Describing Stephen Barrett as a ranting American neocon is hardly
fair. He runs a respectable, fully referenced website devoted to
debunking unscientific and unproven medical treatment and tests. I
suspect his politics by American standards are on the left. I
certainly trust him more than labs offering unvalidated tests to the
gullible and worried. I note the lab on Dr Barrett's website which
offered similar tests to the ones in this patient has so far refused
to provide him with evidence of validity and chosen to sue instead.
While personal experience is valuable it can not replace properly
conducted studies published and subject to the assessment of ones peers.
Mike Addison
Quoting Nick Miller <[log in to unmask]>:
> I don't agree with Stephen Barrett that challenge tests followed by
> urine analysis are an invalid way of testing for excess metal
> sequestration. It is biologically a perfectly plausible approach and
> may be useful in cases where, for one reason or another, blood levels
> fail to elucidate the problem. I have personally more than 30 years
> experience of analysing the results from such tests, starting with
> EDTA provocation for lead (which was recomended and used by Trevor
> Delves, no less) - so don't be put off so easily.
>
> Analysis of metals has improved considerably over the years due to the
> availability of ICPMS and the sterling work of the TEQAS scheme. There
> are however still some pretty odd results around - and results for
> elements in urine can be difficult to interpret at the best of times
> since for many metals it is not the normal route of excretion.
>
> Urine is, however, the specimen of choice for assessing nickel
> exposure (see "Handbook of the toxicology of metals" ed.Nordberg GF et
> al, 3rd edition Academic Press 2008, chapter 35 page 743 - 758).
>
> I know it is much easier to click on the web and ingest the rantings
> of an American neo-conservative, but I recomend the traditional route
> of looking at a "proper" academic text and thinking about the
> question.
>
> Nick Miller
> London
>
> On 9 September 2010 09:35, COLLINS MICHAEL (RM1) Norfolk and Norwich
> University Hospital <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/urine_toxic.html
>>
>>
>> Mike Collins
>> BMS3
>> Biochemistry Automation
>> Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital
>> England
>> [log in to unmask]
>> http://www.nnuh.nhs.uk/
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Clinical biochemistry discussion list
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ryan, Michael
>> Sent: 08 September 2010 17:05
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: alternative paractitioners anda heavy metal poisoning
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I have patient with bizaare symptoms who has been tested by an
>> alternative practitioner who sent samples to a laboratory in
>> Germany. The patient is now convinced she has lead, palladium, and
>> nickel poisoning. She was initially treated with 'chelating agents'
>> at synergy healthcare, and the urinary mineral analysis was carried
>> out by Microtrace Minerals Gmbh.
>>
>> The levels of these metals appear to be within acceptable limits
>> for the UK. The results are reported as 21.93ug/g creatinine
>> (lead), 6.85ug/g creatinine (Nickel) and 2.05 ug/g creatinine
>> (palladium) in a spot urine sample (0.3g creatinine per litre).
>>
>> All advice gratefully received.
>>
>> Michael Ryan
>>
>>
>> **********************************************************************
>> This email may contain proprietary and/or confidential information
>> and is intended for the use of addressee(s) only. If you have
>> received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete
>> it from your e-mail system. If you are not the intended
>> recipient(s) alteration, disclosure, distribution, copying or
>> printing of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Any views or
>> opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not
>> necessarily represent those of Northern Health and Social Care Trust.
>>
>> Unless legally exempt, the content of this e-mail and any
>> attachments or replies may be subject to public disclosure under
>> the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
>>
>> Whilst Northern Health and Social Care Trust has taken every
>> reasonable precaution to protect against infection by computer
>> viruses, we cannot accept liability for any damage which you
>> sustain as a result of computer viruses. You should therefore carry
>> out your own virus checks prior to opening any attachment contained
>> within this e-mail. (NHSCT_DM_01)
>> **********************************************************************
>>
>> ------ACB discussion List Information--------
>> This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical
>> community working in clinical biochemistry.
>> Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed via the
>> internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and they are
>> responsible for all message content.
>> ACB Web Site
>> http://www.acb.org.uk
>> Green Laboratories Work
>> http://www.laboratorymedicine.nhs.uk
>> List Archives
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html
>> List Instructions (How to leave etc.)
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
>>
>> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
>> they are addressed.
>> If you have received this email in error please notify the
>> originator of the message. This footer also confirms that this
>> email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses
>> but this should not be relied upon as a guarantee that the contents
>> are virus free.
>>
>> Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
>> sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority,
>> states them to be the views of the Norfolk and Norwich University
>> Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The information contained in this
>> e-mail may be subject to public disclosure
>> under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unless the information
>> is legally exempt from disclosure, the confidentiality of this
>> e-mail and your reply cannot be guaranteed
>>
>>
>> ------ACB discussion List Information--------
>> This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical
>> community working in clinical biochemistry.
>> Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed via the
>> internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and they are
>> responsible for all message content.
>> ACB Web Site
>> http://www.acb.org.uk
>> Green Laboratories Work
>> http://www.laboratorymedicine.nhs.uk
>> List Archives
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html
>> List Instructions (How to leave etc.)
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
>>
>
> ------ACB discussion List Information--------
> This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical
> community working in clinical biochemistry.
> Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed via the
> internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and they are
> responsible for all message content.
> ACB Web Site
> http://www.acb.org.uk
> Green Laboratories Work
> http://www.laboratorymedicine.nhs.uk
> List Archives
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html
> List Instructions (How to leave etc.)
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
>
--
Mike
------ACB discussion List Information--------
This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical community working in clinical biochemistry.
Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed via the internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and they are responsible for all message content.
ACB Web Site
http://www.acb.org.uk
Green Laboratories Work
http://www.laboratorymedicine.nhs.uk
List Archives
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html
List Instructions (How to leave etc.)
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
|