Miscellaneous Mercury Nonsense
Geiers' Testosterone-Mercury Binding Model Full of Sheet:
My fond compliments to the University librarians who located and delivered to my desk the article that is the sole published report of a complex forming between testosterone and mercury:
Cooper A, Gopalakrishna EM, Norton DA. The crystal structure and absolute configuration of the 2:1 complex between testosterone and mercuric chloride. Acta Crystallogr B. 1968 Jul 15;24(7):935-41.
My favorite part of the article has to be the authors description of how the crystal was made:
"...by dissolving equimolar amounts of testosterone and mercuric chloride in minimal hot benzene."
For those not facile with chemistry-speak, the authors took equal numbers of molecules of testosterone and mercuric chloride and dissolved the mixture in the minimal amount of hot benzene that it took to dissolve the mixture.
This is not a condition even remotely similar to anything found in living tissue - of any vertebrate species. In other words, it isn't likely to happen in autistic children unless you dissolve them in hot benzene.
The Geiers' Seek Data Post Hoc to Support Recent Assertions made about Autism Statistics:
Apparently, the recent JPandS article by the dynamic duo has been "outed" by none other than Joseph of "Autism - Natural Variation" . It seems that G&G didn't check to be sure that their data was what they thought it was but just went ahead and fit it to their hypothesis anyway.
Now that they've been "outed" (again), they are frantically seeking new data from the California DDS to shore up their foundering conclusions. Joseph, who has been in contact with the editors of JPandS, feels that a retraction is in the offing. Personally, I think that the chances of JPandS asking the Geiers for a retraction is slim, at best - it's not their style. However, stranger things have happened.
Legitimate Clinical Laboratory Provides Reference Range for Lead after "Provocation" with DMSA or EDTA:
LabCorp, a legitimate clinical laboratory company headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina, has extensive experience in occupational testing. They are no fly-by-night company, having over 1000 testing facilities nationwide and 35 primary laboratories. Their reference values for urinary lead just happen to include values for people after taking DMSA or EDTA for chelation. Unfortunately, they do not have similar values for mercury, but a quick look at the lead values may give some idea of what those might be.
LabCorp's reference values for "environmental exposure" to lead is 0 - 50 mcg/day, which is a bit higher than most labs. Their reference range for testing done after chelation with EDTA (1 gram IV) or DMSA (2 grams PO) is 0 - 600 mcg/day. Now, since DMSA is a much better chelator for mercury than it is for lead, even if we stick to the 1:12 ratio that LabCorp has found for lead, we should still be erring well on the side of calling someone "mercury- toxic" when they are not.
So, if 0 - 15 mcg/day is within the "normal" range for urine mercury without chelating, then the upper limit of the reference range after chelation should no less than 180 mcg/day. Most likely, the upper limit after chelation will be significantly higher than that, given the amounts of mercury DMSA pushes out of the kidneys (and DMPS is even better at getting mercury out of the kidneys).
I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has had themselves or their children tested for mercury after DMSA or DMPS (don't tell me if you've given your children EDTA, I'd just have to call Child Protective Services). No names, please! But urine mercury values would be most welcome.