The term quack comes from “quicksilver” which is another name for…. wait for it mercury. The term quack was coined for doctors that used mercury in medicine to treat patients so Its highly Ironic that people on here are trying to poo poo the fact that people are still becoming very very Ill from the use of mercury In modern medicine , for instance, mercury fillings , vaccines, preservatives In eye drops and all manner of things all contain mercury, the most toxic poison on earth after plutonium.

There are many people suffering terribly , myself included, a decade ago I had many mercury fillings unsafely drilled out , a week later I was extremely ill and I spent the next 6 years housebound in extreme pain , cognitive problems, extreme fatigue and many other health problems and I am still suffering greatly. They are thousands like me, what are we meant to do?? we know what caused our illness , its common knowledge how toxic mercury is and the effects it has on the human body yet the establishment still fails to recognise our pain.. why?? well because they are the quacks! they give it to us in our medicines and dental work so they aren’t allowed to say anything against it. Which means that people like me turn to doctors that are brave enough to tell the truth and to try to treat us for the poisoning of which the quacks have given us.

Do you really believe that if your gp and your dentist says its true that It is? there are thousands of dentists now that have refused to use mercury any longer, there are whole countries that have banned the use of it in dentistry.

People need to wake up and stop believing everything they are told like sheep then maybe there will be a chance for people like me.

I hope that you never ever have to suffer the pain of mercury poisoning, It is the most terrible illness imaginable and one to which it is extremely difficult to treat, especially with the ignorance of most doctors.

BIG trouble.

You can follow the case at hxxp:www.boleneport.com. There you can sign up for the newsletter, and follow the case as it happens.

Currently Barrett has filed a Motion to Dismiss the case, but there is little chance that will happen. His reason he wants a Dismissal? He claims he is “assisting the government…”

Next comes “discovery,” a process where Barrett will have to cough up thousands of documents, then go into a video-taped Deposition where he will be forced to answer questions about his support network – those that helped him get his articles on the first page of search engines.

Barrett’s lead attorney seems to have disappeared, and he has been LATE making EVERY filing deadline since the case began.

The fun has just begun.

Most individuals would demonstrate a body burden of toxic metals following a provocation challenge.

From a clinical standpoint the paramount issue is whether these findings are of relevance to pathology evident or otherwise.

Inferences drawn from urine analyses without reference values are to be properly described as of tentative value.

Pre-provocation values are of some use in determining the innate capacity of the organism to excrete the body burdern, low levels would permit several conclusions: the total body burden it low, the detoxification capacity of the host is compromised (eg. polymorphism in GS [glutathione synthetase])
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m58h118035l804m7/
‘Deep’ sequestration by tissues.

Post-provocation values would be expected to rise in all indivuals following administration of a chelating agent. The relative values depend on the concentration within the body and affinity of chelator for metals. Baseline references cannot be used to determine statistical distribution of the post-provocation values amongst the reference population.

However the findings may still be of clinical following judicious analysis. Calculations may be performed to determine bodily concentrations by manipulating urine concentrations and chelator affinity for examined metal. I am unsure if this regularly performed but may potentially increases the accuracy of the ensuing inference. As an aside It would be prudent to expect the interference of biological modifiers in providing a wholly accurate assessment eg. moderately elevated cadmium in urine does not indicate high tissue burden in the lungs and low burden elsewhere.

One may also compare the elevations of toxic metals relative to one another which would provide a crude but potentially useful indication of body burden. For example if the post-provocation urine mercury was comparatively low to a greatly elevated urine cadmium and aluminium. This would suspicious of substantial exposure to these latter elements or the individual may have had a history of inconsistent exposure to mercury. Bearing in mind mercury in its various forms is ubiquitously distributed in our environment this conclusion would appear less likely. Is a patient in this situation a candidate for chelation therapy? The History identifies the patient as a chronic smoker (Known source of cadmium exposure) and lived several miles away from an incinerator (know source of mercury exposure), and coupled with the urine results it is defensible to proceed with chelation therapy. Note I do not say acceptable or otherwise but introduce the notion of scientific defensibility. Any practice within medicine must be scientifically defensible and pay little heed to ‘expert’ opinion, it is clearly of use with the volumes of information we are exposed but cannot and must not be substituted for careful and considered reasoning. Would an intelligent patient who has spent months researching the literature of a specific cardiovascular abnormality be more competent that his treating physican? I would say in certain areas yes.

Ultimately the issue presented in the article above centres on poor understanding of the requirements for a logical determination. DD poor representation of the use of urinary challenge testing eclipses the greater issue of toxic metal exposure in the pathogenesis of chronic disease.

It would be my pleasure to hear responses, criticisms or otherwise.

Kindly,

Hal the magical medical student

I am too tired of watching my pompous colleagues in lectures and congresses try to outsmart each other and prove just how brilliant they are, too tired of hearing them talk about patients in terminal states as “interesting cases” and then drive off in their luxury cars to their dinner parties.

On the other hand, I agree with you about all the nutritionists, homeopaths, naturalist, e.t.c. flukes who only what to be caliphs in place of the caliph, if you understand what I mean. I would, for once, like to see someone actually interested in treating people rather than trying to prove to each other that’s right (what you are trying to do with this site). I you could only divert your hard work and energy to find a solution to so many peoples’ problems, people who are suffering because their children are “diagnosed” with incurable diseases such as tourettes, ADHD, OCD, autism e.t.c. Traditional medicine does not have the answers and alternative only knows to accuse, what is your answer to all those suffering parents and children?

If so, I can understand your many misunderstandings. Osteopaths are taught to believe that have had a scientific education. What you are actually taught is pseudoscientific justifications to use in selling treatments. You are ’scientificky’ not scientific.

In science, proper controls are always required. Using inappropriate controls will give you meaningless results. It’s that simple. There will always be some trace level of metals in the body. Chelation flushes these out and allows quacks to proclaim “this should not be here! Here is my treatment.” I hope you are not one of those people.

You are right that no scientific proof does not mean that something does not work – it means we do not know if it does work. If you then sell a product or service without good evidence then you risk harming people. That is quackery. You are obviously confused as to what scientists do – as indeed they do work together to look for solutions to health problems.

Although I will whole heartedly agree with you that there are many charlatans trying to defraud peaople and take advantage of their problems offering unsubstatiated treatments, I think you are doing just the same, only in an oposite direction. No scietific proof does not mean that something does not work, it only means it has not been proven by the scientific community. It is adsurd to claim that alternative medicine doen not offer any benefits and Homeopathy is a hoax. Heavy metal toxicity does exist and, although current dignostic tests may not be as effective as they should and Chelation therapy may or may not treat this poisoning, it should not be called a “quack”. On the contrary, scientists should pool together to find solutions to these so complex issues instead of looking after their own interests and profiting from a pharmaceutically led industry.

I would also like to ask what evidence do you have that proves alternative medicine and practitioners are charlatans, and by evidence i do not mean your own opinions. At the end of the day, you are acusing these people of not having “scientifically based evidence”, you should have the same otherwise the “quack is on you”.

And if you believe an ND is a “qualified professional” and not a quack, you have been seriously misled.

Doctors Data toxic metals tests were especially useful as a GUIDE to how much mercury I had & how efficiently my body was eliminating it. This was supervised by a qualified professional–an ND who is NOT a quack. Mercury toxicity is a serious issue which most MDs don’t take seriously. MDs don’t have all the answers. There will always be charlatans, & many of them are MDs. Does Barrett write about them???