Removing lead from your body
- Thread starter MikeD81
- Start date
More like amusing. Like stated earlier, lead settles in tissues (namely bone) rather than hanging out in blood.
Tests can be blood, hair or urine.
I tested high enough a few years ago to warrant chelation (edta). The biggest change I made was moving to an outdoor only range. I am now at barely detectable urine and zero blood levels.
From what I've read lead is liberated from the bones based on how much exists in the soft tissues, which is primarily dissipated through urine. It would be interesting to see if extracting blood would speed up the rate at which the lead is removed from the bones.
IN all the research I have done, I haven't yet heard of donating blood until now.
IN all the research I have done, I haven't yet heard of donating blood until now.
I know it is a big problem, however, I was a plumber in a previous life, and we would come home with greyish black hands from each handling solder and pouring lead joints all day breathing the fumes, we also played with mercury in class when in grade school, which was eliminated in high school because it was too expensive! Interesting to learn now how bad it possibly is!
I have heard about sodium thiosulphate being used for removal of heavy metals from the body. Aparently, there is a fungus in the blood called candida that absorbs it. But, too high a level of the candida can cause cancer. So, one has to kill the candida off and have something there to bind to the lead that will flush it out of the system.
As for peer reviewed research that curseyou mentioned, having seen the politics of peer reviewed research, I'd discount much of it outright...
Example. My last ex's father was a fancy biologist in a cancer research lab in Montreal area. He was required to publish a paper every so many years (think it was 4 or 5). So, he felt like he was near to a major breakthrough to a possible cure. So, he wrote a paper that told about his findings that were repeatable. They told him to change his paper and remove many of those things, because much of several reasons. Funding, it didn't fit the narrative that was wanted to be portrayed, and possible elimination of jobs in the cancer research institutes worldwide. Apparently, cancer research is a major industry worldwide, and the companies/institutes/foundations that get donations for 'research' would lose a lot of money if cancer was cured. We can't have the higher ups in the charities that you give money to having to stop living high off the hog because donations dried up because people are no longer afraid of cancer...
I read through his papers, both the original one, and the one as it was published. One did not resemble the other.
Having talked to other scientists in research, it's a fairly constant story. Even if they won't outright admit it.... Instead of looking further into anomalies, they disregard them, because these anomalies are harmful to the narrative that the group/company that is providing the funding wants portrayed...
My BiL is in pure research. So, I ask him about his research some times, and ask what he's trying to prove, etc. Then I ask him about what is disregarded. So, he'll tell me about a lot of stuff that's just tossed. So, I ask him, if these are actually constants, and not anomalies, would the theory have to be changed. He says yes... So, I ask him why he's disregarding it, and he always has the same answer. They'd lose their funding for the project. Here's the big problem that I have... he and any of his colleagues I have talked to have no problem with bought and paid for results. As long as they're getting paid, it's all good...
Let's look at medical tests... When a new drug is in human trials, there is a certain amount of side effects that are considered acceptable... But the companies doing these tests seem to not have a problem dropping people off the tests with the claim that they turned out to not be a suitable candidate for various reasons. Too high of a list of side effects in a patient, patient not responding to treatment as it was thought they would, etc. That's why there are so many lawsuits against drug companies in the US these days...
Anyways, with so called peer reviewed research, I'm of a very skeptical mind. These days, I"m more interested in what they disregarded that what they actually claim that they found...
As for peer reviewed research that curseyou mentioned, having seen the politics of peer reviewed research, I'd discount much of it outright...
Example. My last ex's father was a fancy biologist in a cancer research lab in Montreal area. He was required to publish a paper every so many years (think it was 4 or 5). So, he felt like he was near to a major breakthrough to a possible cure. So, he wrote a paper that told about his findings that were repeatable. They told him to change his paper and remove many of those things, because much of several reasons. Funding, it didn't fit the narrative that was wanted to be portrayed, and possible elimination of jobs in the cancer research institutes worldwide. Apparently, cancer research is a major industry worldwide, and the companies/institutes/foundations that get donations for 'research' would lose a lot of money if cancer was cured. We can't have the higher ups in the charities that you give money to having to stop living high off the hog because donations dried up because people are no longer afraid of cancer...
I read through his papers, both the original one, and the one as it was published. One did not resemble the other.
Having talked to other scientists in research, it's a fairly constant story. Even if they won't outright admit it.... Instead of looking further into anomalies, they disregard them, because these anomalies are harmful to the narrative that the group/company that is providing the funding wants portrayed...
My BiL is in pure research. So, I ask him about his research some times, and ask what he's trying to prove, etc. Then I ask him about what is disregarded. So, he'll tell me about a lot of stuff that's just tossed. So, I ask him, if these are actually constants, and not anomalies, would the theory have to be changed. He says yes... So, I ask him why he's disregarding it, and he always has the same answer. They'd lose their funding for the project. Here's the big problem that I have... he and any of his colleagues I have talked to have no problem with bought and paid for results. As long as they're getting paid, it's all good...
Let's look at medical tests... When a new drug is in human trials, there is a certain amount of side effects that are considered acceptable... But the companies doing these tests seem to not have a problem dropping people off the tests with the claim that they turned out to not be a suitable candidate for various reasons. Too high of a list of side effects in a patient, patient not responding to treatment as it was thought they would, etc. That's why there are so many lawsuits against drug companies in the US these days...
Anyways, with so called peer reviewed research, I'm of a very skeptical mind. These days, I"m more interested in what they disregarded that what they actually claim that they found...
I've never worried about being contaminated by lead with the amount of shooting I have done over the years . if your that worried then quit. what about the food you eat ?? or the water that you drink ?? I'm sure that will get you long before being poisoned by shooting .
there was a local guy in my area who used to cast bullets indoors and it was brutial walking into his shop . real smokey . I used to hold my breath run in and buy what I wanted and then leave. he passed away several years ago . and year it was from too much exposure to lead . the last time I saw him he was Green . and I meen Green . it took years .
be careful and use common sence.
there was a local guy in my area who used to cast bullets indoors and it was brutial walking into his shop . real smokey . I used to hold my breath run in and buy what I wanted and then leave. he passed away several years ago . and year it was from too much exposure to lead . the last time I saw him he was Green . and I meen Green . it took years .
be careful and use common sence.
I would suggest being very cautious of aggressive chemical chelation agents. IMO they are potentially dangerous in that they can pull into the bloodstream materials that have accumulated in the body over many years. Toxins the body cannot eliminate it generally "stores" in the least harmful places. IMO aggressively drawing these materials out of the tissues into the blood or lymph can create a situation that would occur in only the most extreme cases of toxicity, with similar results. I knew an older man who was treated with DMPS chelation for mercury; in a few months he didn't know who or where he was and he never recovered his faculties. I believe that at his age with his lifestyle, he probably could not eliminate the mercury drawn out by the DMPS fast enough and as a result may have suffered a far more intense exposure than he had ever previously experienced. This is just my opinion of course, but it is based on a common sense approach I haven't seen refuted yet.
deadeyes40
CGN Regular
- Location
- nova scotia
when I worked in a pewter giftware manufacturing facility we were required to have testing done at least 2 times a year for lead. we were also told to drink at least 500ml of milk a day(1 liter or more would be better). my levels never got over 1.8 .
I was drinking a lot and my doctor recommended that I drink water with a bit of lemon or lime juice in it to flush my liver. She said no matter how much plain water you drink, you just pyss it out without cleaning your liver but your liver recognizes the fruit juice as food and scrubs itself. She's an MD and naturopath.
- Location
- West Quebec
This is interesting..thanks
I take 6 lemons, remove the seeds and chuck everything into the food processor, peels and all. Process the crap out of them.
Put into icecube trays along with a little water and freeze.
Makes 48 cubes (1/8 of a lemon each)
Add a cube to a glass of hot water as a morning drink.
Add a cube to my stew, chilli or spag. sauce for a little pizzazz.
There's a lot of flavor in the peels that we normally just throw out.
Last edited:
