[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Because that's the rate for lead.

According to you, at least 7.8 µg, and maybe as high as 30-40 µg, is "normal" for mercury. He didn't pee that. Why not?

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I dunno, what are they looking for?

Measuring the effectiveness of chelation drugs, among other things, which are widely accepted and prescribed for heavy metal poisoning. The drugs are not in question, their effects are not in question. The only thing you seem to be insisting is that anyone, absolutely anyone, could pee out as much lead as my son did when given the medications he was given. Except everyone doesn't. The only references you've found to people peeing out that much lead were individuals who were known to be exposed to lead.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

link plz

Sorry, I thought it was wiki but it was from somewhere else. Here's a study indicating that normal urinary lead levels for Japanese adults are between 1 and 4 µg for a 24-hour collection.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

By what magic, then, did it get into his pre-chelation pee?

You're being deliberately obtuse. A person takes in a couple micrograms a day from the average environment, and pees it back out again. My son takes in 2-3 micrograms just like everyone else, and pees out a fraction of that each day. Part comes out, part floats around in his blood until it gets stored in a bone, or soft tissue, or his brain. At any given time, I would expect his blood to show a slightly elevated amount, but not a shockingly high amount, because he is dutifully socking the extra away in his organs and bones.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

An x-ray and a drop of blood on a slide. Those are the reliable tests, for decades. Proven, cheap and readily available.

Actually, it's been noted here already (in the Wiki link, among others) that the fluorescence X-ray is neither cheap, nor readily available. It's used for research, not for diagnostic purposes. I cannot get one.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Without being rude, I urge you to change your thinking about this. Let's put it this way. If cheap, proven, reliable tests show long-term lead accumulation in your son, a battery of specialists will suddenly turn their attention to improving him. Covered by insurance -- probably using chelation to do it -- and you will be proven right. What do you have to lose?

Here's the funny thing--a battery of specialists will not turn their attention to improving him, even if we managed to get a fluorescence X-ray. Because he's autistic, no one will touch him. I can't even get a normal doctor to order a blood lead test on him. I've asked, and they won't do it, because they're terrified that colleagues will start pointing the pseudoscience accusations at them. There was another Dwellar with a child exposed to lead a few years ago, and not once did you call his claim into question. You jump on the pseudoscience bandwagon here because my son's autistic, and everyone knows there's just no cause for that, none at all.

Here is what I would need to do, to even get a blood test ordered: I would have to go to a completely new doctor, and lie and say that my son has only started showing these obviously autistic symtoms in the last few days, and gosh, I'm pretty sure I saw him picking at some paint on a building while we were out running errands. Of course, I'd also have to claim that he had no prior medical records, because any new patient is going to get their old records pulled from the previous doctor before their appointment, and he'd see the word "autism" and refuse the tests. But if I lied well enough, he would probably order them... and then what? Either the levels would be low because his exposure is chronic, not recent, and they would tell us nothing. Or the levels would be high, but not higher than 45 µg/dL, and they would say "not to worry, the body will naturally process it out, just give it time." Or the levels would be high enough to warrant chelation, at which point the doctor would attempt to prescribe some, and the jig would be up--I would have to admit that he's already taken a dose of chelation recently, and that I'm not interested in this new doctor overseeing a longer course of it because I already have a doctor doing that. And he would ask, "Why did you waste my time to get me to order these tests then?" and I would reply, "Because this guy on the internet didn't believe me."

Sorry, it's not worth the effort. If you can point me to a doctor who will give my son a fluorescence X-ray, I will definitely consider it, however. By the way, insurance already covers both the current doctor and the DMSA prescription.


I asked this in a different way before, and you didn't answer, so let me ask it again: 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?