putting this all together why kid tics

[Guest daniel quan]

(all this was talked about via Sheila Rogers, now I understands)

Magnesium deficiency.

Bonnie supplement to treat but after awhile one needs to increase dosage.

 

Parents begin to wonder why..

 

Mercury (in Thimerisol with vaccine) are known in inhibiting mineral transport such

As calcium, magnesium, and sodium..

 

Mercury also causes yeast overgrowth..

 

http://www.drkaslow.com/html/mercury_s_influence.html

 

Testing Mercury using urine, fecal, or blood can be tricky.

Since if Mercury poisoning is recent then urine, blood, or fecal are feasible..

But since mercury are usually removed from blood over time (months) then testing using

Urine, blood, or fecal matters are inaccurate. 1 out 10 people with mercury poisoning shows up as positive under this test.

 

When mercury enters the brain tissue, it is for life.

 

There is this link that talks about how to test for mercury toxicity from Claire.

Thanks Claire..

 

http://home.earthlink.net/~moriam/HOW_TO_h...#counting_rules

 

Excerpt below.

What the counting rules should be used for:

The counting rules determine if a child/adult has impaired mineral transport. That is what they are for.

Impaired mineral transport indicates mercury poisoning is likely:

In a strict sense, all the "counting rules" check for is that SOMETHING is causing disordered mineral transport. While in theory there may be many things that do this, the only one we know of is mercury poisoning, and it is certainly the only common reason for mineral transport to be messed up.

We are not aware of any other condition (besides mercury poisoning) which regularly results in impaired mineral transport. This does not mean that some other cause is not possible.

In particular, the other heavy metals (other than mercury) do NOT generally appear to cause impaired mineral transport. If you have normal mineral transport (as indicated by the counting rules), and you have a high level of a toxic metal (other than mercury), this would tend to indicate that you are poisoned with that element, and not mercury.

Another point worth noting is that it is having mercury in one's body (not brain) which causes impaired mineral transport. A person with mercury in their brain only would most likely not have impaired mineral transport. They would still have mercury poisoning, but would not show up as having impaired mineral transport, based on the counting rules. This would be likely in a person who was poisoned with mercury long ago, with no exposure since. This gives the body organs time to slowly clear out the mercury. The brain (unfortunately) hangs on to the mercury much longer, and does not clear itself out. Such a person might not have any laboratory abnormalities. Or, they might have endocrine (hormone) abnormalities (of the sort that endocrinologists and mainstream MD's are unlikely to understand), or neurological abnormalities.

Most people with mercury poisoning do seem to have abnormal mineral transport as shown by their hair tests, and small children do not appear to have enough time to clear all the mercury out of their bodies to get normal mineral transport again, if they are mercury poisoned. The only group of people likely to have mercury poisoning AND have normal mineral transport AND have a normal reading for mercury are those who have tried to remove the mercury from their bodies for many years but who have been using protocols that do not clear the mercury out of the brain, or those who have had no exposure to mercury for at least a few years. In other words, from a practical standpoint, almost everyone who is mercury toxic will have EITHER impaired mineral transport (what the counting rules measure) OR have high level of mercury in their hair.

Probability versus proof:

The counting rules can tell you that it is HIGHLY PROBABLE that a child or adult has impaired mineral transport. This is a fair indicator of mercury toxicity, but is NOT an exact precise 100% accurate diagnostic measure. First, there is a slight chance of a false negative or a false positive as to whether the person has impaired mineral transport. (See "Note about statistical probabilities" for more details on statistical probabilities as related to the counting rules.) Second, the counting rules do not actually test for mercury's presence, they are looking for impaired mineral transport. So, it is inexact.

It is possible that there may be some other disease or condition that is causing impaired mineral transport, or very skewed mineral levels. Andy doesn't know of any other condition that does this, but this is not exactly a guarantee of certainty for any individual.

We are aware of at least one person who had normal mineral transport (as measured by the counting rules) and who chelated anyway, and saw improvement. We are also aware of at least one person who had normal mineral transport and chelated anyway and did not see any change from chelation.

A lot of people have used the "counting rules" and we think it is a pretty reasonable and reliable method to decide to look into mercury poisoning further, or give chelation a try.

If your hair test shows a high level of mercury:

If the reading for mercury is HIGH (in the red area) on a hair test, this indicates the person may have mercury poisoning. You do not need the counting rules. It is clear that there is mercury present at high (unhealthy) levels.

Other ways to look for mercury toxicity:

There are a number of other ways (besides looking for impaired mineral transport) to look for mercury poisoning. However, getting a hair test and using the counting rules is RELATIVELY cheap and RELATIVELY easy and RELATIVELY reliable. So, a lot of people on the autism-mercury list have been using this method.

You can read about other methods here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Autism-Mercu...mining_toxicity or in Andy's book "Amalgam Illness", available from his website: http://www.noamalgam.com.

How to read a hair test from DDI

These rules are ONLY for the Doctor's Data "hair elements" test - tests by other companies need different rules. Andy highly recommends using the DDI "hair elements" test. Do not get the DDI "toxic elements" test.

STEP ONE:

· Find the "essential and other elements" section. In this section, count the number of results which are above 50%. Count all the ones where the value is above the 50th percentile line in the middle of the page and the bar extends over toward the right side, rather than to the left. Include any items where the result is still in the white only, if it is above 50%.

· If the number of items above 50% is 5 or less it indicates a high probability of abnormal mineral transport and it indicates a high probability of mercury poisoning.

· If the number of items above 50% is 18 or more it indicates a high probability of abnormal mineral transport and it indicates a high probability of mercury poisoning.

STEP TWO:

· In the "essential and other elements" section, count the number of results which go all the way into the red zone on either edge of the page, "very elevated" or "very low." Count only the ones where the bar extends into the red section (on either end).

 

 

· If the number of items "very elevated" and "very low" is 4 or more it indicates a high probability of abnormal mineral transport and it indicates a high probability of mercury poisoning.

STEP THREE:

· In the "essential and other elements" section, count the number of results which are entirely in the middle section. These are the ones where the bar ENDS in the white or green sections (on either side). These results are "average".

· If the number of items entirely inside the middle band (white and green) is 11 or less it indicates a high probability of abnormal mineral transport and it indicates a high probability of mercury poisoning.

If any ONE of these criteria is met, it indicates a high probability of abnormal mineral transport and it indicates a high probability of mercury poisoning. If step one OR step two OR step three indicates abnormal results, it indicates a high probability of abnormal mineral transport and it indicates a high probability of mercury poisoning.

Note about statistical probabilities

If any one (or more) of the criteria are met, there is a 1 in 44 chance that it happened randomly and a 43 in 44 chance that something is wrong. Of course, the chances that it is random diminish rapidly if the deviation is greater or if more than one of the rules is met. The greater the deviation, the greater the probability that the person is toxic.

Additional patterns which are characteristic of mercury toxicity

There are some characteristic non-statistical findings, too, in mercury toxic people. These are probably caused by other heavy metals in addition to mercury, but are NOT caused by COPPER toxicity. People who are copper toxic, with nothing else going on, have very normal looking hair analyses except for very elevated copper. Their minerals are not "skewed".

Not everyone who is mercury toxic has these patterns, but they are reasonably common:

· calcium that is vastly elevated. Usually the lithium is very low, too.

· a really characteristic pattern of very high calcium and magnesium, along with very low sodium and potassium. This isn't present in that many cases but is common enough to mention since, when present, it suggests mercury poisoning, or something else interfering with adrenal function.

· an "all low" pattern is quite common for mercury toxic people even though many have more than 5 elements above the midline. This has a more than 1 in 44 chance of being random, but is not what you expect to see.

The most important finding is the one that the counting rules "count": mercury toxic people generally have their essential elements much more scattered than well people, with lots of highs and lows. "Normal" people do NOT have this pattern. If you look at the hair analyses of some "normal" people it becomes quite obvious.

When mineral transport is abnormal: OTHER TOXIC METALS

(TEXT TO BE ADDED HERE. This section is not complete.)

When mineral transport is normal: OTHER TOXIC METALS

The counting rules look for abnormal mineral transport. A person who has NORMAL mineral transport has the ability to move use and process BOTH TOXIC AND ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS. The readings on a hair test for other toxic metals (other than mercury) should be an accurate indicator of any toxicity (or the lack of toxicity). For example, if a person has normal mineral transport, but high copper and high arsenic, then the readings for copper and arsenic would be accurate, and you would want to consider how to lower the copper and arsenic.

(TEXT TO BE ADDED HERE. This section is not complete.)

NOTES: About test results, in general

Medical laboratory tests are standardized by testing a bunch of normal, healthy people and determining "normal ranges" where 1 person in 40, on average, is above them and 1 in 40 below, for a total of 2 in 40 or 1 in 20 who do not fall "within normal limits."

Of course, with this statistical definition, this means that if you do eight gazillion tests in some mondo test panel, some of them are expected to randomly be out of range. The Doctor's Data hair element analysis is in effect one of those mondo test panels, like a "chem 25" blood test panel. While it is extremely difficult to go look at the myriad interrelationships of all the things on these panels (and in practice nobody does it), it is possible to use statistical methods to turn the whole panel into "one test" that is either "within normal limits" or "abnormal." Andy has done this and generated the following rules to interpret the DDI "essential and other" elements portion of their test which includes 23 elements. For tests including a number of elements different than 23, the rules have to be rederived.

NOTES: Probability equations used to come up with the rules

For those who like numbers and equations, the way Andy did this is pretty simple.

The probability of a given number of event "A" and event "B" where "B" is "not A" out of n tries is:

Pa ^ Na * Pb ^ Nb * 23CNb

(23CNa = 23CNb since Na + Nb = 23)

where Na is the number of events A and Nb is the number of events B, and Pa and Pb are the probabilities of events A and B. Pa + Pb = 1.

Andy could calculate this for all Na and sum the probabilities up from, say, zero to some number. What he did was calculate probabilities and add them up so the total probability of satisfying the counting rules given above is 0.023 (2.3%) and all the the different things to check have similar probabilities of occurrence.

The probability, Pa, of something being "very elevated" or "very low" is defined by the "normal limits" of a medical test as 0.05.

The probability, Pa, of something being greater than average, is of course 0.5 or 50%.

The probability, Pa, of something being within one standard deviation of average (in the middle band on the DDI test report) is defined by statistics as 2/3. NOTE: Using just math (statistics) here, this would lead to a rule that says "If the number of items that is in the "average" section is FOURTEEN or less it indicates abnormal mineral transport". This is, in fact, what this rule initially said when Andy created the counting rules. However, since there is correlation between the minerals, the actual number needed (to be "abnormal") or really lower. Andy had to get a lot of reports and go over them in order to determine what the number really should be, which is what he did. The rule was then modified to ELEVEN, instead of fourteen.

NOTES: How to read an OLDER hair test from Great Smokies Diagnostic Lab

IMPORTANT: As of August 2001, GSDL recently changed the format of their test results. Andy has not derived "counting rules" for GSDL's new reporting format at this time. The method outlined here does NOT work with the new format. This information is included ONLY in case you have an OLDER test. If you are going to order a test, please use DDI at present if you wish to use the counting rules.

STEP 1:

· Find the results for "nutritive elements" and "additional elements". There should be 21 items listed in these 2 groups together

· Draw a line (very carefully) down the middle of the test results page with a ruler. We will call this line "average".

· Find the area called "abnormal high" and "abnormal low" (way at the edges of the little bell curves on the test result sheet)

STEP 2:

· Count the number of values that are "abnormally high" plus the number of values that are "abnormally low". If this number is 3 or more it indicates a high probability of abnormal mineral transport and it indicates a high probability of mercury poisoning.

· Look for values that are "above average" -- that is, the line extends to the right, beyond the "average" line you drew down the middle of the paper. Count the values that are "above average". (This may include ones that are "abnormally high".) If the number is less than 6, it indicates a high probability of abnormal mineral transport and it indicates a high probability of mercury poisoning.

· Again, using the values that are "above average" -- that is, the line extends to the right, beyond the "average" line you drew down the middle of the paper. Count the values that are "above average". (This may include ones that are "abnormally high".) If the number is greater than 15, it indicates a high probability of abnormal mineral transport and it indicates a high probability of mercury poisoning.

[kim]

Daniel,

 

You're jumping right to the "big gun" that doesn't surprise me. I'm still trying to avoid thinking about heavy metals.

 

Can you give any more information why the vitamins help, and then need to be increased? I understand the mercury interferring, but why does it help initially?

 

The disordered mineral transport due to metal overload makes sense, my son's blood work both showed high end range of normal for calcium and magnesium. I have been looking for an answer as to why supplementing with more, seems to help. Even people who don't increase the antioxidants as in Omega's, & Vit. C,E,B etc., seem to see results with supplementing Mag. Cal & B's. I just don't get this.

 

Another question, if our kids are exposed to this stuff during infancy, when they are the most vulnerable, why don't they tic as infants? The most obvious answer is, the cummulative effect, but why not until somewhere between 4-8 years old. Something to do with dopamine, seratonin, testostrone levels triggering?

 

Just wonderig if anyone has come across theories for these things.

 

Kim