Why Oral DMPS

April 20th, 2010

(2003) Dear Dr. Gordon:

Quite a few people have given me feedback regarding Mercury Detox and Ca EDTA. Clearly my own experience says that when we combine Homotoxicology with Ca EDTA we get out MORE Mercury. But, a lot of Docs are adding DMPS to the Ca EDTA and seemingly doing better with MORE MERCURY DUMPING.

I’m about to suggest adding 100mg of DMPS to the many ingredients in my Ca EDTA Chelation IV AND ADDING HOMOTOXICOLOGY to that and seeing what happens. Clearly, if Homotoxicology makes plain Ca EDTA work better then it also should make Ca EDTA plus DMPS work better.

Do you see any danger in that??


I, of course, talk to the doctors all day long and it is clear that adding DMSA like 500mg for 2 days and then 1000mg orally the AM that they come in for their push is doing GREAT things.

I am not convinced there are any big advantages from using DMPS over DMSA, particularly in view of its quasi-legal status and high price. Furthermore, the company in Germany that makes it, HEYL, is on record to NOT give it parenterally UNLESS acute poisoning, vomiting, etc., requires the parenteral use.

Note: it is SO well absorbed, like 60% in 45 minutes, and what is NOT absorbed adds to my EDD or other chelators that you use orally. You need to use some like Ca EDTA that are NOT so well absorbed as this will, I am beginning to think, not only prevent the enterohepatic reuptake of mercury delivered to the gut by your other chelator in the bile but may also be found to draw OUT systemic mercury into the gut from the bloodstream, at the bowel interface. Look at Gary Osborn’s incredible evidence of HUGE fecal mercury excretion using Doctor’s Data lab, often when little was seen in URINE! Of course, he uses complex advanced concepts of multiple chelators in his IV and oral approach.

I fear that we are all still in kindergarten as to the ideal chelation approach for mercury or anything else; although, I am convinced that chelation is clearly a LIFE LONG process so it should be affordable, non-toxic and easy to use. Once you have lowered total body burden with your initial more aggressive program, then you still must keep the extra-cellular fluid and plasma near zero on heavy metals, all lead mercury, etc. In so doing, it is obvious that simple passive diffusion moves lead and mercury out of high concentration areas, like the brain, and into the plasma for renal, etc removal. Therefore, the big talk about DMSA not crossing the blood brain barrier concept is not very important in chronic heavy metal overload and seems only valid in acute poisoning cases which we are generally NOT treating.

Yet, if we are thinking about the future of Physician Supervised Heavy Metal Detoxification and where is this all going in the future, we need to determine what is eligible for insurance reimbursement and what is not. Needing to HIT a high number on provocation to increase the likelihood that the patient may get reimbursed, as well as to help them feel better more quickly, we need to work on what is the optimal mix of homeopathy, fluid intake, chelation priming for a day or two before coming in, optimal time to COLLECT urine, as in NEJM they recognized that with any renal impairment, they needed to collect for the entire 72 HOURS!!

But, please if you will just sit down without interruption and read for a full 30 minutes the NEJM Jan. 23, 2003 article and then carefully look at the name of all authors used as references, and where and when published, you might be able to help educate Blue Cross and other carriers to their potential liability if someone later needs dialysis and they turn the patient down for reimbursement.

Let’s see where we can take that language used in the NEJM article of “UPPER limits of NORMAL”, in their 72 HOUR collections and what were the benefits and risks this published research proves we are providing when we offer de-leading therapies, as the benefit is to all the organs, not just the kidneys.

We need to pull all the references Dr. Lin has listed, and then later on, pull all of the references from THOSE references so that we have the necessary information to educate physicians AND insurance companies and our patients. We probably should also invite Dr. LIN over here to speak. Every time you read the article you will see more opportunity to help your patients with other health problems. I have already read MOST of those references in my due course of collecting information and it all means a great deal to me about where should we be expecting to receive 3rd party payment and when it is NOT appropriate.

It is interesting to note that the appellate courts just ruled that patients can SUE their HMO if they have been denied effective therapy!!!

Basically after we evaluate the patient and treat as needed initially to get them functioning better and lower and thus safer levels of lead etc. MY thinking is life long, gentle, affordable detoxification as the service to your community, which will also in the long run be a useful practice builder.

Garry F. Gordon, MD,DO,MD(H)

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.
You must be logged in to post a comment.