Vaccination & epidemic

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

your son peed lead before the drug came along and made him pee more of it.

Yes, he peed eight-tenths of a microgram. Normal pee levels are 2-3 micrograms according to Wiki. Take in 2, subtract .8. Tomorrow, take in another 2, subtract .8. This equals long-term buildup.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

See, the reason the six hour number is more interesting is that most of the stuff is peed out during that time frame. After six hours, you're just peeing pee, ya follow?

Right. This is why they give a reading in µg/gram of creatinine, because it gives a more accurate picture and accounts for dilution.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

50 times!

That was from the section of the page on Treatment; i.e., for people who had been found to have lead poisoning. It's a statement on how effective the drug is at removing lead from people with lead poisoning.

How come he didn't pee 50 times the normal amount of any other metal? Why would the NIH use urine collection for any of their research studies if it's so completely meaningless?

Originally Posted by Undertoad

...the next most relevant question is, what are your son's blood lead levels?

I don't know, and I don't care. He didn't eat a lead toy, he's been slowly accumulating for years. It's not in his blood.

Blood lead levels are an indicator mainly of recent or current lead exposure, not of total body burden.[106] Lead in bones can be measured noninvasively by X-ray fluorescence; this may be the best measure of cumulative exposure and total body burden.[21] However this method is not widely available and is mainly used for research rather than routine diagnosis.

When lead exposure has taken place over a long period, blood lead levels may rise after chelation is stopped because lead is leached into blood from stores in the bone;

You pull what you can from the soft tissues, opening space for more bone stores to leach out. Then you pull again a few weeks later. If one were being really anal, I suspect that one could take the drug, and then do a few blood tests in the minutes and hours immediately following, since by definition that newly-bound lead's going to take a turn around in the bloodstream before getting processed into the urine. But that's a little pointless, because you can test for the presence of that same lead in the urine just a short while later.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Normal pee levels are 2-3 micrograms according to Wiki.

link plz

How come he didn't pee 50 times the normal amount of any other metal?

Because that's the rate for lead.

Why would the NIH use urine collection for any of their research studies if it's so completely meaningless?

I dunno, what are they looking for?

(What's the level in his blood?) I don't know, and I don't care. He didn't eat a lead toy, he's been slowly accumulating for years. It's not in his blood.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead

Analysis of lead in whole blood is the most common and accurate method of assessing lead exposure in human. Erythrocyte protoporphyrin (EP) tests can also be used to measure lead exposure, but are not as sensitive at low blood lead levels (<0.2 mg/L). Lead in blood reflects recent exposure. Bone lead measurements are an indicator of cumulative exposure. While measurements of urinary lead levels and hair have been used to assess lead exposure, they are not reliable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning

Elevated lead in the body can be detected by the presence of changes in blood cells visible with a microscope and dense lines in the bones of children seen on X-ray. However, the main tool for diagnosis is measurement of the blood lead level; different treatments are used depending on this level.

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

But you prefer pseudoscience. So your evidence is a measurement known to be unreliable and inaccurate; and then you make major mistakes and generous leaps of logic in your interpretation of the results.

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?