. I mean, if I drank an entire bottle of it, I would hope my pee an hour later would be 100%, shimmering silver.

And what if your urine turned shimmering silver with mercury, and you hadn't drunk an entire bottle of mercury? Wouldn't that warrant further investigation? The conundrum you're describing is precisely why you must take both a "before" and "after" sample. It is not the raw levels which are important, but the comparison between the two. True, some discrepancy is to be expected. But the difference between .8 and 33? That's big enough to be relevant, because I spend 24 hours a day with my son and I can assure you he did not drink an entire bottle of lead that weekend.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

7.8 ug/g was an average for this one particular group of factory workers, not for everybody. So, if the average was 7.8 ug/g but the measured numbers extend to 10.0 ug/g, there's your 30. If it extends to 13, there's your 40. Easily within the range of normal.

Only assuming that you're able to multiply the numbers by a factor of 2-3 to account for the difference between a 6-hour test and a 24-hour test. NIH says that's not a valid step when considering lead results, because lead in 6-hour and 24-hour samples is comparable. Are mercury levels in a 6-hour and 24-hour test comparable? I don't know--and I also don't really care, because my son didn't pee mercury. He peed lead.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Not hard to believe the numbers could vary and still be normal. Your boy measured changes in metals not affected by DMSA. Here we have evidence of wide ranges of normal.

True. And the lab marked all of them as normal, or barely above it. Not concerned with those numbers, or those metals. I'm concerned with lead. Seriously, I'm done talking about mercury, because I haven't researched it, and don't have time to research things that aren't germane to my son's condition. If my daughter pees mercury, I'll come back to it. You want to talk lead, though, I'll talk lead.

The Wiki page on Lead Poisoning is a much better place to look anyway, because it's not steeped in controversy like mercury is. It says:

Chelation therapy is used in cases of acute lead poisoning,[18] severe poisoning, and encephalopathy,[116] and is considered for people with blood lead levels above 25 µg/dL.

My son has symptoms of encephalopathy, and had a post-provocation urine level of 33 µg/dL. That includes lead stored in soft tissues that would not be registered on a blood test; but nonetheless, he did the equivalent of peeing a non-shimmery, dull lead-colored stream of pee. But he didn't do it until he had a drug that made him do it, because apparently, his body does not process lead appropriately like a normal, non-encephalopathic person's body does.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

So many missing pieces for us, because we have not studied medicine in detail.

Absolutely. That's why we have doctors to study medicine in detail for us. And I have at my disposal two types of doctors to listen to.

One type says a variety of things about my son's condition that I know to be completely false, including the notions that he never actually had chronic diarrhea, that he could not have shown improvement from mere dietary changes, and that he could not possibly have had nutritional deficiencies that lab tests confirmed he had. This same type of doctor outright refuses to run established, acceptable tests for heavy metal poisoning, on the sole grounds that my child is autistic, therefore it must be completely impossible that he has heavy metal poisoning, even as an entirely coincidental condition. This type of doctor is terrified to be caught testing an autistic child for metals, even if I told them I just watched him eat a fistful of lead paint with my own two eyes.

The other type of doctor knows the difference between bright green liquid and a brown log, not only believes but predicted all the ways I saw my son improve with dietary restrictions, and continues to successfully treat and improve his symptoms with established medications (that the first type of doctor acknowledges are quite effective at what they do, but merely meaningless to my son's condition.) This other type of doctor runs tests, and bases treatments on the results. He is very experienced in the administration and risks of chelation drugs, and knows that neither high-dose nor long-term treatments are appropriate.

The medical community is split on this issue, and I have to choose who to listen to. Misuse of chelation therapy is certainly a problem, just like the misuse of many other drugs. But when done appropriately, it is an established and accepted treatment for known symptoms and confirmable test results. So I'm going with the doctors who have a proven track record in my own personal experience.