‘Stored’ compounds are not always as potent in immediate or long term effect as circulating compounds, especially not if their target molecule, required reagent or catalyst is only present elsewhere.

This principle is what allows depot injections and other sub-c and IM injections to work as intended.

Blood reference ranges are used to prevent the ‘lag’ inherent in urine and faecal tests. The exception being for substances metabolised in the kidneys or bladder. Urine reference ranges are available, and apparently in use by Doctors Data. Calling blood reference ranges a ‘sham’ is bizarre, unless one wishes to proclaim that either a) the origin of the compound of concern is in the urinary system and is excreted immediately (contradicting the autism=mercury poisoning hypothesis) or that b) the compound is not extracted from the blood to go into the urine for excretion (contradicting the use of non-oral chelators).

Just trying to work out how blood reference levels are supposedly a ‘sham’ because of the reason given by Jane has given me a headache.

In addition, reference ranges are typically worked out from the mean of the sample population. Deviation from the reference range does not mean illness is indicated, nor does it indicate environmental poisoning.

That laying outside the reference range does not equal illness is one of the many points being made in the complaint, as is the allegation that the ‘provoked’ test was presented.

Your argument is based on the fact that a) provoking a response is artificial, and b) the reference ranges are based on unprovoked responses.

@Jane: It’s not based on a). Artificiality is irrelevant. The point is that provoked testing is expected to produce results different to unprovoked testing. Chelation is supposed to clear metals; this is true regardless of who undergoes testing, unless perhaps the individual has been chelated for a long time.

Your point i seems to indicate that any metals showing up in testing are harmful, whether it be from provoked or unprovoked testing. In other words, humans should not carry any amount of metals at all. On what basis?

To put it another way, suppose the lab tests are always positive for any individual who gets tested. What would be the value of such a test? If you don’t think they are always positive, how could you know this without reference values for provoked testing?

I would question your argument as follows:

i) Just because a response is provoked does not mean it is artificial. Most individuals believe that ANY level of mercury is harmful to the body. To have it stored in the body (showing up in a provoked response) is as harmful as to have it circulating actively in your blood or urine. Over time, the regulating bodies have made the standards STRICTER, indicating that there is MORE evidence over time about the toxicity of these substances, not less.

ii) The reference ranges are based on BLOOD levels, not urine levels. The reference ranges are the sham because there is no reference range for urine or feces where most of the excretion is done.

iii) Actually, the references ranges do not indicate whether a provoking/chelating agent was used or not. In fact, many foods also act as provoking agents. Unless the studies are STRICTLY performed and the food intake is STRICTLY monitored, you cannot say one way or the other whether the response is truly provoked or not.

Additionally, the reference ranges do not indicate whether they are an average or a mean. The reference ranges are not correlated with the amount of toxin needed to provoke a health problem, rather they just show that there is a lot of toxin in the environment.

I wonder if it was that asset movement that triggered the IRS raid?

they had a clinic in Florida, as I recall.

How big? They grew from a $223K/year business in 2004 to over $6M in 2007. Can’t tell how much in 2008.
http://www.autism-watch.org/re.....view.shtml