Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
Okay. Here's a study of factory workers repeatedly exposed to lead. On the bottom half of page three, you will find a chart that graphs the actual data of these 177 factory workers, with micrograms per dL of urine on the left. I calculated my son's urine to be 95.7 ug/dL, which is more than twice what the highest factory worker's reading is. If you see a problem with my calculations there, please tell me. |
Step by step, mathematician folks follow:
You mentioned that your son's creatinine levels were 11.6. I'm assuming that's 11.6 ug of creatinine per dL, as the Dr Data report from Quackwatch reads, yes?
11.6
micrograms per dL means he peed 0.0116
grams of creatinine per dL...
He peed 33.0 micrograms of Pb per gram of creatinine.
Therefore, his Pb output is 33 * 0.0116, micrograms of Pb per dL.
Therefore he peed .38 micrograms of Pb per dL, or roughly six times lower
after chelation than the lowest factory worker measured
before chelation.
amidoinitrite?
Quote:
So just to clarify, the one thing that you specifically find to be pseudoscience is the urinary lab report, correct? Other types of lab tests (fluorescent X-rays) are science, and the chelation drugs used to treat those conditions are science, correct?
Science should have predictable results, or it isn't science. I have predicted future results based on my interpreation of the data: If after a few more rounds of the drug, my son's lead levels go down and stay down, how will that fit into your theory that his current high levels are meaningless? Under your interpretation of the data, he should continue to have high levels no matter what I do, right?
|
At these miniscule levels? Probably hard to predict! Nevertheless, predictable results are certainly not the test of whether something is science.