The other side of the coin, Vulcanel

Vulcanel:

Before I or someone takes your post and gives up, I offer the other side of the coin for the issues you stated:

Calcium deposits can be life threatening as they increase, and if a person has no mercury dental fillings and has already been through other (Andy Cutler) chelation to remove most of the mercury in the body, then the increasing danger of calcium deposits obviously takes precedence over unsupported concerns of the EDTA moving around whatever small amounts of mercury remain. Again, as I stated, first mercury should be dealt with.

Secondly, whether taken orally in larger doses and seeing absorption as the EDTA travels through the instestines, or taken rectally for quicker absorption, niether arguement as to method of taking is reason to abandon EDTA for calcium deposits. Your statement that "The suppositories are probably worthless medically" is contradicted when you write that orally taken EDTA may be absorbed later in the intestines - please show how you came up with "The suppositories are probably worthless medically"? That's a leap that you don't make clear at all.


And here is something: in the link below, theres a long web site on calcium problems - I have not yet had time to read it all or note sources, but the link looks really useful, and has this:

"EDTA is a very good "Anionic Surfactant" dramatically changing the blood's
Zeta Potential" So it looks like the "zeta potential" that you mentioned may be in fact, something that can be changed with...EDTA.

http://www.luminet.net/~wenonah/new/nieper.htm


Tweet