Printer Friendly

Blood metal analysis to define acute vs chronic toxicity.

Diagnosing Chronic Metal Intoxication

Blood is a part of the human circulatory system. It transports oxygen, nutrients and toxins to and from the cells and organs. The nutrients and toxins taken in with food, water, and air will either 'feed' body cells or are stored in various organ systems. What remains is excreted through the urinary or digestive tract, through breathing and sweat. While circulating in the blood stream, toxins can be measured and monitored. Through modern technology we are able to detect lower levels of toxic metals than ever. This enables us to detect minute amounts of potentially toxic metals long before damage is irreversible. It allows us to act preventively and take early action. With chelation therapy we remove harmful toxic metals from the body to prevent or treat disease.

To treat metal intoxication, we must first define the degree of toxicity. An acute intoxication at the workplace demands another, more aggressive treatment than a chronic case of metal intoxication. While low level metal exposure can be the cause of many chronic disease patterns, it is important that we first diagnose the type of metal toxicity (lead, mercury, etc.) and the severity of it. From that information, we can more safely select: a) the appropriate chelating agent, and b) determine the frequency of treatment.

With the correct diagnosis, we are able to 'classify1 the patient into the chronically exposed. For this group the reference ranges of Table 1 apply. These ranges have been set by the German Environmental Agency and they are given for the so-called 'unexposed' population. (1) Ironically and sadly, the longterm exposed, which are often chronically ill people with sad histories of illness of 'unknown cause' are considered 'unexposed' until the diagnosis indicates a blood or urine value above the so-called normal range.

Is it normal for humans to have toxins in their system?

And is 'normal' synonymous with healthy? Let us evaluate what reference ranges stand for:

We are considered healthy as long as no disease has been diagnosed.

When laboratories develop reference ranges, they are supposed to use healthy people and they should start with a group of 100 testpersons. Statistical evaluations are based on a 95 percentile meaning 95 percent of the population will fit into that range. Expressed differently: the 95 percent range for Hg in blood represents the value of Hg found in 95 percent of today's population. In other words, we accept it as normal to have a certain amount of toxins circulating in our blood stream.

We live in an increasingly toxic environment, which makes us accumulate more toxins than ever before. It is naive to assume that a mercury reference range developed today equals the range of people who have lived a century ago, -before amalgam fillings were placed in people's mouth at an early age, and before men and animals were living off metal-polluted soil and water, before we injected mercury-containing vaccines into infants and adults.

Hahnemann, physician and chemist, claimed that the medicine of his time did more harm than good, which was his reason for developing homeopathic remedies as an alternative to allopathic drugs and treatments. He is recognized for treating like with like, opposing the fact that his fellow doctors dispensed often huge doses of alcohol, opium, even mercury and arsenic. His homeopathic treatment methods went into the opposite direction, utilizing minute amounts of substances, some unmeasurable, to treat disease. While homeopathic remedies remain unproven, we have to agree with Pelletier who noted that "for many commonly prescribed allopathic drugs, including aspirin and some antibiotics, the mechanism of action remains equally unknown." (2)

What do Hahnemann and Chelation Therapy have in common? Both recognize that toxins such as mercury are destructive to animal and human health. In 2001, researchers at the University of Calgary, Canada were able to visually demonstrate the neurotoxic effects of mercury. The researcher team Lorscheider and colleagues were able to destroy the long-believed theory that 'the amount makes the toxin' (3)

With this knowledge, we can no longer accept present medical habit of applying different reference ranges to 'exposed' and 'nonexposed' patient groups, i.e. refusing treatment to a industrial worker with a total inorganic blood mercury level of 14mcg/L at the end of his shift, simply because that level is below the range applied by occupational medicine. If this person's blood mercury level is compared to EPAs reference range, he/she would be considered 'exposed' and recommended for treatment. How can we justify such discrepancies?

When the chelation therapist 'challenges' or 'provokes' the patient's system with the chelating agent of choice, the results are often astonishing. Urine excretion or post chelation levels may rise well above the expected range. Symptoms, even unrelated ones, may disappear.

Every doctor practicing chelation therapy has amazing case histories, and it is the aim of this book to provide up-to-date information on metal toxicology that not only supports the work of those physicians who have practiced chelation for decades, but enables them to broaden their scope of practice.

Most chelation therapists use one type of chelating agent for most of their patients. Since every chelating agent has a specific binding capacity to certain metals, we can enhance the effectiveness of chelation therapy with an early and proper diagnosis. When we know the patient's metal load, we are able to select the appropriate chelating agent. We also have a better sense of developing a most appropriate treatment plan.

Understanding the term 'unexposed'

To summarize, the term unexposed applies to people whose blood or urine levels do not exceed reference values as outlined in Table 1.

Generally, the term is used for people who do not work in a hazardous working environment, and have not been exposed to an environmentally, and usually industry-related accident such as the 1986 Chernobyl accident where a nuclear reactor exploded, immediately exposing the population in and around the province of Kiev to more than 450 radionuclides. At least 100 times as much radiation was released by this accident as by the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. An area of 155,000 sq. km, home to 7.1 million people including more than three million children, was contaminated with hazardous levels of radiation. The Chernobyl disaster left its radioactive trace on 23% of the territory of the Republic of Belarus, 5% of the territory of Ukraine and 0.6% of the territory of the Russian Federation. Official reports put the immediate death toll at 31, but it is widely believed that many more died in the first hours and weeks after the explosion. The Ukrainian government has estimated the number of deaths among clean-up workers alone as 7,000-8,000. Total civilian casualties are not known and may never be known.

While attention was given to these acutely exposed people, many are still suffering from the longterm, chronic metal exposure due to contaminated food, air and water. These people are somewhat forgotten. The people most vulnerable are those who were young children or babies unborn at the time of the accident. Even today, over 20 years later, testing would prove metal intoxication problems. Little is done to uncover problems. In fact, these people are medically considered 'unexposed' until proven otherwise, and little, if anything is done to prove the potential intoxication. Diagnostic tests are not chosen wisely, and chelation is not used as an option.

In the US, people have not lived through such a terrible accident, yet chronic metal intoxication exists more than we are willing to admit. The following excerpt of the New York City Health Report of July 23, 2007 should be a warning. It indicates that one in four New Yorkers has elevated blood mercury levels! By definition, they too are considered unexposed.

"Today's findings are the latest presented from New York City's Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NYC-HANES), the first such survey ever conducted by a U.S. city. It's possible that other cities have similarly high levels, or higher ones, but haven't yet documented them. Because mercury is a concern for the health of newborns, recommendations on mercury exposure are most important for pregnant and breastfeeding women.

Among women 20-49 years old in New York City, the average blood mercury level is 2.64 [micro] g/L (micrograms per liter), three times that of similarly-aged women nationally (0.83 [micro] g/L).

Approximately one quarter of New York City women in this age group have a blood mercury level at or above 5 ([micro] g/L, the New York State reportable level.

People who eat fish three or fewer times each week have, on average, levels of mercury below the reportable level, while average readings exceed the reportable level among those who eat fish four or more times.

Higher-income New Yorkers have higher mercury levels; New Yorkers in the highest income bracket average 3.6 ug/L, compared to 2.4 [micro] g/L among the lowest income group. Average blood mercury levels are considerably higher among New York City Asian women (4.1 [micro] g/L); nearly half (45%) have blood mercury levels at or above the State reportable level.

Among Asians, foreign-born Chinese women have particularly high levels compared to the rest of New York City. Two thirds (66%) have mercury at or above the reportable level.

Foreign-born Chinese New Yorkers eat an average of three fish meals per week, compared to about one among New Yorkers overall. About one quarter of Chinese New Yorkers eat fish five or more times each week, compared to fewer than one in 15 overall."

Traditionally, Asians eat more fish than Westerners, and because fish of Asian waters is more polluted, blood mercury levels of Asian patients exceed the European and CDC (Center for Disease Control) ranges manifold. The following table compares average mercury levels of randomly selected patients with existising reference ranges. Still, these people are considered unexposed.

The comparison indicates how valuable routine blood testing is in detecting chronic metal intoxication. Chelation treatment would be indicated in all cases were blood levels exceed the reference range, and from this data we see that Hong Kong people are in dire need of treatment, even though they are, by medical standards, not considered exposed or toxic.

It is ironic, but medically and globally, we do not agree if and when treatment is warranted. By German standards, a child is considered outside normal when the blood mercury value is greater than 0.7 [micro] g/L; however by US standards, he/she is not considered exposed until the blood value is above 5.8 [micro] g/L (USA Environmental Protection Agency Range)! EPA does not provide a mercury reference range for children.


Blaurock-Busch E. Excerpt from Toxic Metals and Antidotes: MTM Germany 2010

Pelletier, Kenneth, The Best Alternative Medicine: What Works? What Does Not?, Simon and Schuster, 2000 Lorscheider et al. How mercury causes brain degeneration. University Calgary 2001.
Table 1: European Reference Values for an unexposed population.

Reference values for arsenic (As) and metals (Pb, Cd, Hg, Pt, Ni)
in blood or urine

Parameter and        Population      Year of   Reference
Matrix             group / period     study      value
[bibliographical       of life

Arsenic in urine   Children (6 to   2001/2003        15.0
[39. 50]           12 years)                      [micro]g/l
                   without fish
                   consumption 48
                   hours before
                   collection (1),
                   Adults (18 to      1997/99
                   69 years)
                   without fish
                   consumption 48
                   hours before
                   collection (3)

Lead in blood      Children (6 to   2001/2003  50 [micro]g/l
                   12 years) (1),                     (a)
[6,34 42,50]       Females (18 to     1997/99  70 [micro]g/l
                   69 years) (3)                      (a)
                   Males (18 to 69    1997/99  90 [micro]g/l
                   years) (3)

Cadmium in urine   Non-smoking      2001/2002         0.5
                   children (6 to                 [micro]g/l
                   12 years) (1)                      (a)
[11.42.50]         Non-smoking        1997/99         0.8
                   adults (18 to                  [micro]g/l
                   69 years) (3)

Cadmium in blood   Non-smoking      2001/2003         0.5
                   children (6 to                 [micro]g/l
                   12 years) (1)                      (a)
[11,42,50]         Non-smoking        1997/99         1.0
                   adults (18 to                  [micro]g/l
                   69 years) (3)

Mercury in urine   Children (6 to   2001/2003    0.7 pg/l
                   12 years)                          (a)
                   without amalgam
                   fillings (1),
[13,42,50]         Adults (18 to      1997/99         1.0
                   69 years)                      [micro]g/l
                   without amalgam
                   fillings (3)

Mercury in blood   Children (6 to   2001/2002         1.5
                   12 years), fish                [micro]g/l
                   consumption                        (a)
                   [less than or
                   equal to] 3
                   times per month
[13,42,50]         Adults (18 to      1997/99         2.0
                   69 years) fish                 [micro]g/l
                   [less than or
                   equal to] 3
                   times per month

Nickel in urine    Adults (but not          4   3 [micro]g/l
[32]               a strictly
                   sample) (4)

Platinum in urine  Adults (18 to      1997/99      10ng/l
[13,42]            69 years)
                   without teeth
                   with dental
                   inlays, crowns,
                   bridge elements
                   of precious
                   metal (3)

Notes: [xy] bibliographical data publication.;

(1) Source: Pilot study for the German Environmental Survey on Children
2001/2002 (GerES IV);
(2) Source: Project of the "Sentinel Hearth Department of
Baden-Wurttemberg" 2002/2003 (BW-EHS);
(3) Source: German Environmental Survey 1998 (GerES III);
(4) Source: based on publicatical data;
(a) An analytical uncertainty of [+ or -] 20 % has to be considered.

by: E. Blaurock-Busch, PhD
COPYRIGHT 2011 Original Internist, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Blaurock-Busch, E.
Publication:Original Internist
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:4EUGE
Date:Jun 1, 2011
Previous Article:The effects of oral contraceptive induced nutrition depletions and its consequences.
Next Article:The benefits of antioxidant combinations; a review of glutathione, NAC and glycine.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |