![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 21 of 21. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Sigismund on April 21, 2009, at 18:18:15
This is fantastic.
At last I have a good excuse.
In relation to the normal reference ranges my results from hair analysis revealed multiples of the maximum
Mercury X5
Antimony X3
Lead X2
Cadmium X2
Uranium X2
Now I fear Blueberry will pop up here and say that hair testing is completely unreliable and doesn't mean anything, but this is the best excuse I've had in 20 years and I'd like you all to be mindful of that.
Posted by linkadge on April 21, 2009, at 20:16:40
In reply to Radioactive, posted by Sigismund on April 21, 2009, at 18:18:15
I would get this result verified by a second lab.
Also, who was this done by? I sometimes doubt the results of analysis done by certain natural health practioners since their livelyhood is dependant, in part, on the results of these tests and the suggestion that certain supplements are necessary for treatment.
Linkadge
Posted by Sigismund on April 21, 2009, at 20:19:34
In reply to Re: Radioactive, posted by linkadge on April 21, 2009, at 20:16:40
My nutritional doctor ordered it through Australian Research Laboratories, about which I am ignorant.
I like the uranium.
I told you I was ill.
Posted by Sigismund on April 21, 2009, at 20:28:41
In reply to Re: Radioactive » linkadge, posted by Sigismund on April 21, 2009, at 20:19:34
This is the correct outfit and a link to the test, FWIW.
http://www.arlaus.com.au/tests/nutritional_profiles/hair_mineral_analysis
Posted by Phillipa on April 21, 2009, at 21:41:13
In reply to Re: Radioactive, posted by Sigismund on April 21, 2009, at 20:28:41
Sigi when you turn off the lights do you glow? Seriously I've heard that since the hair growns that where the piece was taken from on your head assuming but then would know with you ha ha that is when those numbers were arcurate. Like me long hair and if I snipped it off at the ends this would be where I was about four years ago. So what does this mean and how can you unradioactive yourself? Love PJ and if your head where has it been?
Posted by yxibow on April 22, 2009, at 11:28:15
In reply to Radioactive, posted by Sigismund on April 21, 2009, at 18:18:15
> This is fantastic.
>
> At last I have a good excuse.
>
> In relation to the normal reference ranges my results from hair analysis revealed multiples of the maximum
> Mercury X5
> Antimony X3
> Lead X2
> Cadmium X2
> Uranium X2
>
>
> Now I fear Blueberry will pop up here and say that hair testing is completely unreliable and doesn't mean anything, but this is the best excuse I've had in 20 years and I'd like you all to be mindful of that.
Well -- I'm not sure what one is supposed to do with the results exactly.Hair and nails aren't living substances.
The only thing there that is -normally- radioactive is Uranium. Lead is the long long term result of radioactive decay of some isotopes.
If this were an investigation on Bones or NCIS, which you would hopefully not be the one being examined, hair and nails might determine a 'whodunit' aspect especially for arsenic and a few other things.
If you're a fan of Brazil nuts, you're likely to have ingested some form of radiation.Antimony isn't the most toxic of elements.
So it sort of seems academic (the phrase, not the labwork), if anything.-- Jay
Posted by Sigismund on April 22, 2009, at 15:40:10
In reply to Re: Radioactive » Sigismund, posted by yxibow on April 22, 2009, at 11:28:15
So is there no practical way of testing for heavy metal toxicity?
Posted by Sigismund on April 22, 2009, at 15:59:01
In reply to Re: Radioactive » Sigismund, posted by yxibow on April 22, 2009, at 11:28:15
>Antimony isn't the most toxic of elements.
Some salt of antimony came came 72 in a list of 400 environmental poisons (in order of toxicity, I think), and has been implicated in disturbances of the thyroid gland, from which I have suffered.
Posted by Phillipa on April 22, 2009, at 19:50:05
In reply to Antimony » yxibow, posted by Sigismund on April 22, 2009, at 15:59:01
Sigi you too? How come you never shared this with me? Love PJ
Posted by yxibow on April 22, 2009, at 21:06:09
In reply to Antimony » yxibow, posted by Sigismund on April 22, 2009, at 15:59:01
> >Antimony isn't the most toxic of elements.
>
> Some salt of antimony came came 72 in a list of 400 environmental poisons (in order of toxicity, I think), and has been implicated in disturbances of the thyroid gland, from which I have suffered.Yes, I guess actually looking at its -compounds- far more than the metal itself, it is toxic, resembling but I don't believe as toxic as arsenic.
However, in lead-free plumbing compounds it is sometimes used something like 95% Tin / 5% Antimony.
Electronic lead-free/RoHS solder tends to be mostly Tin/Silver/(other things).
-- Jay
Posted by yxibow on April 22, 2009, at 21:25:19
In reply to Re: Radioactive » yxibow, posted by Sigismund on April 22, 2009, at 15:40:10
> So is there no practical way of testing for heavy metal toxicity?
Mm.... no I wasn't saying there aren't ways for testing -- there are blood and/or urine tests for most heavy metals that are understood to be toxic to humans....but the reference levels that are standard for determining acute toxicity and what dictates true need for chelation therapy (calcium sodium edetate, dimercaprol) are definite positive high levels rather than some random testing by some organization.
The sites which propose the user to use DMSO and other compounds to "release free radicals" and to go to doctors for what basically are "routine chelation" are not in accord with the HON code and can be dangerous.Also, sometimes unnecessary chelation can increase toxicity of other metals.
Radioactive toxicity is a rare situation and is rather hard to quantify given that even medical procedures themselves expose one to radiation (CAT) and background radiation.
-- Jay
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 23, 2009, at 8:35:57
In reply to Radioactive, posted by Sigismund on April 21, 2009, at 18:18:15
> This is fantastic.
>
> At last I have a good excuse.
>
> In relation to the normal reference ranges my results from hair analysis revealed multiples of the maximum
> Mercury X5
> Antimony X3
> Lead X2
> Cadmium X2
> Uranium X2
>
>
> Now I fear Blueberry will pop up here and say that hair testing is completely unreliable and doesn't mean anything, but this is the best excuse I've had in 20 years and I'd like you all to be mindful of that.I don't wanna rain on your parade, but there are limitations to what can be inferred from this analytical procedure. You asked me to comment, so here goes....
I searched the literature, and I can find scant evidence for standardization of either the lab methods, or the normative values to be applied to the results. It has been shown that lab-to-lab reproducibility of hair analysis is rather low, and thus the accuracy of the concentrations determined must be interpreted in that light. Without a standard protocol to follow, who knows what happened in your lab. Moreover, there is no accepted standard of what are the normal levels of minerals in hair. So, even if the concentrations arising from the hair analysis are accurate, we are left with the question of how to interpret them.
A proper analytical procedure would be to run a standard reference sample, a hair sample with precisely known mineral content, and your unknown hair sample, to validate the recoveries of the method on that day. Then the results of the unknown are to be expressed with the uncertainties indicated by the recovery percentage of the reference sample against its own analytical results on that day. I suspect you didn't get anything like that with your results. Nor do I suspect that you were provided with the source of the normative data against which your results were compared.
There should also be different norms assigned to different genders and different age groups. For reasons not yet explained, males tend to have roughly twice the hair mineral content as do women with similar exposures. And, as we age, hair mineral content tends to rise. That may be due to cumulative exposure, or it may be due to an aging effect. No one has ever sorted out which it is. It's possible that your results are because you're an older male, rather than due to cumulative exposure.
So, overall, there are some significant limitations on the method itself. But that does not mean that the results are meaningless.
I looked at hair analysis for each of the minerals you've listed. There are mineral-specific limitations to consider. Hair is mineralized during its formation, and thus mineral content must somehow reflect blood concentrations of those minerals. However, once the hair grows above the skin surface, it is now exposed to the ambient environment, which can have sometimes profound effects on the total mineral concentrations. The latter effect seems to vary with the mineral under consideration.
For mercury, the results are probably the most meaningful. There have been a number of studies that compared blood, urine, and hair concentrations of mercury, and the correlations found are pretty good. Hair tends to have maybe 200 times the blood concentration of mercury. It may be a primary route of excretion. In any case, the 200:1 ratio is an average, and it varies over orders of magnitude. There are certain hair care products that influence mercury concentration, but I doubt they apply to you. The limitation of the result you obtained is that we don't know who it is that they're comparing you to. You have five times what, exactly? Five times the mercury content of the hair of a ten year old female vegetarian from Ethiopia, or five times the mercury content of a middle-aged fish-eating Japanese male, or???
I suppose that you probably do have a mercury exposure issue. That is the meaning to be had, I suppose. You just can't quantify that exposure in any concrete way. Only further testing (blood/urine) could offer more insight.
Antimony, I couldn't find much useful information. I did not find any suggestion that antimony at even three times a reference range was associated with adverse effects.
Lead in hair, unfortunately, can be entirely misleading. I found one paper that meticulously looked at the chemistry of the lead in hair samples taken from people who lived in the vicinity of a lead smelter. About 85-90% of the lead in the hair came from ambient exposure (it stuck to the hair after it grew), rather than from ingested exposure. (Still, if that much lead was floating around in the environment, I don't think it's a safe place to live.) Pretty hard to interpret without a blood level, and even those are not agreed on as reliable.
Not much info on cadmium, except this is one that men tend to express at significantly higher levels than do women. The 'what is normal?' question applies.
Uranium, no useful info of any kind.
Lead and uranium share certain geochemical aspects, however. If the geology where you live is underlain by granite, then there may be a groundwater source for these elements. Uranium can be found in granite, and lead is a nuclear break-down product of uranium. I wouldn't be concerned about that, honestly. The real risk, if that is true, is exposure to radon gas. Radon is a radioactive decay product of uranium. It seeps out of the ground, and tends to collect in e.g. basements because it is heavier than air. It is directly linked with various cancers, especially of the lungs.
In summary, you may want to follow up on the mercury exposure issue. Consider the hair analysis as nothing more than a preliminary screening test. I don't see any of the other findings to be of any significance, unless there is the possibility of regional exposure to radon.
Regards,
Lar
Posted by bleauberry on April 23, 2009, at 19:17:41
In reply to Radioactive, posted by Sigismund on April 21, 2009, at 18:18:15
This topic is much too complicated to discuss here. For the answers to all your questions and many you will have, here are the answers..."Amalgam Illness", book by Phd Andrew Cutler, available on the web.
My opinion is the hair test is a definite red flag that warrants immediate attention.
What is a "normal" amount of heavy metals? Doesn't matter. Even miniscule amounts can cause profound illness depending on how compromised one's genes or immune system are. Some people excrete normally, others accumulate.
My urine mercury and lead were "normal", but present. Here is the important part. After a one time dose of DMSA 1200mg, the following 6 hours showed a 500% increase of both metals, well into the danger zone. That was just a hint of metals stored in tissues, not to mention the nervous system.
The metals are not floating in blood unless recent exposure. They embed into tissues and bones and hair.
Hair tests are tricky. They can show outright toxicity, as yours appears to. They can also show strange patterns that do not appear toxic, yet are. Basically, when essential metals are scattered all over the map in erroneous patterns, some real high, some real low, or missing completely, those are suspicious signs since mercury displaces other metals.
My first hair test showed toxicity. I did nothing about it, and got sicker. Two years later, very little lead, very little mercury, and practically zero of any essential metals in a repeat hair test. Mercury had so thoroughly displaced everything they weren't even getting into hair anymore. The urine test proved they were in high concentrations despite nothing in the hair.
Ways to make a diagnosis:
1. Hair test as a hint, low dose frequent dose DMSA as a test (if you feel worse, you are almost surely toxic).
2. DMSA urine provocation test risky: Collect baseline urine, take 1200mg DMSA, collect urine for 6 hours, measure metals in urine. The one-time large dose can stir up more metals than can be removed, causing redistribution. I made this mistake and it took me 3 weeks to recover from the fatigue and brain fog. But, it showed definite toxicity beyond what any of us had imagined.
3. DMSA urine provocation test safer: DMSA 12.5mg-25mg every 4 hours around the clock (in respect of its halflife and a steady blood level) for 2 days, collect urine, then 1200mg dose, collect urine, continue with low dose DMSA every 4 hours for 2 or 3 more days to help mop up. Measure both urine samples.
4. Intuition. People often just know. Their bizarre symptoms and patterns are not explained by anything else.
5. Patterns of metals in hair.
6. FDA urine test that measures genetic damage done by heavy metals, though it doesn't necessarily pinpoint the exact metal that did it or when it was done.
7. A history of amalgam fillings or known exposure to mercury or lead is enough to cause many people to begin low dose frequent dose chelation without any testing.
8. Several abnormalities, high normals, low normals, out-of-ranges, in routine physical and lab tests.Try to think of where exposure came from. Amalgams? Water source? Live near a factory? Downstream by air or water from an industry or polluted country? Excessive fish consumption? Other? Or was it normal exposure in a toxic world but you do not have the genetics to excrete it?
The topic really is not all that easy to cover here. You really need to read Amalgam Illness. It can be read in one evening, and then repeat the parts that seem to fit you. Anyone who suspects they might be toxic, but they don't order this book, well, that's a dangerous road.
I'm not sure of the other metals you show. I would be most concerned with the mercury and lead. Your primary friends may become DMSA and ALA (alpha lipoic acid). DMSA to begin with, ALA added later. The "whys" are explained in the book. But it has to be done in very low doses, every 4 hours, in stop-and-go rounds for several months or sometimes even a couple years. Absolutely do not do IV chelation, high dose chelation, or any herbal chelators.
What can you do right now? Be sure your drinking water is only pure filtered water and lots of it (can you get a filter put on your kitchen sink?) Lots of organic veggies and fruits. Remove all amalgams. Take supplements of Vit C, Selenium, and Zinc, either with or without other vitamins and minerals. Those 3 help to bind and tame down the toxins.
Was the lab accurate? Well, a quick low dose DMSA protocol would tell you for sure. When someone is toxic and they begin chelation, it usually feels bad. DMSA otherwise in a nontoxic person is not much more than a sugar pill, doesn't do anything. You could get the test from a second lab.
To me, that hair test of yours is highly significant. Regardless of the lab's normal ranges, methods of measurement, or errors in the measurements, the test shows something is way out of bounds. Labs make errors, but not to that extreme. Do you shower everyday? If so, any of those metals that came from the air would have been mostly washed away. Any town with that amount of stuff in the air would be filled with sick people.
The three key points I can tell you in this post are:
1. Yes, the hair test is highly significant and highly suspicious deserving a close look.
2. You are powerless to do anything about it without the book Amalgam Illness. The book is about silver filling poisoning, but applies no matter where the mercury and lead came from.
3. Time is important. The faster you act to learn more, confirm it, rule it out, or begin treatment, the better.DMSA can be ordered from VitaminResearch Products as an over-the-counter supplement. You can empty the capsules to make custom smaller doses. ALA is an over the counter supplement. Since most doctors are not trained on this topic, most patients take charge of their own treatment, since in fact it is actually very simple, cheap, and safe when done properly. Most people do chelation on a "hunch" they are toxic, as the situation sure looks that way, but never have definitive proof until they measure what is coming out in their urine a few months into treatment, when a great deal is being dumped.
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 23, 2009, at 20:29:39
In reply to Radioactive, posted by Sigismund on April 21, 2009, at 18:18:15
Well, so much for bleauberry saying it doesn't mean anything.
Lar
Posted by Phillipa on April 23, 2009, at 21:44:44
In reply to Re: Radioactive, posted by Larry Hoover on April 23, 2009, at 20:29:39
It doesn't according to the class I took many years ago with Shaklee. Hair grows out and only shows at that stage of time what was in your body. Hair is dead skin cell to best of my limited knowledge. To use Sigi what do I know not much. Phillipa
Posted by bleauberry on April 24, 2009, at 5:18:35
In reply to Re: Radioactive » Larry Hoover, posted by Phillipa on April 23, 2009, at 21:44:44
> It doesn't according to the class I took many years ago with Shaklee. Hair grows out and only shows at that stage of time what was in your body. Hair is dead skin cell to best of my limited knowledge. To use Sigi what do I know not much. Phillipa
This is basically true. Hair doesn't show what you were recently exposed to. It shows what was in you weeks and months ago.
And in this world of fast paced discoveries and advances, it is not the best strategy to base one's opinions strictly on information from "many years ago".
Posted by Sigismund on April 26, 2009, at 17:57:00
In reply to Re: Radioactive, posted by bleauberry on April 23, 2009, at 19:17:41
There's a lot of info there.
In the country we have tank water and therefore filters for it. My amalgams are all out as safely as possible. I live on fish, which may explain it.
I'll get the book. That will be easiest. I imagine there are widely varying opinions on how to deal with it.
Thanks, Blueberry.
Posted by Sigismund on April 26, 2009, at 17:59:47
In reply to Re: Radioactive » Sigismund, posted by Larry Hoover on April 23, 2009, at 8:35:57
That's what I wasn't sure of.
5 times something but what?
I guess the doctor will have a plan.
Thanks Larry.
Posted by Sigismund on April 26, 2009, at 18:04:37
In reply to Re: Radioactive » Sigismund, posted by yxibow on April 22, 2009, at 21:25:19
>what dictates true need for chelation therapy (calcium sodium edetate, dimercaprol) are definite positive high levels rather than some random testing by some organization.
I suppose there are big differences of opinion in medicine about this?
Have to be guided by science, which I won't understand.
Perhaps there will be further tests?
Posted by Sigismund on May 19, 2009, at 19:35:34
In reply to Random test » yxibow, posted by Sigismund on April 26, 2009, at 18:04:37
>Perhaps there will be further tests?
I've just collected the urine for a 24 hour pre and post DMPS estimation of urine mercury, lead, cadmium, copper and arsenic.
It will be interesting to see the result.
Posted by Sigismund on May 19, 2009, at 19:43:12
In reply to Re: Radioactive, posted by bleauberry on April 23, 2009, at 19:17:41
>2. DMSA urine provocation test risky: Collect baseline urine, take 1200mg DMSA, collect urine for 6 hours, measure metals in urine. The one-time large dose can stir up more metals than can be removed, causing redistribution. I made this mistake and it took me 3 weeks to recover from the fatigue and brain fog. But, it showed definite toxicity beyond what any of us had imagined.
I wonder if this is different to DMPS?
I felt better within an hour of taking it, which may mean anything or nothing, I suppose.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.