DETECTING TOXIC METALS,

A DIFFICULT TASK

By Lawrence Wilson, MD

© 2007, LD Wilson Consultants, Inc.

 

                  Today many physicians, nutrition consultants and their clients are rightly interested in their levels of toxic metals.  This is a valid concern and a wonderful step in the advancement of medical science. 

This article discusses current methods for detecting toxic levels of both vital minerals and the heavy metals.  It will include a short section on the detection of toxic chemicals, a far more difficult dilemma today, in fact.

 

WHY DETECT TOXIC METALS?

 

This question hardly needs answering for many people.  The threat of environmental pollution, food, air and water contamination and from other sources is the highest it has been on the planet earth for thousands of years, at the very least.

                  The main reason is industrialization.  In this endeavor, a vast quantities of metals and other materials are removed from their fairly safe storage deep in the earth and brought to the surface of the earth.

                  Here they are processed, burned, refined, combined and recombined in thousands of ways to create products that make the modern lifestyle possible.  While some of the innovations are truly amazing, such as cell phones and automobiles, most carry a price, which is the pollution of the planet in a wholesale manner as has never been before.

                  Fortunately, in the last 30 or so years, tremendous progress has occurred in identifying which of the chemicals that are emitted from the smokestacks and effluent pipes are harmful and need to be stopped from entering the human environment.  This approach is improving the air and water slowly so that ultimately industrial processes are completely self-sustaining, meaning mining is not needed, and they will eventually be completely free of harmful pollution.

                  R. Buckminster Fuller once said, ÒThere is no such thing as pollution.  There are just resources that are in the wrong placesÓ.  This is an excellent motto and 100% correct.  Mercury in your teeth or your tissues is harmful.  Mercury in the correct industrial process, such as making paper, is necessary at this stage of its evolution.  Soon, safer substitutes will be found.  In fact, they are starting to be used already.  This is the new industrialization on planet earth.

 

GENERAL COMMENTS

 

                  To test toxic metals, physicians and the public are offered a smorgasbord of tests.  We have divided these into biopsy tests (tissue samples), excretory tests (such as urine and feces and hair) and pure energetic methods such as electronic instruments and kinesiological methods.  Let us begin.

 

BIOPSIES (red blood cells, fatty tissues & other organ or tissue biopsies)

 

                  Red Blood Cells (blood plasma).  This is used by many holistic physicians, as they feel more comfortable with blood tests, in many instances.  I do not use this test.  However, it has certain advantages over others:

1) It is fairly easy to sample noninvasively and cheaply.

2) It gives an instantaneous reading, for the most part. This is needed in a some cases.  However, blood cells turn over quickly, so it will not give a Òhistorical pictureÓ as does the hair.

3) It can detect circulating toxic metals, as far as I am aware.                  Disadvantages of this test in my view are:

1) It is a short-term picture only.  The toxic metal picture in a human being is changing at all times.  We often wish for a longer-term view that is not really possible with a blood test.

2) It is harder to sample and transport than the hair.  This is important in some instances, such as international clientele.

3) It is more costly to separate and wash the plasma, and washing itself can distort the readings as blood cells are semi-permeable.

 

Fatty Tissues.  Some surgeons, including George Yu, MD, are using fat biopsies to assess toxic chemicals because fat is the tissue where many chemicals reside in storage. However, toxic metals are not stored in fatty tissues to nearly the extent of some toxic chemicals.  Thus, this test is less useful for detection of metals.  Sampling is also far more invasive than the blood, urine or hair and analysis procedures can be more costly than the others as well.

 

                  Organ or Other Tissue Biopsies.  Liver biopsies are used to detect iron toxicity, for example.  While quite useful, the procedure is painful, invasive and relatively costly and time-consuming.  Thus, I do not recommend organ or tissue biopsies except in some rare cases in which this is required for some reason.

 

EXCRETIONS (hair, feces, urine and sweat)

 

                  Excretions are excellent for sampling in that they give information about what the body is attempting to remove, not just what is in a random tissue like blood cells or the liver.  In this sense, excretory tissues provide an extra dimension of information about toxic metals and other metabolic activity.

 

                  Hair.  The hair is both a biopsy or tissue type of analysis and an excretory type of test since hair will be cut off and removed from the body.  This is a major advantages of using hair for toxic metal detection.  Other advantages of the hair tissue for detection of toxic metals include:

 

1) It is very elegant and easy to sample and transport.  It keeps well, transports easily and is a very stable material.

2) Mineral levels in the hair are some ten times the amounts found in the blood, making accurate measurement quite simple.

3) Hair provides a long-term picture, not an instantaneous reading.  This is usually an advantage in our work, although it will not do in some circumstances.  In these instances, urine or feces challenge tests are better for instantaneous readings.

4) Hair is very inexpensive and simple to analyze accurately.

 

                  Disadvantages of the hair are:

1) It cannot show all the toxic metals.   However, this can be overcome by indirect measurement methods detailed in the section below.

2) It grows slowly so that instantaneous readings are not possible, as they are with blood, urine and feces to some extent.

3) Contamination by environmental dust, hair products, swimming in pools and other methods is possible and must be accounted for.  Hair can be contaminated more than blood, for instance.

4) Hair is not always easily available.

 

                  Hidden Metal Toxicity, Another Reason To Use Hair For Detection Of Toxic Metals

 

                  Hair and perhaps other sampling methods can offer another way to detect toxic metals, namely indirect indicators of metal toxicity.  This is not quantitatively as accurate, but nevertheless very useful for many evaluations.

                  For example, if calcium on an unwashed hair sample is above about 75 mg% or 750 ppm, there is a great likelihood that copper is elevated and biounavailable in the body.  If Zinc is very low, below about 8 mg% or 80 ppm, there is great likelihood that the body is extremely toxic with lead, cadmium, arsenic, copper and other toxic or biounavailable metals.  If copper is elevated above about 2.6 mg% or 26 ppm, there is a large probability that mercury is present in excess.

                  While this method is very indirect, it is accurate in our experience.  This approach is much harder for doctors accustomed to precise measurement methods, but for those of us who are more concerned with removing the metals than just measuring or assessing them, it works excellently.  This is just one more reason we continue to use the hair for toxic metal assessment, although like the other methods, it is not perfect

Critiques of hair analysis question its use all by itself, without ÒconfirmingÓ the readings by other methods of detection.  The answer to the critique is that we are not interested in assessing the metals precisely, as it is not needed.  We are far more interested in assessing the overall body chemistry, which the hair provides in a most unusual way, but very effectively.  This topic is covered in more detail in the article entitled Controveresy In Hair Analysis on this website.

 

Feces or Stool Sampling.  In spite of some difficulties with this test, feces is used, often with challenge tests, because many toxic metals are removed through the liver.  The metals are excreted into the bile duct and then to the small intestines, and finally eliminated through the feces.  Advantages of this method are:

1) It is a direct test.  That is, it measures the exact excretory substance containing the toxic metal.

2) It is an instantaneous test, which is needed in a few rare cases.

3) It is not too easy to sample, but it can be done without an invasive procedure.

                  Disadvantages of this method include:

1) It can still miss a lot of metal elimination, since elimination takes place not only through the bowel, but through the urine, hair, skin and even other routes possibly.

2) Sampling is inconvenient for the client.

3) No long-term picture is possible, as occurs with the hair.

4) Accuracy is greatly compromised on stool tests because all foods and most beverages, except for distilled or reverse osmosis water, contain varying amounts of toxic metals.  This varies from day to day and from locale to locale, but it will be reflected on the stool test, even if the metals are bound up in the gut and pass harmlessly through the intestines.

There is no way to correct for this problem, other than have the patient on distilled water and a special diet that has been strictly analyzed for metals.

For example, pesticides, which contaminate most water supplies and are applied to most food, usually contain lead, cadmium, mercury, uranium, beryllium and many other toxic metals.  Organic fertilizers are, at times, also allowed to contain toxic metals as well, and the soil food is grown on and the water used on the crops varies greatly.

Processing of food also introduces toxic metals in some cases, though they are not all harmful if they are tightly bound.  To our knowledge, labs performing stool tests do not and cannot distinguish bound toxic metals that are from food from those that have been eliminated through the bile or other methods.  Thus, there is no clear way to distinguish which of the metals are due to food, and which are due to metal elimination.

This is a serious problem with stool testing.  It means that first of all, the toxic metal readings on stool exams may be much higher, for example, than in the hair.  Doctors and clients may like this, thinking it indicates ÒprogressÓ when really it may indicate only that the person at some fish or kelp, or some processed items which are high in toxic metals.  It tends to create a false belief that Òsomething is happeningÓ when it is not necessarily true.

 

Urine.  This is another popular method, especially a 24-hour urine with a chelating agent challenge.  This is a test in which a chelating agent is given first, such as EDTA or DMPS, and the urine collected, usually for 24 hours, to evaluate which metals and how much was excreted in the urine.  The use of urine or feces for challenge tests is far better than simple urine or feces tests for the reasons given above.  Advantages to urine tests are:

1) Ease of sampling and transporting the sample.

2) It is a direct excretory test.

3) Low cost.

Disadvantages are identical problems of the feces.

1) It is an instantaneous test, not a long-term picture of metabolism

2) Like the feces, some toxic metals are absorbed, but harmlessly excreted in the urine without really damaging the body.  The kidneys, when functioning properly, are quite efficient in eliminating some toxic metals, depending on if and how they are bound to proteins and other molecules.  Therefore, the urine will reflect harmless toxic metals that do not represent total body burden and it is difficult to correct for this.

However, with the challenge test, this is not the case.  One can notice the difference between the unchallenged urine and the urine or feces, after the challenge. 

In conclusion regarding urine and feces, they are best used with a chelating agent challenge test, in which case they can be quite valuable.

 

Sweat.  Some doctors use sweat analysis, especially in exercise and/or sauna detoxification programs such as the Hubbard Program sponsored by Scientology and others.  However, sweat has many limitations as well.  Advantages of using sweat to detect toxic metals include:

1) Sweat is a direct, excretory test.  This explains a lot of the odors that come off a sweating body.

2) It does not have many contamination problems as do the other tests.

3) For this reason, baseline normals can be calculated for an individual and for the population in general.  This is important for evaluating the test.

4) Sampling is fairly simple, providing the person sweats sufficiently.

                  Disadvantages are:

1) It requires sweating that is difficult in some instances.

2) Not all metals come out through the sweat, although evidence indicates that most do come out.

3) It is a short-term or instantaneous test and will not give a long-term view.  Instantaneous readings are useful only in acute situations.  Otherwise the test would have to repeated daily or at least weekly to gain a long-term picture of what is happening.  Only hair automatically, as it were, provides a longer-term view.

 

ELECTRONIC AND ENERGETIC METHODS (Electroacupuncture, radionics, electronic scans such as the Thalus, Vega, etc.  and kinesiological methods)

 

                  These methods may be very accurate in the right hands.  They have the advantage of being able to measure the entire body at once.  They may also be able to give a very clear-quantifiable reading.

Disadvantages with these methods at this time is the need for verification as to what is being measured.  Also, some of them have a problem of repeatability if they are dependent upon the skill of the operator.

Another problem with this approach is that one may not be clear about which body compartment one measures.

However, these methods offer the promise of a comprehensive system to measure toxic metals on a body-wide basis and, as such, offer a wonderful opportunity for research and simplified assessment of toxic metals. 

 

DETECTION OF TOXIC CHEMICALS

 

                  This is a valid concern of everyone today.  Thousands of toxic chemicals, or chemicals of questionable safety, are spewed or dumped or even added intentionally to our air, water and food each and every day.

                  Detecting the levels of these chemicals is far more difficult than detecting toxic metals because there are thousands of them and almost all are difficult to analyze by chemical means.  Since they are ubiquitous, assessing normal or baseline levels to measure from is also more difficult in many cases.

 

Home * Hair Analysis * Saunas * Books * Articles
Detoxification Protocols * Courses * About Dr. Wilson