Deep_sleep: My sincere apologies for this long comment and the diversion.
WalkingbyFaith: Thank you for your initial reply, as well as the follow-up clarification of the details and timing. I appreciate you taking the time to share all that information.
WalkingbyFaith said...
I remember asking MarkF if Cutler had anything to say about zeolite chelating mercury. He replied that Cutler didn’t believe zeolite was a mercury chelator. I believe it has been identified as removing some other metals, but I don’t recall which ones. It’s also supposedly contaminated with aluminum. I wondered when the numbness started increasing if it was chelating or redistributing metals. Possibly it was increasing aluminum levels. I didn’t test anything so I don’t know.
Okay, thanks. I've read the same thing about
some zeolites potentially being contaminated. Allegedly, as you probably know, the clinoptilolite version of zeolite is supposed to be safe for ingestion. I'm not sure if that's correct, but that's alleged to be the case. I just found this:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2018.01350/fullWalkingbyFaith said...
As for deficiencies and toxins, that’s definitely not woo-woo. Not sure how to convince you, though.
Certainly, both deficiencies and toxicities are real. As I noted, though, I doubt that's the whole truth...that there are other factors, too. Infections are another example, of course. There's a difference between toxins and toxicants. My bristling at the words like "toxins" and "detox" are mainly centered on how those words are hijacked and misused by grifters looking to capitalize on people who are suffering, broke, and looking for help.
There are other things that trouble me about
how those words are used, but it's often a semantic quibble. I like to deal in what's know, can be proven, can be tested, can be validated...and, repeated. That's not always possible, I realize, so we sometimes have to go out on a limb and try things and hope we're drawing a correct conclusion about
why something happened or didn't happen. Few things in life are black and white.
WalkingbyFaith said...
These are measurable via testing. Of course, some people get tested and then disbelieve the validity of the tests and say every test that lab does is positive. It can’t be real.
If you're referring to Doctor's Data lab and the lawsuit against them about
using provoked urine challenges, I remember reading about
that situation. The lab has since modified their testing and reporting. I agree there are people who still doubt the validity and say that all their labs are positive. No doubt there are people who get repeated negative tests and then still insist the tests are wrong, too. Testing isn't always perfect, I'm sure. It's one data point to be considered among many others, as well as the skill and experience of the practitioner -- if one is lucky enough to have someone to help guide them.
WalkingbyFaith said...
Maybe find a pristine human somewhere who’s the picture of vibrant health and get them to get tested with you. Then compare test results.
Finding a pristine human is unlikely, at least in present day. I recall reading about
the following, back in 2009: "The Environmental Working Group's study commissioned five laboratories to examine the umbilical cord blood of 10 babies of African-American, Hispanic and Asian heritage and found more than 200 chemicals in each newborn."
WalkingbyFaith said...
With your occupational exposures were you ever tested for toxic chemicals or heavy metals?
First, you have a great memory. Lately, my brain and memory aren't working so well. You, however, still seem to be firing on all cylinders.
As for testing, I had "Toxic & Essential Elements; Hair" test done twice by Doctor's Data lab. I had the first test in late 2009 and another in early 2015.
* For the 2009 test, the "Potentially Toxic Elements" at the top-half of the page (things like aluminum, cadmium, lead, mercury, etc.) were all in-range.
* For the 2015 test, the only value that crept over the line was Silver. It should have been <0.08 and my result was 0.10. The doctor (a functional MD) didn't express any concern. Otherwise, all the other elements were in-range. Some were lower than reported on the 2009 test and some were a bit higher, but all others were within the reference range.
In mid-2014, I had a NutrEval Plasma test done by Genova Diagnostics. The six "Toxic Elements" tested were all within the reference range with one reporting "0.00" and two others were below detectable limits. This isn't surprising, of course, as it was a blood test. (If I had a fat biopsy or a way to test my brain, I wonder what might be found.)
There was also a section for "Toxic Exposure" in which I scored in the upper end of the yellow zone (drifting toward the red zone). Just below that were three bullet points. The first referenced "MTBE," the second mentioned "Styrene," and the final bullet point stated: "Levels of these toxic substances should be examined within the context of the body's functional capacity for methylation and need for glutathione."
The NutrEval results have a section for "Need for Methylation" in which my result was at the top end of the green zone, indicating zero need. Also, my "Mitochondrial Dysfunction" result was at the lower end of the green zone, but not quite bumping up against the yellow zone. No numerical values were assigned to any of the results I've shared. In total, the report is 27 pages long...several of the final pages being commentary on various results that were out-of-range. It's a neat report visually, though I don't understand much of it. One day, I'd like to have another run, for comparison.