After FOUR years of dutiful chelation, his daughter still scores “high” on aluminium and mercury “excretion”.

And no, she’s not “cured” yet, but “some” DAN doctors assure him that she’ll improve dramatically towards the “end” of the chelation.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/05/the_price_of_anti-vaccine_fanaticism_par.php

And much unlike the norm of the posters from the (biomed/denialist/antivax/mercury militia) viewpoint.

And, Mrs Lujan comments go beyond the mere cut-n-paste, she understands the matter she’s commenting about. She can still be wrong, but I wish there were more like her.

María, for the record, I hope you will continue to comment here. Valid criticisms like pointing out that the toxicity screening reference range we used was for adults, are extremely relevant, and essential.

Maria usually comes up with a lot of speculation, and she could very well be right. We don’t know.

But this is irrelevant to Do’C’s post. Heckenlively said he had “proof” that his daughter was poisoned. Now, looking at the data, can you really say he has proof?

He didn’t say he might have proof, which would be sort of nonsensical to say anyway.

Does he or doesn’t he? Can you really say his claim that he has “proof” can’t be criticized? Why couldn’t it? It’s a statement of fact that can be evaluated, and we can all see it’s false.

1) as explained by you and Doc, spot urine, even when “normalized” by creatinine ratio, seems to be a lousy Hg test.

2) lab quality. If one was to split an urine sample into 2 samples, and send both separately, and received different Hg values on each half of the sample, the Lab accuracy would be in doubt.

I understand doctors in hospitals and universities hold mail-order labs in very little esteem.

“For biomed kids that undergo chelation, it would be useful to have reliable measures of the Hg levels, before, during, and after the chelation treatment.”

Absolutely right!

Another issue that has received far too little attention is the issue of potential contamination. I’ve mentioned this before (and in the post above), but it bears repeating.

At least some of the demand for chelating agents is being met by suppliers of questionable quality. Since chelating agents can “pick up” and hold onto mercury, lead, arsenic etc. at any point, it is not unreasonable to be concerned that they might be contaminated during manufacture or processing.

For reputable (and federally inspected) manufacturers, this is not a serious concern, as they monitor their product for heavy metal contamination. However, if the product is not tested, the possibility of heavy metal contamination remains.

When I read the account of parents using DMSA and DMPS (and other chelating agents, like lipoic acid) from “grey” sources and how mercury is “pouring out” of their children, I can’t help but wonder if the parents are “pouring” mercury into their children along with the chelation and “supplements”.

Prometheus

Come on, Do´C, is that necessary?
About fair game?

My definition of fair game is different than yours about this.

Apparently it is. My definition (which is not necessarily personal or emotional) is nothing more than to say that an evidence-based scientific perspective is required. If conclusions are not supported by the presented evidence, criticism is warranted and an essential function of science. This is not my rule (although it often applies here), it’s the way scientific thought works.

Your numerous comments and e-mails about this post alone are essentially an enormous collection of “what ifs?”, and have not been presented with any relevance to autism that I can see.

“What ifs?” are important, but they eventually need evidence to support them if conclusions are to be based upon them.

If you’re tempted to respond yet again, please be specific to the post.

Fair game??
Near 2.5 years ago -to say it in my language
” se cayó desde la cima del Everest y se rompió en 200000000 de pedacitos para no recuperarse nunca más”

My definition of fair game is different than yours about this.

Your place. Your rules. OK

Goodbye.

EXACTLY nothing can be concluded -or criticised because the meaning of the graph is not known for sure and depends on the interpretation, the threshold (unknown) and many many other aspects.

Bullshit! María - firm conclusions are fair game for criticism.

Please pay attention, this will only be repeated once.

From our post:

Mr. Heckenlively’s statement:

“But now I finally have some proof that my daughter is mercury poisoned.”

is not supported by the data - data he provided.

Remember, we’re talking about a conclusion drawn by someone who may be very likely to believe the whole autism=mercury poisoning based on symptomology.