D. Klinghardt Heavy Metal Cleanse

I'm not positive if the above video of Dr. K has been posted yet but it has really tied a ton of things together in my mind about my health issues. I am awaiting an HPU test, but based on what I've heard and subsequently researched on the symptoms, I am almost positive I am dealing with this issue as I display them all.

One of the most important aspects of dealing with HPU and the opportunistic infections that it is associated with is getting rid of the heavy metal load of the body. Klinghardt recommends all natural chelating agents: chlorella and cilantro, along with some other supplements to aid during the detox such as wood garlic. So essentially the program's skeleton (for HPU and metal detox) would look like this:

Breakfast: Zinc (high dose), B6, Manganese, and some type of quality multi-mineral containing calcium, magnesium, silica, chromium, etc.), Ecklonia Cava

1 Hr. Later: GLA, Fish/Krill Oil

Lunch: 2 grams of chlorella v. 1 hr. prior to eating, alpha lipoic acid with meal, 1 gram Vitamin C 30 min. after meal

Snack: same as above

Dinner: same as above

Nighttime: natural antibiotic regimen and antioxidants (to mitigate the bacterial release, immune response and endotoxins)
- Pure Oil of Oregano
- Iodine
- Other essential oils such as cinnamon/clove
- Various antioxidants (Ecklonia Cava, Curcumin + Res.)

Then, every 2-4 weeks for 1 week, Cilantro will be given along with chlorella, at which time chlorella dosage will be upped to 3-4 grams per.

If anyone who is experienced and more knowledgeable than me (probably everyone) would like to help out with this regimen: critiques, things to add, things to subtract, different strategies, dangers or things to watch out for....etc. I would really, really appreciate it. I am planning on taking a month to lose some weight and clear up detox pathways prior to starting this, as the weight loss will helps lower the toxin burden before hand. So up until that time, being able to refine this would be wonderful. And can humifulvate be incorporated in here, or is it unecessary?

I was going to post a link but all the links within it are now broken. I hate when that happens, lol.

Anyhow, this was the only thing left useful in it

"A word of caution - this is not an easy protocol. Once the protocol begins, heavy metals are often released and it takes a doctor skilled in addressing heavy metal detoxification to avoid worsening of symptoms. After this phase is addressed, the immune system often activates and the patient may experience symptoms of immune response to various microbes that it previously did not have the capacity to address. These may include fevers, flu-like symptoms, fatigue, and others. Thus, I do NOT advocate treating for KPU without working with a well-trained doctor"


You can find more info if you do a search for HPU in this site as he always has the most up to date info

http://betterhealthguy.com/joomla/index.php


and lymenet has a lot of info on it too if you do a search there. Here is one link http://flash.lymenet.org/scripts/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/1/114327?


Regarding chlorella, most chlorella isn't good and contaminated. I would go with the expensive chlorella only but then because of it's expense, you might end up better with chelation Cutler style or another method.

Yeah, metal detox (even high-dose iodine supplementation) without proper support can be a dangerous proposition. It can literally overwhelm liver and (especially) kidney function into dysfunction and sometimes even irreparable harm.

For the express purpose of liver/kidney detox, I personally also use liposomal glutathione and milk thistle. Also Swansonvitamins and Vitacost now sell multi-vitamins totally made with Albion ingredients, which has amazing bioavailability. I also like mushrooms for kidney liver detox, stuff like agaricus bisporus or champignon, cordyceps.. also reshi and shiitake

Thanks to both of you for the input. I had considered speaking with a doctor prior to doing
this so that I could perhaps be supervised during the process. I know it would be safer this way, however, I guess I am opting for the chlorella/cilantro route because I'd prefer to avoid the synthetic chelators (DMSA, DMPS). I saw a lecture Klinghardt did in Sweeden (or Switzerland?) in the late nineties talking about the success he and a Japanese doctor (Omura) out of New York had with these natural chelators. He stated that the only times he preferred to use the DMPS/DMSA were in cases of extreme metal toxicity where the body was burdened to the point of immediate danger, as these synthetics cause the metals to be circulated and excreted much more quickly. He said that in one case he had a female singer who after one DMPS IV excreted 2700 micrograms of mercury! He warned that for cases where the toxicity is moderate, however, that chlorella/cilantro are preferred because the removal is slower and can take as long as a few years, but is preferred because it is gentler on the system. As a last note, he said that in cases of severe "healing crises" (I'm assuming herxheimer rxn's) that a one-off IV of DMSA/DMPS can help the patient get through the crisis.

I am finding it hard to find a doctor who is knowledgeable about metal toxicity in my area, its like they're the outcasts of the medical field here in the US. It seems like the only useful research on the topic is being done in Europe or Asia.

Any other thoughts on DMPS? I'm thinking of having my sister, who lives in Switzerland, bring me some in December. Apparently, it's available OTC in her region.

It's funny because so many docs have different views on metal chelation, probably the most important first step towards good health.

On the other hand. . . just say'in. . .

http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/debunking-detox.html

COMMENTS FROM AUTHORS:
Tom Wells, chemist: “The minimum sellers of ‘detox’ products should be able to offer is a clear understanding of what ‘detox’ is and proof that their product actually works. The people we contacted could do neither.”
Neil Young, chemist: “Whilst investigating ‘detox’ products we were shocked at how much of what they claim is contrary to what we really know about the body. We wanted to share these insights so we decided to produce our own leaflet showing why ‘detox’ is meaningless and why the claims made by the products don’t make sense.”
Harriet Ball, biologist: “Detox is marketed as the idea that modern living fills us with invisible nasties that our bodies can’t cope with unless we buy the latest jargon-filled remedy. Last year we investigated scientific claims that are plastered on everything from sandwiches to devices that supposedly protect you from radiation. Our new investigation into detox products has convinced us that there is little or no proof that these products work, except to part people from their cash and downplay all the amazing ways in which our bodies can look after themselves!”
Alice Tuff, Sense About Science: “It is ridiculous that we’re seeing a return to mystical properties being claimed for products in the 21st Century and I’m really pleased that young scientists are sharing their concerns about this with the public. The Voice of Young Science network last year decided they wanted to make the ‘detox’ claim a marketing embarrassment, not a marketing advantage!”
Jennifer Lardge, physicist: “Some ‘detox’ diets can have disastrous results, as shown in the recent case of the woman who suffered brain damage from a ‘detox’ diet. Often the people selling ‘detox’ products have no professional training and the substances on sale could be untested, potentially dangerous or even toxic.”
Oliver Fenwick, physicist: “The ‘detox’ industry has become a huge success. However, the industry seems to be based almost entirely on a marketing slogan since when you look a little closer you find that most of these products do nothing more than can be achieved by your body on its own.”
COMMENTS FROM SENIOR SCIENTISTS:
John Emsley, chemical scientist and award winning science writer: "There is no scientific reason for people to waste time and money on so-called detox regimes, fancy diets, or expensive remedies, none of which can compare to the detox system that is already inbuilt into our natural system. This leaflet from the Voice of Young Science is a clear, sensible, explanation for anyone who wants to know how simple it really is to 'detoxify' our body."
Sir Colin Berry, pathologist: "It’s easy to detox; just let you body use the great systems it has evolved over thousands of years to get rid of whatever is harming you. But if it’s booze, drink less as well.”
Ursula Arens, member of the British Dietetic Association: “Detox claims are undefined, and are based on marketing and wellness concepts. Healthy diets containing sufficient intake of fruits and vegetables and only modest amounts of alcohol (if any) are as far as we can go, in terms of proven claims to support the detox functions of the body".

My thoughts no longer reflect almost anything I typed in this post. This post occurred during a panicked phase of desperately struggling to grasp onto anything and everything that may have been promoting hair loss.

That's not to say I don't believe in the potential benefits of chelating metals - if a person has high levels - but I'm more skeptical these days of assuming every person has dangerous levels that require them to self-administer these chemicals. I'm also not saying that's entirely out the question either, I'm just saying I'm more skeptical of it lately.

I'd at least do my best to find a doctor and make them aware of what I was doing, and perhaps oversee it initially.

I'm aware of the shortcomings of testing for metals. This makes the situation a difficult one, because you are getting skewed information from both sides.

I guess at this point I'm just not convinced, and require a bit more proof, that people doing things like the Cutler Protocol:

(A) had verifiable high levels of metals to begin with, and what ones
(B) have proven reduction in those levels
(C) saw significant improvement in actual relevant symptoms and not just "feeling less brain fog these days"

Things just get very muddied and almost useless as a reference point when people start claiming they are polluted with a substance, that this substance can't be verified, but that chemicals can be taken to lower levels of this substance we couldn't reliably verify in the first place, and various broad-spectrum and seemingly individually disconnected symptoms disappear when you do it. I mean, just rationally, we have to be able to look and see the major problems with this.

Imagine someone told you:

"Hey, your health problem, 'x', is probably due to problem 'Y'. But don't even think about trying to prove that you have 'Y' because there is nothing that can. But its definitely whats causing 'x'. If you do this protocol, which your doctors won't agree with or advocate, you'll probably get rid of 'Y', but you won't be able to prove that. If you do it and your symptoms don't disappear, you didn't get all of 'Y'. If you do it and your symptoms disappear, then I was right."

Welcome to how alternative medical products are marketed. "I've got a cure you'll never be able prove worked or did not work because there is no modern medical tool to prove it. Anything your doctors say to discredit me is a lie because they are all in bed with big pharma and getting paid to lie to you. I'm the only honest person giving you an honest solution, but don't expect any real information on how to prove its worked or by what mechanisms. If it doesn't work, then you're more messed up than we thought and you'll also need to starting taking my other product too."

To which you reply: "But hey mister, if all of the tests out there can't be relied on to diagnose the problem, then how did you ever come to find out it was the problem? If no one in the medical community knows anything about this therapy, where did you get the knowledge?"

Response: "The knowledge is in nature. Given to us by the mother and our ancient ancestors. The only medicine we need has always been available right out here in the open for anyone of us to find."

And then you realize this is the equivalent of saying God revealed something to you. But hell, history shows that's been harmless right?

Again of all of the alternative medical therapies out there, I'd say chelation has promise where its required. I would just like to see better data. I believe DMSA has been demonstrated as a safe and effective chelator for lead, cadmium, and mercury in the right contexts. But do we have to data that lead us to believe that most of us have dangerous levels of mercury in our bodies? I know connections are often sputtered about between mercury and autism, but I swear to God, most of the studies I've seen on the subject have been so poorly designed its absolutely ridiculous. The last one I read found higher mercury levels in a study of something like 300 autistic children versus a control group of like 15 controls. Hahaha. What a strong sample.

Amazing.....

Okay, listen....

I've been in this industry a long time. I didn't develop this forum to promote crap.

Detox is *real* it is necessary.

Heavy metals is *real*

Do you have to know what you're doing?  Yes

Posts from Odysseus on this? Ridiculous?  yes

I've seen *thousands* of transformations using heavy metal detox in a real clinical setting.

This is beyond real, but the orthodox medical system has very little to do with health and they will
disparage everything they don't understand.

There was a time when the medical system had all sets of players, but the government got involved who decided by way of persuasion to enforce only one type of medical practitioner (the worst one).

The *only* thing orthodox is good for is trauma, plastic surgery and a select few procedures. If you're trying to treat chronic disease, they are best left forgotten.

Oh....and everybody has metals....the question is which ones and how much.

I didn't acquire better and better hair until I took the detox continuously year after year after year.

Everything works better after detox. This is not a one time, two time thing, it's a forever thing.

I think the problem is in the misconception of what "detox" is and how it occurs. Most of the quotations that Odysseus posted are absolutely right as they apply to the use of the word and the concept of detox in the alternative therapy industry. That we supply something external to the body that is non-nutritive that will "clean" out cells, or tissues, or lymph of toxins the body can't clear...well, that is rubbish.

The body has its own proprietary and complex systems for detoxing the system. Whether its metals or organic industrial polymers, regardless of whether they accumulate, the body is constantly detoxing these chemicals. All day, every day. The nutritive parts of the diet are all that is required to support those functions. The problem is that the industry at large would have you believe otherwise, and it helps them sell products.

So how can we effect our levels of detox enzymes? From what I've been able to discern, either by (A) providing the basic molecules that are assembled to form the structure or (B) providing a stimulus to boost these enzyme levels that, itself, does not present such a burden that it outweighs the marginal increase in the activity of the detox system.

How do we do it? Well, the diet does this. It provides the amino acids. It provides the minerals. Fruit and vegetable intake provide the phytochemicals that cause small amounts of oxidative stress that call these enzymes into action.

Orthomolecular medicine can certainly help, and that's why I've had respect for this forum and its members, and the basis it was formed on. That's because the point of orthomolecular medicine is to supply only those molecules we know exist already or are essential to the body. Or to fortify us with dietary elements that may be lacking.

Its all of the additional shit that is the problem. Detox protocols calling for whacky shit, drinking bleach, or olive oil, or using unproven instruments. Or products containing total garbage marketed as "detox" formulas. And what are we detoxing? This seems to be another muddy area. Well we've got to establish what bio-accumulates in the system. Obviously organic plastic polymers, synthetic phenolics, heavy metals.

But how are most products dealing with these? They aren't. The body will rid itself of most of these 'toxins' and almost zero of the detox products out there, short of providing basic molecular building blocks that are mostly available in the diet, are going to make your body better at it than it already is. The rub is that the main way of ridding your body of a toxic load is limiting exposure. That's all there is to it. If you are constantly being exposed to a chemical that is accumulating in the system, no amount of supplement is going to help you.

Besides longer-term detox by conjugation, what else does the bodily normally do to eliminate toxins? Well, lots of things. It will cause you to vomit. You'll get diarrhea. You increase mucus production. One bout of diarrhea has probably eliminated more toxins for a person than most of the supplements they've ever taken. Also, sweating. The biliary system removes more toxins than any product ever will.

The one exception I believe may exist here would be heavy metals, if exposure is sufficient. I never said I don't think metals are a problem. These things do accumulate. But again, most products aren't really doing anything anywhere near how they are marketed. I do agree in these situations dedicated chelators like DMSA or DMPS could be helpful, but the dangers are there. Redistribution into soft tissues and vital organs is possible. The load of metals should be enough to demand the therapy, and that therapy shouldn't just be something prescribed by an amateur blogger, with some catch-all, one-size-fits-all method for going about it, being prescribed to every concerned soccer mom out there.

And what I think we need to make a more rational argument for the use of these things is more data. Data showing that the average, every-day person's levels of metals would be enough to warrant therapy for most of us. Hard data showing that this level is beyond the body's innate ability to deal with, and exactly what the physiological changes happening are, direct evidence of damage to tissues. We need that to determine what symptomology might look like. We can't keep relying on vague, painfully broad descriptions of possible symptoms of metal toxicity. At this point, its no different than how most bloggers describe symptoms of candida. Fuck, according to the blogosphere, every feeling we can experience as humans is evidence for candida. So what I'd like to see:

• Data that points to metal toxicity being a potential population level problem, where the pockets of toxicity are most likely within the population, and evidence to show we should all be worried about levels in our bodies...not needless paranoia.
  
• Data showing that for a person determined to be mercury toxic, DMSA treatment ( the at home variety) objectively lowers the body's burden, how metals are being redistributed in the soft tissues, and that the correlated symptoms are diminishing along with the treatment.
  

Its just that right now, this is all too vague. We're being told that the body is preferentially sequestering these toxins in different tissues and that can be different from person to person so every metal toxic person could have different symptoms. Do you see how that is a problem? Oh you have this condition? Metals. This condition? Probably metals. Oh no, not that disease....its probably metals.

So its not that I am trying to "debunk" the metal problem. I think its real. Its just that the information isn't there right now for most of us, average people, to make hard and safe decisions about how to assess the problem, how to treat the problem, and how to verify that. For someone to tell everyone they can, even if they're right despite a lack of evidence, that they should be taking a chemical to start moving metals around in the body...this is just ludicrous.

If without ever even meeting let alone professionally diagnosing someone, I'm telling them to give their autistic child chelators, I should be shot.

A study published by the EPA last year which spanned the years 1999-2014 extrapolated that approximately 1.4 million reproductive age females have levels of blood methylmercury above the RfD of 5.8 ug/L. They estimated that 75,000 newborns may be at risk of mercury exposure at levels which may hamper cognitive development. So for the most recent CDC value of 3.952 million new births yearly, about 1.8% of new children may be at risk.

Just to be convenient, if we also assume the same percentages from the study apply to the whole population (which I doubt), about 2.3% of the whole population have blood levels of mercury above the RfD.

Obviously, there are problems here. The model is a one compartment model, where we're assuming the concentration of mercury in the blood to represent the level for the whole organism, when we know that this probably isn't true and mercury is probably sequestered in fat and connective tissue, and organs.

If the EPA RfD isn't actually accurate about the lowest levels which are dangerous, there could be a larger percent of the population at risk.

It also admits it does not have enough data to predict future cardiovascular, nerual, or reproductive sequelae.

Like I said, this is a problem that requires more data. Should we be concerned about mercury? I think so. But by and large the most important thing we need to do is assess the most common routes of ingestion, which is the major way we are exposed. Avoiding these is most important. Besides this, sweating, supporting our own detox systems.

Do I think at a rate of 2.3% or even double that is enough to advise that everyone take oral chelators unsupervised? Absolutely not. Not when there is evidence that these procedures, while typically safe, can have bad effects.

I think we need more research. But in the meantime, if someone wants to attempt this therapy, I think its just ethical to tell people not to do this on their own but with the aid or supervision of a physician to at least monitor for kidney and liver function, in case of allergic responses, and to test levels of essential minerals (like zinc, which can be lowered by things like DMSA). DMSA isn't a perfect chelator, not by far, and neither is DMPS. Stoichiometrically, they'll interact with a lot of metals, including ones you need.

The things that still hang out in my mind are a provoked urinary excretion test will always show elevated levels...so does this indicate a mercury or metal load that represents an objective health risk? Also, things like DMSA tend to remove metals from specific compartments moreso than others. If its lowering kidney burden of metal, is it really impacting levels in other tissues?

I think its obvious this shouldn't be something being recommended to do on your own to every person who comes across a blog, and certainly not for use on children like you're giving them cough syrup.

Mainstream will *never* get the clinical trials. We don't need them. They won't pay for them.

There are no absolutes in medicine there is practice and there's variability.

Good detox (ortho- and disilicic acids and Sulfur)

Hi AS54,

There's a few things going on here from whether or not metals is a problem to whether or not the treatments are effective. I feel both of those topics are directly impacted by the federal governments actions or lack there of when it comes to publishing any data or maintaining a high profit business model.

I read your posts (even though I wanted to stop reading at EPA study/statistics). I think you're right when you say the idea of "x causing Y symptoms but we can't measure for X so take Z and call me in the AM" seems ludicrous and can appear to be nothing more than a witch hunt. Is that a by product of the system? In other words, surely metals have to play some role in chronic illness, so where's the data and the treatment?

Does that mean metal chelation doesn't have value for the general population? Could it be the powers that exist prefer it this way? Man, don't get me wrong I'm a skeptic as well (both sides) but when it comes to Federal Government, they are really good at lying. In fact, they are so good that I can't take any information they provide at face value.

In other words, I disregard almost every and anything a government branch claims to be true and not just on a health level but on an economics level (think ponzi scheme) and political level as well etc.

So again, look who's providing the information? Why are there so such little controls in the Autism study? Who funded it? Are these the same people telling us the majority of our diets should consist of GMO processed grains, low fat diets and canola oil because of it's Omega 3 content? Lmao. Or that mercury fillings are completely safe and cause zero harm? Fluoride is actually good for your teeth and bones? Cannabis causes brain cell death, lung cancer and is addictive and has zero medical value even though the U.S. Government patented the plant up and down for medicinal reasons.

I guess the question is, if the idea of metal chelation is impotent then why it hasn't it been proven so by the Corporate Machine? Where are the healthy and thriving humans with high metal levels in the studies?

I mean, they used to claim Cannabis caused lung cancer until UCLA Tashkin pulmonary study was done over a span of 20-25 years and the exact opposite was found (control non smoking groups had higher cancer rates-higher than the group that consisted of both tobacco/cannabis smokers where I believe zero cancer was found-despite the tobacco).

I guess we're alone on some things, but I digress.

NYJets wrote:
So again, look who's providing the information? Why are there so such little controls in the Autism study? Who funded it? Are these the same people telling us the majority of our diets should consist of GMO processed grains, low fat diets and canola oil because of it's Omega 3 content? Lmao. Or that mercury fillings are completely safe and cause zero harm? Fluoride is actually good for your teeth and bones? Cannabis causes brain cell death, lung cancer and is addictive and has zero medical value even though the U.S. Government patented the plant up and down for medicinal reasons.

Scale for elevated blood pressure, salt restriction diets, the food pyramid, cholesterol myth, whole dental work, implanted material bio-compatibility,  allowed metals exposure during work-time, allowed EMF exposure - yes guys this is f. real for some; energy medicine discrimination (i am aware of majority of the junk out-there...)

http://beta.asoundstrategy.com/sitemaster/userUploads/site502/Pop-Cancer%20Dental%20Heavy%20Metal%20%20Lasers%20Feb.2013%20final.pdf

Basically i've had medical test for my new job yesterday. It was more about signing the papers while do the less of the possible testings to get know what's really happening with me, and what hazards are needed to be addressed. We were not talking about stress that come with ''prolonged sitting exposure'' or ''EMF exposure'', ''posture'', ''emotional stress from aggressive deadlines'', ''chemical exposure in the particular industry'', '' blood circulation issues''  or some other hazards to address -  to minimize harm. What really made me laugh to the doc in his face is/was - ''you have healthy eyes for what you do, my friend. i will write to your personal doc, to monitor this more regularly due computer screen exposure you have on a daily basis''.  Not saying he's a bad guy, i am saying he is stuck in the 1990's about medical science about all the hazards that are available to monitor. BTW, i wanted contrast sensitivity test, or depth of field test to see how i perform, done even for overpay. ''Regulative says, the tests don't suite your work profile, and we don't have the time for that either''. He was right, there were plenty people waiting outside.

I hope it will be another 5 years for me to see the doc, meanwhile try to learn as much as i can from *both* sides, to come closer to the truth of how to stay healthy now - days. I buy chelation and toxin elimination idea totally.

Another example of the toxicity we live in.
We painted the walls in the bedroom, it's why we don't sleep there anymore. It's 2 months and the wall doesn't seem to have lost any of the irritable smell it has. It wasn't the less expensive product, btw. Sleeping there for 2 days, was enough for me to *know* there is some kind of the toxicity in the room, due a new indicator - red eyes in the morning with difficulty to breath. In the evening you don't feel it as agressive smell, but the longer i sleep the harder i breath the fumes in there. The list of chemicals on the paint is longer than this post, so wont bother providing material to discuss it. What i know is that ozonating the room is helping quite a bit, so we may be do a test sleep today. Ozone, it's useless, isn't it? How on earth the paint reached the market? The same as all the BPA, plastics and other toxins that find their way. Cost effectiveness, and short-term money making company profiles make it difficult for ''quality'' to be sold.

Agree with AS54 about how ''detox'' protocols are usually represented, but this does not mean metals are any safer. Is there a study you have to back up the sweating thing triggered by exercises for the mercury toxicity levels?

It's lies from *both* sides with the very same idea - get your money. Where is the required data while we (tax payers) pay and vote for it? Where is the data for f. amalgam toxicity? Where is mainstream's intention to catch things up and educate the field. I know the day of my expertise will be no up to date anymore, i will have to find another job. It's how it works in high tech. Who's getting fired on a daily basis in the field of medicine, for not being competent and up to date?

To answer Odysseus, i don't call the plumber if i can fix it better. If i cant, the pipes are in Jesus's hands and so is my money.  But, I know i can, because its my pipes to be fixed, meanwhile my budget and time to be spent. I don't follow the protocols, but try to adjust necessities to the particular situation. It's my health i will never give in the hands of ''doctors'' if i don't think they are not trained well enough for adjusting the necessities for my particular problem. And there are/were situations when the available ones are usually not. Doing nothing and carefully experiment with some ideas is also an option. Chelation is probably thing where being not careful can do the damage hard to be repaired.

NYJets wrote:Hi AS54,

There's a few things going on here from whether or not metals is a problem to whether or not the treatments are effective. I feel both of those topics are directly impacted by the federal governments actions or lack there of when it comes to publishing any data or maintaining a high profit business model.

I read your posts (even though I wanted to stop reading at EPA study/statistics). I think you're right when you say the idea of "x causing Y symptoms but we can't measure for X so take Z and call me in the AM" seems ludicrous and can appear to be nothing more than a witch hunt. Is that a by product of the system? In other words, surely metals have to play some role in chronic illness, so where's the data and the treatment?

Does that mean metal chelation doesn't have value for the general population? Could it be the powers that exist prefer it this way? Man, don't get me wrong I'm a skeptic as well (both sides) but when it comes to Federal Government, they are really good at lying. In fact, they are so good that I can't take any information they provide at face value.

In other words, I disregard almost every and anything a government branch claims to be true and not just on a health level but on an economics level (think ponzi scheme) and political level as well etc.

So again, look who's providing the information? Why are there so such little controls in the Autism study? Who funded it? Are these the same people telling us the majority of our diets should consist of GMO processed grains, low fat diets and canola oil because of it's Omega 3 content? Lmao. Or that mercury fillings are completely safe and cause zero harm? Fluoride is actually good for your teeth and bones? Cannabis causes brain cell death, lung cancer and is addictive and has zero medical value even though the U.S. Government patented the plant up and down for medicinal reasons.

I guess the question is, if the idea of metal chelation is impotent then why it hasn't it been proven so by the Corporate Machine? Where are the healthy and thriving humans with high metal levels in the studies?

I mean, they used to claim Cannabis caused lung cancer until UCLA Tashkin pulmonary study was done over a span of 20-25 years and the exact opposite was found (control non smoking groups had higher cancer rates-higher than the group that consisted of both tobacco/cannabis smokers where I believe zero cancer was found-despite the tobacco).

I guess we're alone on some things, but I digress.

Well CS does make a good point, which is that the data aren't there because the studies being done are scant. The FDA does approve DMSA treatment for cases of lead poisoning and for inorganic mercury poisoning. But it does not approve it for organic mercury poisoning (like methylmercury). Despite EPA evidence to suggest dangers of having methylmercury levels above RfD of 5.8 ug/L, it seems to be that the FDA is not treating organic mercury poisoning in the same way.

The FDA has also approved the use of EDTA for chelation therapy, and clinical grade formulas will target about a dozen heavy metals, including mercury.

I think there are a few hangups happening here that are preventing this issue from getting more study:

(1) Cross-marketing of chelators like EDTA for other conditions such as athersclerosis. Despite quite a bit of evidence that EDTA may be one of the most effective tools we have for treating atherosclerosis, the FDA has worked pretty hard to shut down any claims from mainstream or integrative physicians promoting this. Why? Well, that's because chelation is far from a perfect science. FAR FAR from it. We practice this technique as safely as possible under supervision of doctors, but the data on how these metals are redistributed, on which organs are burdened the most, and on the dangers to other mineral levels in the body...it isn't there yet. There are a lot of gray areas and so the FDA is against its cross-marketing for such common conditions as atherosclerosis because there isn't enough data to show that everybody with plaque would be safe taking IV chelators, not until all of the risks have been assessed properly and until criteria have been established for this specifc, alternative use of the drug. This will come after the data on its chelating properties are fully understood.
        
Its also entirely possible that the FDA, in delaying more research on chelation therapy using its cross-marketing as a cardiovascular treatment as an excuse, it could just be supporting the monopolies on cardiovascular drugs already out there. Things like cholesterol medications. If one were chelating excess calcium and removing plaque we'd probably find that cholesterol isn't really the problem. The FDA may be protecting vested interests in cholesterol drugs. That's probably happening. In reality, its probably a mix of both of these things. It could also be that the FDA is protecting the producers of chelating drugs by railroading companies who are attempting to produce more ideal chelating drugs.

(2) As touched on above, chelation is far from a perfect science. The data on human use of chelators like DMSA, aside from increasing urinary metal excretion, doesn't really paint a clear picture on where metals are being moved around in the body. A big hangup is that the FDA, kind of like in the situation with acute vs. chronic Lyme, isn't acknowledging other forms of mercury poisoning as a great enough threat to demand more research. They've got EDTA and DMSA for acute cases of poisoning. But the demand for chelation therapy as a preventative therapy for chronic low-level exposure is not great enough, primarily because there isn't enough data (since people have started becoming aware of the problem) on how health problems will present from this type of exposure over a lifetime. And because these symptoms may not appear in a patient until years and years later in life, its even more complicated by the fact that these symptoms are often easily diagnosed as the result of other conditions. It just makes it difficult to truly describe the problem of chronic low-level organic mercury poisoning, meaning sub-clinical levels. 

It appears to be a combination of both lack of motivation by the powers that be to research the problem, and difficult in actually doing that research. A problem of both commerce and scope of research.

Overall, I agree that corporate interests tend to usurp the public's interest in many cases, and its a complex problem that needs more awareness and action. However, my real point earlier in the thread was that the solution is not to start recommending everyone take oral chelators according to a one-size-fits-all regimen, doing so unsupervised, and certainly not on helpless children. That's ridiculously irresponsible.

Beebrox,

It can be painfully frustrating with some physicians, especially if its something work-related as you were discussing. But to me, its not a problem only with physicians. Its the entire system for physician reimbursement and health care coverage. The insurance companies have a major stake in how medicine is being practiced now, and its a lot of this hyper-liberal "have to save everyone" kind of thing that's promoting these universal standards for treatment that have everyone getting the same care. Rules being set by insurance companies as to "who gets what conditons", "whats dangerous and to whom", "standard protocol for treatment". You fall outside their lines, and you're fucked. Its all a means to balance their own costs while marginally adhering to data on the MOST COMMON presentations of disease. For example, when i was dealing with the estrogen problem, I was forced to purchase drugs from outside the country. Why? Because even though I had a ridiculously high estrogen level, my insurance company wouldn't cover an estrogen-lowering drug (despite there being data out there on dangers of elevated estrogen for men) because according to the company: estrogen-lowering drugs are for women with hormonally-positive breast cancer. I had to laugh as I was reading the rejection notice. Oh, so estrogen is only an issue for women with breast cancer. Because estrogen is the female hormone right? In fact, its pretty damn hard to even get a physician to approve a test for male serum estrogen levels. Why, because insurance companies benefit from these narrow medical definitions, even though research has outpaced these ways of looking at the problem. Estrogen is still looked at as a female issue haha.

See what I mean? Oh so the drug that would treat my problem can't be given to me, because you've decided that its used to treat only that problem. Yes, estrogen can be a problem for women with breast cancer. But they are hyper-conservative like this because now the drug company making that drug basically has a monopoly on treating that specific condition. Put another way, the company that makes the FDA-approved estrogen lowering medication basically owns the condition of breast cancer, they'll provide almost every pill given to these women. The benefit to the insurance company? Well, I'm still paying for my coverage despite not being able to be treated for my specific case. And that's how they get you. Any form of dysfunction unique to you that doesn't meet with only the most common presentations based on gender, age, lifestyle won't be covered. Oh a man with estrogen problems? Not common enough to cover. Sorry. So physicians are often at the mercy of insurance companies, and the educational institutions training our doctors are no doubt influenced by the powerful commercial interests who provide all of the capital to do research.

Totally agree with you on the problem existing on both sides. All of the worst parts of human nature that are brought about by capitalism, and commerce, and power struggles are present on both sides of medicine. Its just that the government is on the evidence-based side so the corruption is greater by orders of magnitude.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-detox-scam-how-to-spot-it-and-how-to-avoid-it/

Premise three: Detox treatments remove toxins

A search of the medical literature for clinical studies of detox kits provides the following result:
No Items Found
There is no credible evidence to demonstrate that detox kits do anything at all. They have not been shown to remove remove “toxins” or offer any health benefits. The same can be said for quackery like coffee enemas – there is no credible evidence to support claims that coffee enemas help the body to “detoxify” compounds, or help the liver function more effectively. Vitamin injections are another treatment that fail to offer meaningful benefits to consumers, and have no beneficial effect on the ability of your liver or kidneys to work effectively. Chelation injections are touted as a cure-all for all kinds of illnesses, but unlike real chelation that’s administered in hospitals for real cases of poisoning, naturopath chelation is not science-based and doesn’t seem to do much of anything.

Odysseus, I have not tried a "kit" such as Klinghardt's, but chelating with ALA, DMSA, EDTA, and some other chelators has done me quite a lot of good.  Helped clear my mental process, greatly improved my sense of well-being after I was through with the process, etc.  Everything improved and stayed improved after I chelated.   Chelation is a foundation of my current state of health.

However, if I'd listened to the conventional experts I wouldn't have tried it at all.

So, try it before you diss it, please.   To paraphrase Dean Wermer when talking to Flounder in the movie "Animal House", relentless appeals to authority while eschewing experiential knowledge is no way to go through life, son.

Anthony, if you want to try chelation there's enough info around here for you to put something together without buying a kit.   I don't know about relative cost of a package v. buying stuff piecemeal, however.

Stuff I used includes:

Activated alpha lipoic acid
DMSA
EDTA (oral and [yuck] suppository, hated the suppositories so won't do any more)
Modified Citrus Pectin
cilantro tincture (on pulse points at wrist)
Metal Cleanse by Enzymatic Therapy

I think a couple of other things but can't remember right now. I'll let you know if I think of anything else.

One thing I've tried recently is supposedly "nano crystals" of zeolite clay.

http://www.resultsrna.com/detoxification/zeolite

It seems to work pretty well but don't use more than the recommended dose. More is not better of this stuff, even though it seems like it's pretty inconsequential. It can have an insalubrious effect on the bowels by corking them up a bit.

Everybody can try MSM, silica, multimineral and some activated b vitamins. IMO also humic acid...

As per the video that AS54 posted, one of the true highlights was what he referred to as "microsilica" which is another way of saying orthosilicic acid. I use this as well as humic acid and I continue to chelate after several years.

As stated many times, I stopped my hair loss several years ago and chelating was what allowed to take my progress to a higher level.

Certainly any of us are aware that there are marketing scams involving simple cleanses that may not be enough. Pro-mainstreamers will use these examples to tell us what we already know.

Now things like DMSA, DMPS I use on clients occasionally, however how to do them is important and it can be done wrong. Fortunately, most of us do not need these to get the job done.

The Federal Deception Agency (FDA) raided the office of Boyd Haley to eliminate the commercial availability of a safe chelator, which had a powerful effect on mercury removal.

In 20 years of working in this industry I can tell countless stories of the government doing things not in the public interest.

Make no mistake, there's a lot of money at stake for these people. The government is tied at the hip to corporate fascism. There are real reasons why mercury is still being used in dentistry (money). The ADA makes money from it.

Conflict of interest is everywhere

Beebrox made a good point, lots of doctors are stuck in another decade. They want to see guidelines, otherwise they don't offer the services their patients want.

The MD has a medical monopoly. The best ones have abandoned the guidelines and operate under pure autonomy, otherwise they cannot do what's in their patients best interest.

The EPA (environmental pollution-protection agency) has ridiculous "safety" levels of toxic substances. One atom of mercury kills a cell. combining more than a single metal exponentially increases the toxicity level.

CS, I think you make another good point here, which has to do with scope and priority.

When an organization like the EPA is setting standard doses for safety, they are doing so with the understanding and assumption that there will be exposure. To be fair, this
is realistic. They aren't making prescriptions or health recommendations, however, and that is what's important to realize. They aren't giving advice on the optimal situation or
changing that situation even, rather they are looking at what is, how exposure is happening, to what average degree its happening, and then saying, "Okay, this is how much we believe human beings can tolerate without immediate or short term adverse health effects, although we can't predict future sequelae without more data."

We need to be able to break that down and really understand what's being said. Not that the RfD is recommended, or that it and all of the values below it are just fine...they're only showing these haven't been shown to promote cardiovascular or neurological effects. And from what I can tell, they aren't able to say much on a connection to cancer at any level.

But what are we concerned about as individuals? We aren't really worried about a standardized level of safety to account for every Tom, Dick, and Harry. We are worried about our own health and what is optimal for us. I think even an EPA representative would be forced to admit any mercury exposure at all is unwanted, even if it isn't immediately dangerous to the whole organism. So with our own priorities in focus, getting zero exposure would be the best thing.

So in the case of something like mercury, we do kind of have to be our own doctors, with the sense that a body like the EPA has to act at a national level and cannot practically put into law regulations that would shut down entire industries. It can't work in ideals. It has to work within constraints and find a balance between interests, while our interest is only ourselves. Its the difference between establishing what threats (and at what level) in the environment are representing immediate dangers to the entire population, and trying to decide what is the optimum environment for an individual's longevity. The EPA is in the business of the former, and it has to be.

And when I am speaking against things like metal chelation with unapproved chemicals like DMSA, I am also speaking from that "birds eye view" perspective. I'm not speaking against any individual here who would like to experiment, although I'd advise being as researched as possible and taking precautions. I'm speaking generally about how the information is presented in the alternative health community at large, being promoted to everyone and especially to the parents of Autistic children, when the evidence does not support doing that. But again, from an individual perspective, if one believes they are mercury toxic, it should be their right to have access to these methods for their own use. Again, I just don't like the broad recommendations and claims that are unsupported by evidence being used to sling these concepts around at every health-conscious person with internet access. That's irresponsible.

EDIT: I realize Odysseus gets treated kind of antagonistically here, but if you haven't read the link he posted above, you really ought to. It is spot on for the most part. Especially regarding all of the subtle bullshit like "cleansing reactions". And the portion on our misguided idea of "autointoxication" as a modern manifestation of our belief in our nature as sinners.

The human body is a machine made to survive in a changing environment with all types of exposures and changes in resource availability. It is elaborate, and has been selected for and honed and improved upon due to millions of years of evolution. The detoxifying functions of your liver, kidneys, GI tract, and skin are the product of improvements to the functions of these systems in every human who has shared your genetics. If you aren't in a state of disease or blatant dysfunction, the chances are that things like your liver are working pretty damn well. Its what they do. Its all they do. For millions of years its all they've done, and the best ones have been selected for millennia to give yours to you.

whodathunkit wrote:
It seems to work pretty well but don't use more than the recommended dose.  More is not better of this stuff, even though it seems like it's pretty inconsequential.  It can have an insalubrious effect on the bowels by corking them up a bit.  

Hi Whoda,

There are a few things I'm focusing on at the moment regarding my health, that I think make it better for me to wait before I look into any potent chelation protocols.

I'm far from perfect and still find it difficult to get the basics down sometimes. Until I do I have decided not to focus on the more precise things until I've got diet, exercise, sleep, and some psycho-social things down. I find that personally these tend to have the biggest impact on my life. But that doesn't mean I am uninterested in chelation. In fact, I am interested in EDTA for a few different reasons and intend on using it in the future.

I'll get at you when that time comes because I'd like to hear about your experience with it.

Also, insalubrious. Damn fine word. Worth at least 10 bucks. Bish makin' me Google stuff.

I just wanted to add, because people like to discuss how groups like the EPA pander to industry and set limits that are too high. Its not as simple as being able to say, "Oh this is a hazard to human health, it can't be allowed at all."

Take for example, the fact that the greatest source of mercury emission - by far - is from coal/oil derived power. Power plants account for 29 tons of Hg emissions annually. I guess if you really wanna show your support against the monster for contaminating our environment with mercury, you'd better go pitch a fucking tent and start living off the land.

Everything our modern lives rely upon is thus intrinsically tied to processes that expose us to Hg. I imagine if you started telling people that, in order to eliminate this greatest source of mercury in the environment, that they'd have to give up pretty much anything they own relying on electricity, and much of the things they own that are oil based, well suddenly you'd start hearing a different tune. The world we live in has been built on oil. Every part of it. Its a big, gigantic bubble of human advancement created by fossil fuel, and when it pops, boy will it pop. But my point is, regulating the emissions of mercury is pretty difficult when you start considering resource availability, the costs and time investment of retrofitting existing machinery. I mean we're talking about processes born out of the industrial revolution.

I'm just trying to make the point that this isn't all some evil conspiracy. Its a part of our technological history and its difficult to change these things. The EPA has a difficult task in trying to institute these standards changes.

Here's the report on the new 2015 regulations for power plants. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-02-16/pdf/2012-806.pdf Especially interesting were the sections on 'appropriate and necessary finding' conditons, as were court-ordered. The EPA specifically states its studies found it necessary to reduce Hg emissions because of public health concerns.

If the organization were in bed with the industry, why would you ever see these changes go into effect, given the costs and investment that will go into the necessary changes?

If I'm understanding it correctly, the new standards are being set such that all new power plants will have to meet emissions levels according to the levels set by the top 12% of cleanest   sources found in the study, and will also place new requirements on existing plants. The EPA site has more detailed reports on the filtration technology. Overall it should reduce Hg emissions by 90%, in line with the other two industries - which had formerly been major emitters - municipal and medical waste incineration....and we're totally free of blame for these ones!

Just some food for thought so maybe we can end the 'evil conspiracy to kill us all' thing.

AS54 wrote:I realize Odysseus gets treated kind of antagonistically here, but if you haven't read the link he posted above, you really ought to. It is spot on for the most part. Especially regarding all of the subtle bullshit like "cleansing reactions". And the portion on our misguided idea of "autointoxication" as a modern manifestation of our belief in our nature as sinners.

Granted, I haven't read the link, but I agree totally that the secular Puritanism exhibited by many people who subscribe to alternative and natural health is indeed very unattractive.   All it is is Luddism for the modern age, and the Luddites basically considered modern progress and infernal machines a sin.   I stand by my belief that the reason we are not "closer to nature" as the original Luddites would have had us stay, or the modern Luddites would have us be, is because close to nature is a tough and brutal place to be.   From a dispassionate standpoint it may be a good thing, ensuring only the strongest survive...but try to tell a mother whose baby was born with a heart defect that was fixed by a cutting edge surgical technique that it's better that only the strongest and most perfect survive.   The ability to quickly and efficiently make technological advances is one thing if not the primary thing that is uniquely human.

But I also agree that progress for the sake of doing something isn't really progress.  It frequently just takes us places we don't want to go.   This is one of the problems with having a full-time body of law makers, for example.   When they don't have enough to do they'll invent problems that need fixing to justify their existence, and *that* gets everyone into a world of crap.   Big R&D departments at private companies that don't necessarily need them do the same thing.  One reason our grocery store shelves are crammed with food devoid of real nutrition and instead packed with artificial additives and toxins (again for example) is because R&D departments at food companies have to stay busy and justify their existences.  

And I do take extreme exception to the idea that cleansing reactions are "subtle bullshit".  Been through it too many times myself and come out better on the other side to let that remark stand.  So, again, please don't diss it until you've tried it or been through it.  There is much too much that mainstream medicine doesn't know about the human body to dismiss a phenomenon as frequently  manifested as cleansing reactions are.  

Just sayin'.  

Whoda,

I'm just sayin - as respectfully as possible because I don't wanna get on your bad side - that as long as we have no real evidence for exactly what those reactions are being caused by, it would probably be more logical (don't make me say Occam's) that these reactions are the result of a disturbance of the homeostasis that had been introduced prior to the disruption you caused. Essentially some form of mineral loss, electrolyte imbalance, gut microflora disruption, neurotransmitter disturbance, or what have you.

Does it make more sense that you are experiencing a "cleansing" reaction because you put something in there your body needed but couldn't manufacture itself (that your one mind is smarter that millions of years of evolutionary filtration) and dumped a bunch of stored, unnameable toxins...........or that whatever you put there disrupted the balance of normal physiological substrates sending you away from homeostasis?

I mean I'm not ruling out a reaction from something like eradicating large parts of gut bacteria. Sure if you disrupt numbers there and leave yourself with little or disproportionate levels of some species relative to others, you'll  experience change.

My point is that, are you experiencing these changes because you are casting something out, or because you are putting something in that's fucking things up?

The one thing I could think of with long enough half-life to actually bioaccumulate to levels we might see cause problems would be: METALS. But the problem with that is, you only tend to see those reactions happen when you toss in a chelating compound and stir it all up. Maybe its a necessary evil to rid the body of metals? But my problem is that we see this idea of a cleansing reaction applied to so many various forms of detox, with mysterious toxins, stored somewhere. Well the only real compartment you could argue is storing all of these "toxins" would be fat and connective tissue. And we don't see everybody we know whose losing weight quickly develop a sudden toxic shock.

So I guess if we're being more specific and our "detox" actually becomes metal chelation, or antibiotic therapy, then we'd have an argument for a cleansing reaction. But it isn't really a cleansing reaction at all. Its your body being poisoned by introduction of metal or bacterial metabolites into circulation. Calling this a cleansing reaction implies this is just "tough love" from the body.

Anthony, yer not on my bad side.  This is good discussion.    

But your last post kinda proved my point.   There is too much that mainstream doesn't know, so we can't really dismiss *any* of the possibilities, can we?

Further, it may just be a matter of semantics.  If your cellular processes go into overdrive, provoking your body to kick out waste products that have accumulated from lack of energy, intake of too many toxins, or an insufficient immune response, does it really matter what you call it if the end result is the same?

Further still, within the caveat that almost *everything* can be poison if taken in excess or misused, as far as I'm concerned, it's the end result that determines whether it's "cleansing" or simply fucking things up.  

Taking in a poison may cause an acute reaction, but once the acute phase is over you DO NOT feel better than you did before.  You feel the same as before the acute phase, or maybe slightly, chronically worse.   Alcohol and repeated hangovers are a good example of this, but it's not limited to alcohol.  I've taken in enough of various poisons in my lifetime, I'm pretty certain of the way poisoning v. cleansing works.

But while something that cleanses you may make you sick for a while, once the acute phase is over you feel markedly better than you did before.

This has happened to me way too many times for me to blow the cleansing phenomenon off as subtle bullshit.  And again (can't reiterate this enough), I've poisoned myself far too frequently to not know the difference between the reactions.

Here's something I posted not long ago on another forum, when someone asked what I thought defined a healing crisis rather than a problem:

"Typically, in a healing crisis, the bad symptoms will begin to ameliorate within 2-5 days when you keep doing what you're doing, or even increase dosage...if things don't at least begin to get somewhat better within five days, I start thinking "problem" instead of "healing".  It depends upon the severity of the sides as to whether or not I continue past day five if there's no improvement by then. If I go seven days with no improvement I definitely stop or step down dose."

The whole phenomenon actually *can* be pretty subtle, and honestly, it takes some experience to get comfortable with the idea of healing crisis as well as the actual phenomenon.  Reading about it is one thing, but experiencing it, and the increasing benefits that can be accrued by repeated cleansing cycles/regimens, are entirely another.

I wasn't born believing all this stuff.  I was born interested and willing to try.  Belief has come from experience.