(Posted by Patrick Sullivan Jr.)
Autism Diva (I shudder to link ) found this detailed review of a recent DAN! conference by Pramila about TD-DMPS not being TD because it doesn't trans the dermal. The quote was:
This is from a blog belonging to a mom who does the DAN! biomedical stuff to her son:
There was an interesting detox panel discussion. Dr Quig [Vice President, Scientific Support for Doctor’s Data Inc. lab] who sees zillion Doctors Data reports 
had some interesting comments: like TD-DMPS is not transdermalbecause it doesn'ttransthedermal! Suppositories and IV are generally more effective. He mentioned that none of these really penetrate the blood brain barrier. They bind to extra-cellular toxins and draw them out by creating a concentration gradient. He also mentioned that CaEDTA is very effective for lead. He emphasized the need for pre and post provocation measurements. The doctors mentioned the protocols for IVs they use in their practices.
(Emphasis, photo, and bracketed words added.)
(My additional bold + italics emphasis on " Suppositories and IV are generally more effective." which you will see come in to play in a moment.)
I emailed Dr. Buttar on Thursday 10/26 to see if he had seen this? He said I was the second person to send him a link and he was pretty fired up about it.
To paraphrase his reply, "It is illogical for Dr. Quig to say this. How could the head PhD for Doctors Data see thousands of his own company's tests showing heavy metals being excreted with TD-DMPS as the chelating agent say that TD-DMPS does not trans the dermal? Logic would dictate that if TD-DMPS does not cross the skin, but the provocation tests show excretion of heavy metals while non-provocation tests are negative, then the tests themselves are wrong! Quite an odd thing for a VP of DoctorsData to say about his own company."
Yeah. Makes sense to me.
So my reply to Dr. Buttar was, "Ok, then why the heck would Dr. Quig say that? There's got be a reasonable explanation or a miscommunication."
And of course, there is.
Dr. Buttar received an email and phone call Tuesday 10/31 from Darrell Hickok, President and CEO of DoctorsData, with an extremely sincere "we are so sorry for the confusion that we've caused and we'll do whatever we can to correct the mistaken impression we've made about TD-DMPS."
So what's the explanation? Dr. Quig was merely saying that TD-DMPS is not good for challenge testing, something that Dr. Buttar fully agrees with. TD-DMPS is a therapeutic chelator that has the advantage of being able to remove metals slowly. But it's the least effective for challenge tests. IV is preferred method for challenge testing.
So will Camille Clark the Autism Diva update her post?
(Sidenote)
UPDATE 1: From Dr. Buttar, "I would appreciate it if you could add a clarification. I would like for you to mention that in my protocol that was updated in Dec 2004, I clearly stated that TD-DMPS was the least effective challenging version of DMPS. However, based on the fact that even "Karen" (the patient example I used in front of Congress, the one that helped me figure out what was going on) did NOT respond to IV DMPS challenge testing until repetitively being provoked. The issue of the challenge is less important to me now than understanding that these people can NOT get rid of metals, especially mercury. So even though the TD-DMPS is not a good challenging agent, I'm only looking to see a greater yield in subsequent challenges compared to the base line challenge. That's it. Yes, IV DMPS gives greater baselines and even great subsequent challenges, and we use that for kids older than 7, and have done so since 2001. But for the younger kids, we have used TD-DMPS since 2002 and we're ONLY looking for a greater level of mercury on subsequent challenge testing compared with the baseline challenge testing."
UPDATE 2: Dr. Buttar emails another slight clarification, but the nuance is important. Paraphrasing several emails, "TD-DMPS is still effective for challenge testing as clinical results using DoctorsData tests have clearly shown. It's just not as effective as IV-DMPS for SCREENING purposes, especially in non-excretors."
(Posted by Patrick Sullivan Jr.)
Autism Diva (I shudder to link ) found this detailed review of a recent DAN! conference by Pramila about TD-DMPS not being TD because it doesn't trans the dermal. The quote was:
(My additional bold + italics emphasis on " Suppositories and IV are generally more effective." which you will see come in to play in a moment.)
I emailed Dr. Buttar on Thursday 10/26 to see if he had seen this? He said I was the second person to send him a link and he was pretty fired up about it.
To paraphrase his reply, "It is illogical for Dr. Quig to say this. How could the head PhD for Doctors Data see thousands of his own company's tests showing heavy metals being excreted with TD-DMPS as the chelating agent say that TD-DMPS does not trans the dermal? Logic would dictate that if TD-DMPS does not cross the skin, but the provocation tests show excretion of heavy metals while non-provocation tests are negative, then the tests themselves are wrong! Quite an odd thing for a VP of DoctorsData to say about his own company."
Yeah. Makes sense to me.
So my reply to Dr. Buttar was, "Ok, then why the heck would Dr. Quig say that? There's got be a reasonable explanation or a miscommunication."
And of course, there is.
Dr. Buttar received an email and phone call Tuesday 10/31 from Darrell Hickok, President and CEO of DoctorsData, with an extremely sincere "we are so sorry for the confusion that we've caused and we'll do whatever we can to correct the mistaken impression we've made about TD-DMPS."
So what's the explanation? Dr. Quig was merely saying that TD-DMPS is not good for challenge testing, something that Dr. Buttar fully agrees with. TD-DMPS is a therapeutic chelator that has the advantage of being able to remove metals slowly. But it's the least effective for challenge tests. IV is preferred method for challenge testing.
So will Camille Clark the Autism Diva update her post?
(Sidenote)
UPDATE 1: From Dr. Buttar, "I would appreciate it if you could add a clarification. I would like for you to mention that in my protocol that was updated in Dec 2004, I clearly stated that TD-DMPS was the least effective challenging version of DMPS. However, based on the fact that even "Karen" (the patient example I used in front of Congress, the one that helped me figure out what was going on) did NOT respond to IV DMPS challenge testing until repetitively being provoked. The issue of the challenge is less important to me now than understanding that these people can NOT get rid of metals, especially mercury. So even though the TD-DMPS is not a good challenging agent, I'm only looking to see a greater yield in subsequent challenges compared to the base line challenge. That's it. Yes, IV DMPS gives greater baselines and even great subsequent challenges, and we use that for kids older than 7, and have done so since 2001. But for the younger kids, we have used TD-DMPS since 2002 and we're ONLY looking for a greater level of mercury on subsequent challenge testing compared with the baseline challenge testing."
UPDATE 2: Dr. Buttar emails another slight clarification, but the nuance is important. Paraphrasing several emails, "TD-DMPS is still effective for challenge testing as clinical results using DoctorsData tests have clearly shown. It's just not as effective as IV-DMPS for SCREENING purposes, especially in non-excretors."