Reply #87: You're changing the subject.

[varkam]

But that's not a big surprise. You have zero credibility, philb. Pointing me to a link of a rambling, almost unreadable ejaculation of piss-poor science and references that you self-published isn't going to help any - espescially since I've already addressed several of the weaknesses that you possess in being able to compile and understand research elsewhere (i.e. using source material that is not peer-reviewed to substantiate scientific claism, using out of date source material, using source material that is irrelevant, missing source material, incorrectly cited source material, etc etc etc).

Also, answer me this - as I understand it, chelation therapy removes heavy metals (i.e. mercury) from the blood, right? Then what good would chelation therapy do if mercury has bound to tissues in the organs?

And if you'd actually read the study, you'd see that they weren't really concerned with toxicity but rather with examining half-life and clearance.

By the way, if you can't understand why parents' subjective ratings of improvement is not good evidence of a treatment modality's efficacy, then the amount of education that you require to adequately understand the scientific process is greater than I can provide you with.