Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Undertoad
You mentioned that your son's creatinine levels were 11.6. I'm assuming that's 11.6 ug of creatinine per dL, as the Dr Data report from Quackwatch reads, yes?
|
My chart says 11.6
milligrams of creatinine per dL, but that does equal .0116 grams.
The problem is, if that math is correct, then that would mean his original test, which measured at .8 micrograms lead/gram creatinine, would work out to (.8)(.025 creatinine level for before sample) = .02 micrograms/dL, which is well below the detectable range for lead. (The low end of the detectable range is .1 microgram/dL (
mentioned on page 4.)) So either the lab completely falsified levels at ranges they couldn't even detect (and if you're going to falsify levels, why not just falsify high levels?), or this math is off somewhere.
Truthfully, I don't know the answer. But I can tell you that 1.) I trust the doctor who says he needs some additional, well-monitored treatment for this level of lead (but that none of the other "elevated" numbers are at all concerning,) in low-dose and non-intravenous format; 2.) about 75% of the autism parents I have talked to saw large gains with moderate chelation therapy; and 3.) I personally saw an improvement in my son following his initial chelation dose, despite not expecting him to have any toxicological problems. You are welcome to link to some of the studies that say there has been no confirmable cognitive improvement in lead-poisoned children even after chelation, only a possible behavioral improvement, but they mean about as much to me as the studies that show no improvement is possible with dietary changes. I have a sample size of 1, but I know my sample very, very well. I know the limited medical risks for short-term non-IV chelation (too much loss of calcium and zinc, primarily,) and how to mitigate them (treatments spaced weeks apart, supplementation of minerals in between.) The financial risks are nonexistent, as this particular lab test is cheap and the prescription is cheaper. And I have seen some evidence of gains with the initial treatment. Proceeding cautiously seems to me to be the right decision to make.
I promise you, I am far more terrified of making the wrong decisions in all of this than you are, and I weigh every choice very carefully. I have rejected at least a half a dozen other scam treatments that are often pushed upon parents of autistic children. Are some people scammed by the idea of intensive, long-term chelation as a cure-all, even when they show no symptoms? Yes. But I'm a smart lady, and I don't believe that to be what's happening here. You obviously believe otherwise, but hey, that just shows you care. I promise that the biggest risk here is that I will waste a small amount of energy and an even smaller amount of money and see no results, and that's a risk I'm willing to take.