| Margaret, I think that the chemical detox is a key component. You can boost the immune system and help change things back to normal but it will be a tug a war on the body. You put the good stuff in but still have the bad. You have to clean the body of the toxins before it can fully heal. I don't doubt that if the patient wanted to do only glyconutrients that they will have great results, I just don't know what to expect if you left the toxins in the body. If the toxin is bad enough to destroy someone, it should not be left in. It would be worth while either way. My other concern is, that if patients travel a long distance, shouldn't they get the most for thier time? We have patients that fly in from Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas. When they come in, we do as much as possible to have the greatest impact possible. If they live here, well then, it is a different story. They can do less more often. I suggested all three as part of a total solution for a patient that would be traveling from a distance. However I would suggest the same treatment for someone who lived a block away. Only because I feel it is the best option out there. Patrick |
|
OK, I hear your passion and
concerns;
However, the chemical that has affected
the people with known exposure to it wouldn't have it in their system
for very long (EXACTLY how long, I don't know)
Most certainly after
16+ years the initial exposure to it won't be around, not to say
that they couldn't be re-exposing themselves without realizing it ...
it is so rampant in our society.
Some other thoughts I've had when
someone said why not just forget about this chemical ...
valdezlink.com/pages/moveon.htm
I'm just thinking out loud, so please don't take offense to my
questions
Margaret
|
| Margaret, This is good, interesting
dialog. I have to think that, if a person has been exposed to a toxic
chemical it does far more damage even if it doesn't accumulate. We know
that exposure to many chemicals can cause devastating effects without
remaining in our body. However the effect it has changes our chemistry
and our functions and will allow other things to accumulate that
shouldn't.
There are lots of tests we can do, very expensive tests. We can test the blood for every known problem. That is far too expensive. When empirical treatment works, why would we need to put people through expensive tests unless the empirical treatment didn't work? If you watch the detoxification effect, micro particals (heavy metals, hormones, toxins, etc...) move out of the pores into the water, you can actually see the effect. The water appears clear then as toxins move out, it becomes pretty nasty. After a few treatments the water remains clear and we (the doctors) know that the patient is going to feel better and look better. The patients have the same expression. Fatigue is gone. Though the toxin that causes the problem may not stay, it has harmful effects on the body and they stay. My question is: If 2-butoxyethanol leaves the body, then why the long lasting effects for years? If there is not an accumulation of toxins in the body due to 2-butoxyethanol, then what are we treating? I know glyconutrients will help boost the immune system up to 400% in these people but shouldn't we clean up the toxic mess in the body? I know that empirically we have treated CFS in the past with detoxification foot baths and and cold laser, and their symptoms went away. It worked, and it worked long term. Should we have done broad ranges of toxin specific blood tests and at what cost to the patient. In the pursuit of a large well funded study, sure the pursuit of the key toxin is the vital, but in practice where patients can barely afford healthcare insurance, I wouldn't feel justified in ordering expensive tests just for my own knowledge when the treatment would be the same. Whether the lab bills are $50 or $3000, the treatment is still $60. I am not in business to purge patients for expensive labs. I am here to get patients better faster with the most effective treatments that I know of. What do you think? Patrick |
| My first
thought is that this chemical I'm talking about causes so much of
the 'diabetes' and an other odd assortment of symptoms that it should be
suspect, but it isn't, for many cancers and birth defects ...
But first and foremost it is causing the immune system to instantly become (& with enough exposure, STAY) autoimmune. I believe the glyconutrients are enough of a help to the immune system, that the autoimmune functioning immune system, may be allowed to normalize. I would like to see what Dr. Reg has to say, as he is also a firm believer of glyconutrients helping. Dr. REG <rmcdaniel@mannarelief.org>, Other chemicals can cause autoimmune condition, however, I even suspect benzene which would primarily be aplastic anemia - not hemolytic anemia. A fine difference that a doctor could figure out, but this is my attempt to understand it. In our town they suspect benzene for everything, but although it should be suspect for leukemia, as is 2-butoxyethanol, the latter goes on to cause brain tumors and liver and kidney ailments, etc, that we are seeing more of these days. ... diabetes ... high blood pressure, horrible headaches.... the list of what it does. I know Dr. Rea is very knowledgeable in chemical exposure, and has a protocol of how to do it. He would have info worth listening to. Use these contacts: Dr Rea <contact@ehcd.com>, Carolyn Gorman <carolyng@ehcd.com>, <elliem@ehcd.com>, For blood work that would be considered unique, Accu-Chem has been found to be helpful & very accurate - So hopefully at less expense. I appreciate your attitude towards all of this in keeping costs down ... and in helping people ... and in being open to other input! God bless |
5-12-05