Re: Anyone use IMD?
- Subject: Re: Anyone use IMD?
- Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 04:55:47 -0000
- Yahoo! Message Number: 48058
- Onibasu Link: http://onibasu.com/archives/amc/48058.html
Try the OnibasuWiki.
Recently added or updated pages: Growth Hormone, Progress reports (see 2008), Cutler protocol, N-Acetyl Cysteine (NAC), Cysteine status (sulfur food exclusion)
--- In adult-metal-chelation@yahoogroups.com, "dlee427" <dlee427> wrote:
I think people need to study the evidence for their own instead of believing Cutler says on every matter.
Correct. Unfortunately for people whose brains are too addled by emotion they are seldom capable of calming down enough to learn the relevant physiology instead of emote, stir the pot and try to create conflicts between personalities.
You should pay attention to actual knowledge, not whether you can be inflammatory enough to get people on the list who do possess some knowledge to waste their lives arguing with you.
Luckily for you, I'm not a moderator. I would have thrown you off long ago.
Cutler's response to IMD was that it was chemically "not possible" or "didn't sound right" and he shoots down everything that comes out that isn't his protocol. Frankly it's VERY irritating.Probably not as irrittaing as what you are doing here ;-)
My statement is IMD does not, can not, and a knowledeable person would not believe it had any possibility of working, and this is supported by people's experience on taking it.
This position is correct.
For those who are interested, let me explain IMD. I dont have ANY association with the product or Dr. Chris Shade. This is my research for my own knowledge. And for those who are interested, Dr. Chris Shade is also a chemist, in mercury chemistry so I think he knows a thing or two about what he's doing.
His approach to chelation is not like Cutler's. Cutler has form some circle of exclusion by saying his method is the only way
I do not believe I've ever said that. Please refer me to a post where I have done so if I did.
which is absolute garbage.
Nice, dispassionate phraseology. I see you are trying to foster reasoned debate here!
I'm sorry but i personally know a few people who gotten better from DMPS INJECTIONS!
If you ask around, you'll find some people who claim to have gotten some impovement from more or less any random protocol. And there is reasonable evidence that some of them actually did.
I've never said anything other than that (though I freely admit that for pedagogical purposes I've often implied differently).
The question is how much better, how much permanent irreversible damage wasdone along the way so that a few of them now have absolutely no hope of reasonable health, and what their odds would have been had they done things properly.
which i would never do
Good. Some sanity remains. Now try to extend it to being a bit more neutral in your argument so that the moderators don't have to throw you off in self defense. If you are arguing that I am wrong on a technical basis, and want people to pay attention to technical issues, you can probably manage to phrase it somewhat less as an attack on me. Personally if you need some emotion to lubricate your intellect and need to put "@&($ YOU )$(&*$ YOU ()$()# YOU ANDY CUTLER!!!" in every message I can ignore it, but others may not find that acceptable. It would certainly stir the list up quite a bit and would NOT foster the rational consideration you are claiming you want people to engage in.
I do understand sometimes you have to be forceful to get people's attention, I certainly add emotion to my posts for that reason often enough. However at this point you do have people's attention. You don't need to keep doing it.
but Cutler's quote under the files in FDC says "NO ONE has ever gotten better from DMPS IV or injection".
Please provide a post number for this.
I do believe he's very knowledgeable but I have a problem when people start accepting everything a person says because he/she is an authority figureinstead of using critical thinking.
I agree. I personally find this somewhat disturbing. Here I am addressingan utter holocaust that exists precisely because most people's eyes glaze over when the authority figure in a white coat tells them something stupid,and people often then turn around and do the same with me.
Aside from making up for your earlier attacks on me this isn't really relevant.
I question EVERYTHING even if my doctor was 100% right, I question the next argument is presents. That's how people should think but unfortunately we're not taught to do that in today's educational system.
Actually it isn't a practical way to think. There simply isn't enough time to question everything. I agree that ideally it should be so, but in practice in order for us not to have to literally reinvent the stone axe, fire and the wheel we do have to take a lot for granted. The art is to develop some judgment as to what to question, and how to decide to raise the questions that are actually relevant early enough that it does some good.
Anyway, Cutler's approach is PURELY pharmacology. He is a chemist. His approach is all about blood levels of a drug and half life and I don't disagree with the chemistry. However, he lacks insight on human biology and clinical perspective of viewing the body as a whole.
This is a false claim. I have far more of that than you (or anyone who could believe IMD can in theory work).
This is why he has a very abrasive attitude and relationship with people who do view it this way, such as Dr. Klinghardt,, Dr. Buttar, DAN!, etc.
No, I have a bad atittude about those who negligently hurt others for money.
I have not claimed that any of those specific people do so and would appreciate those words not being put in their mouths. You also use the word 'relationship' differently than I would, I do know some of the relevant people personally and would not characterize our relationship as abrasive.
(BTW, I know someone who was EXTREMELY ill to the point of death who is completely cured by Dr. Klinghardt)
Nice content free claim. I do hope it is true - I do want all the sick people to get better. However without some case details it isn't really a claim that a reasonable person would rely on. E. g. perhaps they were discharged to hospice care, in which case I'd say it is a reasonable claim. Perhaps they are personality disordered and while completely physically healthy became obsessed they'd die and happened to see Dr. K that week.
Dr. Chris Shade's product IMD is a silica molecule that is saturated withthiol groups which even according to Andy, makes it a true chelator. It isattached very strongly and does not absorb into the body which is why it makes it a very good GI chelator/binder.
which is where some very modest knowledge of physiology is relevant.
IMD does not absorb.
Once mercuric (inorganic) mercury ends up in the lumen of the GI tract, almost all of it is excreted pretty much without regard to what else is going on there.
Thus the IMD only interacts with mercury already destined for excretion. It can not possibly help.
If you got organic mercury poisoning, the organic mercury transforms irreversibly to inorganic mercury.
Thus if IMD is as described, its only real utility would be for acute (probably industrial) organic mercury poisoning episodes.
If anyone has taken the time to research his work and look at his powerpoint presentation you will see that the reason for this is because mercury both elemental, inorganic and organic cause GI inflammation that causes redistribution of mercury back up the hepatic portal vein.
This incompetently incorrect.
This is common biology knowledge.
Not among anyone who knows anything. There really is a lot of literature onthis topic. Perhaps you should actually read some of it? After all, you're the one saying people shouldn't just blindly believe things, but rather should look into them.
Mercury is excreted in large amounts through the feces and the urine but studies show that the body stops excreting via feces after a while and mobilizes mercury excretion to the kidneys.
No studies show this, it is incorrect. All relevant studies show excretion via both routes. THere aren't so many studies that actually measure both due to the greater expense and difficulty of analyzing feces.
This is consistent with Dr. Chris Shade's research where the efflux transporters in the liver shut down, all except MRP3 which is the one that routesthe toxins to the kidneys. What he is suggesting is that the "door out" via fecal excretion is closed. Because of the downregulation of the multidrugresistance-associated proteins, there is downregulation of the body's phase II and phase I detoxification, causing extreme stress on the kidneys and oxidative stress buildup.Apparently an incorrect one if you are characterizing his work any more accurately than mine.
Taking a chelator such as DMSA or DMPS binds to the mercury in the blood and it is excreted via the kidneys but Dr. Chris Shade is approaching this matter from a physiological standpoint.
The 3 phases of detox, phase I, phase II and phase III. Phase III is elimination and there are lots of GI proteins and transporters that stop functioning properly when mercury is in the Gi tract.
WIld claim. No literature supports it. Mercury makes its way to the GI tract (from inside the body) almost exclusively as a glutathione conjugate excreted by the liver in bile fluid.
This causes the entire detoxification chain to come to a stop and "back up". What IMD is meant to do, is remain in the GI tract and chelate mercury from the GI cells and prevent re-uptake to the liver.
which does not happen with inorganic mercury, and this is conclusively established in the literature.
This allows glutathione conjugates and efflux transporters to start dumping stuff into phase III elimination
They don't need permission. They do it irreversibly. It doesn't matter what the concentration is on the other side, it is active transport, not diffusion.
and allows the body's natural detoxification system to start ELIMINATION mercury. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHELATING the blood!
Correct. Which is why it can't possibly help.
So for those of you who know EXACTLY what Cutler's stance is,
I think I legitimately qualify as knowing exactly what my stance is.
should know that he shouldn't be against this because a) its a true chelator
There is a claim that it is, but no actual details. It is after all a proprietary product. However for the sake of argument, we'll pretend it is a true chelator that is not absorbed from the intestinal lumen.
by his silly definition
I see you are trying to stick to facts and logic here in helping people make their own informed decision based on technical reality rather than personalities.
b) it remains in the GI tract. Cutler doesn't have a problem with alginateor any "binders" (he says its not harmful but doesn't do anything which i beg to differ) so why should this be any different?
Presuming it really remains in the GI tract it should be fine. It just won't detox anything.
I'm not convinced that as a proprietary formulation it doesn't contain things like alpha lipoic acid.
You are implicitly correct here - I try to restrict the "do not do it" suggestions to situations where people can hurt themselves. Thus if you are correct about IMD it does nothing aside from lighten your wallet and is fine to use. The only caveat is you're hurting yourself if you make decisions based on the false belief it is detoxing you.
But just FYI, Chris Shade's research did show that after the "door" was opened and IMD was used, levels of all 3 forms of mercury were decreasing ina dose dependent manner.
I'm absolutely sick and tired of hearing people claim Cutler to know everything,
Can you provide some quotes for that? Any direct statements by people? Or that's just your frustration at people inappropriately listening to me because *I* said something, instead of inappropriately listening to you because*YOU* or your favorite 'expert' said it?
We do at least agree that people should think for themselves and evaluate information rather than merely relying on a cult of personality. So we have gotten somewhere.
I find it ridiculous. No one is right about everything and people should employ the study of the trivium and get familiar with researching EVERYTHINGincluding checking every citation and source. Which I do.
THe preceding mesage makes it quite clear you do not do this.
As someone who actually has done a lot of this, and had a career as a geek doing this for decades before I ran into mercury problems, I can assure youit just is not possible to be absolutist in checking everything. You haveto draw the line at some point. Do you get actual copies of all papers cited? Which isn't particularly easy to do? Do you read them? Analyze them? Replot the data to see if they screwed up? Do you get copies of the papers the references cite?
You're both taking an absurdly absolutist position and being quite bombastic. I'd chalk this up to mercury addled brains. Try not to take it out on the people on the list so much, they're having their own mercury problems that aren't helping them think straight all the time.
And BTW, with all this insistence people should check things and know something, you really ought to read up a bit on how the GI tract works, and whatmercury does in it.
I had to write this because I do believe Cutler has done some amazing thing and is knowledgeable
Thank you.
but the cock blocking
That's even more inflammatory than the earlier general commentary. Do you often escalate emotionally when you write these kinds of diatribes?
Does this mean I'm a bad person for stopping your bud from @$#ing his clients? ;-) Sorry, couldn't resist the opportunity. But you can see from it how out of control invective can get, and how distracting from reasoned analysis it can be.
of other methods HAS TO STOP.
Why? Why should I go along with people hurting others for money? If I was going to do that i'd write books about how wonderful vaccines and amalgam fillings are for you.
Why is the principle different depending on the people involved?
I know for a fact that there are other ways to chelate mercury and if you can't see that, you really haven't spoken to enough people, doctors and researchers and haven't done enough research.
I would make the contrary claim. If you believe this, you are regurgitating people's unsupportable opinions rather than having done anything that might legitimately be called research.
I'm sure there are many people that have gotten worse with every chelationprotocol and then miraculously did well on AC protocol, which is great buton the flip side.. I know a few people who have done everything INCLUDING the AC protocol and only got 100% health when they tried X. (Klinghardt, Buttar, etc.)
I do actually try to collect stories like this, so if you have any real detail to share I'd appreciate it. Real detail includes details of their health situation and history that might point to what is going on, or to what might tell someone to try protocol X vs Y.
Spreading the news of protocols are great, cutting other people in the same field down is not.This is the basic marketing restraint on doctors. Their boards insist theydon't say "other doctors poison people with mercury," they just recite their qualifications.
Of course this kind of "constructive criticism" approach prevents all progress.
The only relevant information in many cases is that it is incompetent to use a certain protocol.
It kind of sucks to see that we're all on the same side and should be on the same side against the FDA, pharmaceutical companies and 99% of the people out there who don't even believe mercury to be a health concern but instead everytime I come on the boards, i have to close the window cause I see too much hate and quarrel between different "teams", the AC group being thebiggest cockblockers. Let's all play nice.So everyone can stay sick?
No thank you.
I don't think incompetent alternative doctors who hurt people for a living have any more right to keep doing it than incompetent mainsream doctors whohurt them by giving them mercury poisoning.
Similarly for drug companies selling expensive drugs that don't work vs. supplement companies selling expensive supplements that don't work.
Andy
www.noamalgam.com
www.noamalgam.com/hairtestbook.html
Onibasu Link: http://onibasu.com/archives/amc/48058.html