site map



Health news:
June 2010 - Dec 2013

Minimizing breast cancer risk

May 2010

Time to move beyond salt ?

Salt hypothesis vs. reality

Is sodium bad?

April 2010

Salt studies: the latest score

From Dahl to INTERSALT

Salt hypothesis' story

March 2010

Salt war

Do bone drugs work?

Diabetes vs. drugs, 3:0?

February 2010

The MMR vaccine war: Wakefield vs. ?

Wakefield proceedings: an exception?

Who's afraid of a littl' 1998 study?

January 2010

Antibiotic children

Physical activity benefits late-life health

Healthier life for New Year's resolution


December 2009

Autism epidemic worsening: CDC report

Rosuvastatin indication broadened

High-protein diet effects


November 2009

Folic acid cancer risk

Folic acid studies: message in a bottle?

Sweet, short life on a sugary diet


October 2009

Smoking health hazards: no dose-response

C. difficile warning

Asthma risk and waist size in women


September 2009

Antioxidants' melanoma risk: 4-fold or none?

Murky waters of vitamin D status

Is vitamin D deficiency hurting you?


August 2009

Pill-crushing children

New gut test for children and adults

Unhealthy habits - whistling past the graveyard?


July 2009

Asthma solution - between two opposites that don't attract

Light wave therapy - how does it actually work?

Hodgkin's lymphoma in children: better alternatives


June 2009

Hodgkin's, kids, and the abuse of power

Efficacy and safety of the conventional treatment for Hodgkin's:
behind the hype

Long-term mortality and morbidity after conventional treatments for pediatric Hodgkin's


May 2009

Late health effects of the toxicity of the conventional treatment for Hodgkin's

Daniel's true 5-year chances with the conventional treatment for Hodgkin's

Daniel Hauser Hodgkin's case: child protection or medical oppression?

April 2009

Protection from EMF: you're on your own

EMF pollution battle: same old...

EMF health threat and the politics of status quo

March 2009

Electromagnetic danger? No such thing, in our view...

EMF safety standards: are they safe?

Power-frequency field exposure

February 2009

Electricity and health

Electromagnetic spectrum: health connection

Is power pollution making you sick?

January 2009

Pneumococcal vaccine for adults useless?

DHA in brain development study - why not boys?

HRT shrinks brains


Bookmark and Share


Heavy metal toxicity

}Toxic metals - Mercury - Lead - Aluminum - Arsenic - Cadmium

What usually comes to mind at the mention of heavy metals are lead, cadmium, arsenic, aluminum and mercury. But aluminum is thrown into the bunch without being heavy metal (as most anyone knows). Also, heavy metals include zinc, copper, chromium, nickel, tin, cobalt and vanadium - all minerals essential to health.

Likewise, silver belongs to heavy metals, but can have highly protective role against pathogens. Thus, the better name for those metals that are inherently unhealthy to us might be "toxic metals" or better yet - since most any metal (or nutrient) can be toxic if overdosed - xenobiotic metals.

Indeed, these metals have no useful function in the body, but are so toxic that there is really

no safe body level for them, no matter how low.

Toxicity of xenobiotic metals comes mainly from their attraction to body enzymes and cellular receptors. They simply attach themselves to an enzyme, in place of an essential mineral. But the enzyme doesn't function with the wrong mineral in it, which compromises or blocks the metabolic process depending on that particular enzyme.

Similarly, toxic heavy metals that attach to cellular receptors take place of the "legitimate" minerals needed for cellular functions, but can't play their role. This can damage the receptor, or the cell. In either case, cellular functions are interrupted and, if extensive, damage to the body function - and your health - takes place.

It is not hard to imagine that xenobiotic metals

can cause most any symptom and disease.

Many pesticides have similar mode of action. Interestingly, overdosing on healthy, essential minerals can do basically the same thing (although much less intensely): it effectively reduces the access of other needed minerals and nutrients to body cells and enzymes, to the detriment of health.

The resulting negative impact on health is greater if that particular nutrient is already deficient in the body.

The importance of minimizing exposure to toxic metals - and all major toxic internal pollutants, or xenobiotics - by making sure that your detox system gets all the nutrients it needs, and by cleansing your body from decades-long poison accumulation through regular body-detox routines, cannot be overemphasized. The risk is just too high to be ignored.

You can be assured of having toxic metals accumulated in your bones, skin and other organs. Their body levels can be accessed through appropriate lab tests: either RBC test (red blood cell test, not a serum, or plasma blood test, which is unreliable), 24-hour urine test, or hair mineral analysis.

While test can give you an indication of the body contamination level, it doesn't allow you to draw a definite conclusion on how safe, or detrimental it is to your health. The reason is that

vulnerability to any specific toxic metal can vary significantly
from one individual to another.

Note that mineral hair analysis is questioned by some for accuracy, and even validity. Relatively recent government study (Seidel et al., California Department of Health Services, JAMA 2001), in which identical hair samples were sent to 6 US commercial laboratories covering "90% of samples submitted for mineral analysis", has found wide variations in both, levels reported and related  interpretations/recommendations. Thus, it concluded that commercial mineral hair analysis is "unreliable", not recommended, and that the matter even should be legally addressed.

A little closer look reveals that the study was seriously flawed. For one, it did not differentiate between the laboratories according to their testing methods: the two using ICP-Mass Spectrometry (state of the art technology) gave consistent results. It was four laboratories using the inferior ICP-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy that supplied widely deviating results, with over 80% of these results coming from a single laboratory with misrepresented CLIA license status (which also does substantially less of the analytical volume - only 3% of the total - than some other legitimate laboratories that were omitted from the study).

In addition, the researchers themselves did not measure the sample, thus had no basis of knowing if any of the results were in line with facts, or not. Despite all this, they issued a blanked statement labeling the entire commercial mineral hair analysis "unreliable".

Obviously, studies themselves are only as reliable as their methodology, and government funded studies are no exception.

In general, the body tends to keep all toxins it can't get rid of out of the blood, as much as possible. But how and where specifically it will store them doesn't follow any pre-established pattern. Thus your RBC, or hair sample levels only indicate toxic metal accumulation in those two particular tissues, and don't necessarily give an accurate overall level of body contamination, or its most exposed part - much less possible health consequences.

But those are rather general limitations of test results in general: they become really meaningful

only when coupled with individual medical history, environment, lifestyle, personality and health condition.

To help the body get rid of toxic metals as much as it can, make sure that your sulfur intake is adequate. Taking moderate sulfur supplementation (methylsulfonylmetahne, or MSM, being the usual form) should be both, safe and helpful. This is due to sulfur being needed for the synthesis of amino acid cysteine, which has crucial role in body's detox mechanism in general, and for removing toxic metals in particular.  It works both, alone and as a component needed for the synthesis of key detox compounds, such as tripeptide glutathione and PAPS (3'-phosphoadenosine, 5'-phosphosulphate) detox enzyme.

You could also use Dr. Rogers' "detox cocktail", consisting of vitamin C powder, lipoic acid and Reconcostat10.

However, it may not be enough. If your toxic load is overwhelming your detox system - which is more likely than not - toxic elements, including toxic metals, may continue to accumulate. In order to prevent this, and to reduce the level of toxic metals in your body, you need to resort to more aggressive protocols, such as Accelerated Heavy Metals Detox Program12. In addition to detox cocktail, it includes heavy metal chelators, like Captomer, or Chemet (practically identical, but the latter is much more expensive, and requires prescription), daily enemas, intermittent supplementation and periodic lab tests.

It is rather involved procedure that will take months and requires monitoring by a qualified physician, but if you suspect that your health is compromised by accumulated toxic metals, it is very much worth it.