On the eve of the ‘green our vaccines‘ rally, I thought it might be interesting to share a ten minute or so segment from the Autism Omnibus.
Giving evidence is Dr Jeffrey Brent:
Jeffrey Brent, M.D., Ph.D. is a sub-specialty board certified medical toxicologist. He is an active member of the medical school teaching faculty and is an attending physician on the clinical pharmacology/toxicology consultation service at the University Hospital. Currently he holds the rank of Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of Colorado Denver. Dr. Brent has a long list of publications, virtually all related to clinical toxicology. He is senior editor of Critical Care Toxicology: The Diagnosis and Management of the Critically Poisoned Patient and serves as Editor-in-Chief of Toxicological Reviews, a major international state-of-the-art review journal devoted to human toxicology.
Dr. Brent is the former President of the American Academy of clinical Toxicology, the largest organization in the world devoted to this discipline. Currently he serves as a member of the Board of Directors of the American College of Medical Toxicology.
We pick up testimony around five and half hours into day 15. I’ve transcribed directly from the audio, so please forgive minor errors. Emphasis is Brent’s, inserts are marked .
Q: Dr Mumper discussed today some key aspects of chelation therapy….as a medical toxicologist do you see any reason for the chelation to remove mercury from either Jordan King or William Mead in these cases?
Absolutely not….there is no test in medicine that is more valid for for assessing mercury toxicity than an unprovoked urine mercury concentration.
[For Jordan King and William Mead]…their unprovoked urine concentration is exactly in the normal range.
On the other hand, they have been chelated. And the justification for that chelation with regard to mercury comes from what you see in the right hand column where in both cases, 4 out of 5 provoked examples have been…uh…increase urine mercury. Well, you’re supposed to have increased urine mercury with provoked examples! Therefore there is absolutely no indication based here or anywhere else I saw in the medical records that suggest that there is any mercury effect in these children and therefore that was absolutely no reason to chelate them for any mercury related reason.
Q: Dr Mumper also testified today to seeing an increase in lead levels in children and that chelation may help with the adverse effects from lead. Is there any scientific or medical basis for that statement?
It is true that chelation therapy is the appropriate therapy for lead toxicity. However, the records do not reflect any lead toxicity in the case of either of the two children at issue here, Mead or King. Neither of them have had an elevated blood lead level and a blood lead level is the ‘gold standard’ test for lead toxicity. Because, contrary to testimony that was given earlier today [Dr Mumpers – KL], blood lead remains elevated and it will be elevated for years in children that have lead toxicity. It equilibrates with tissues and if there’s high tissue burden there will be high blood burden.
Q: So you disagree with Dr Mumper that the blood levels would only test for acute toxicity?
Thats absolutely wrong. So there was no indication therefore for treating these two children with a chelator for any lead effects.
Q: Is there any other accepted tests for lead toxicity, other than blood?
Blood is the ‘gold standard’ and there are no other accepted tests in medicine now that we can routinely get blood/lead levels.
Q: Was there anything about the levels you observed in the medical records [of either King or Mead – KL] post chelation that would cause you to think that these were extraordinarily high levels of excretion upon chelation?
No. You always expect to see levels in the urine bump post-chelation. It would happen to any one of us. There are no validated reference ranges post chelation, thats why they’re not used in medical practice – there is no valid way of using them and in fact if you look at these two children they had mild increases in urine/lead excretion as I recall but they were nothing different than what you would normally expect to see if you gave a chelator to them.
Q: And you’ve given chelators to a lot of children?
I’ve chelated a number of children.
A: There’s nothing here that would be out of the ordinary – from your experience – absent, even in the absence of a standard reference range.
Well, in truth we don’t (?) urine/leads because the ‘gold test’ is blood/lead so I haven’t looked at many urine/leads in children that I have chelated. So I can’t speak to that in my experience. But I have seen a number of patients now come to me because of these ‘doctor’s data‘ type of laboratories which are based on urines – chelated urines – and they always have high leads in their chelated urines and I tell them ‘well, lets just do the gold standard test, lets get a blood/lead level and so far, 100% of the time they’ve been normal.
Q: Are the post chelation mercury levels in either of these two boys in excess of what you would see…or in excess – I take it there’s no standard reference range…?
No standard reference range. You do tend to see small increases, they’ve had minor increases in their mercury excretion over the reference ranges over the non-provoked. It was certainly not very dramatic and certainly well within the range of what you would expect to see. For example if you look at the studies that I cited where they were studying chelators and they were looking at the effect of the chelator on urine/mercury excretion.
Now thats a valid time to do a post chelation mercury – if you want to study the effect of the chelator. And if you look at the normal controls in those studies, when they give them a chelator you do see some increase in the urine/mercury excretion and its a moderate increase and its really not very different than what we saw in these children [King and Mead – KL]
Q: Have you chelated children for lead or mercury toxicity?
Q: And under what circumstance did you chelate for mercury toxicity?
I’ve had a number, but probably the most common and the most dramatic relates to the fact that I live in Colorado and in the Rocky Mountain area there people who are still panning for Gold…..[they extract the gold from ore using liquid mercury]…and to get rid of the mercury [afterwards] they will heat it. In their house. In their kitchen. When you volatilise mercury like that [it gets into the air]….and I’ve had a number of families have become profoundly mercury poisoned.
Q: So when Dr. Mumper said that she saw ‘mobilisation’ of heavy metals by chelation and then assumed that the chelation was beneficial – do you agree with that statement?
No, I think what you see is – you give a chelator, you look in the urine and there’s more than in the non-chelated reference range is for the metals in the urine and its what you would normally expect. It tells you nothing about mobilising stores of heavy metals.
Q: Dr Mumper also talked about supplements. And those supplement were referred to increase Glutathione to treat mercury toxicity. Do you agree that that therapy is warranted in cases?
Glutathione? No. Supplemental glutathione to treat mercury toxicity has no validity at all.