Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: TX, but anticipating one more move
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I don't think that's because of a second increase, it's to allow time for the circulating metals to get down to a reasonable level.
The picture he's referencing shows an increase in symptoms in the 3-6 mo post-amalgam removal period, and then a steady decline after that period. Well, the intensity of problems starts going down around 6 mos, but the level itself is still elevated above baseline, and it takes time to keep going down.
My understanding is that the 12-month reference is so that hopefully, the circulating metals (and related nutrient deficiencies) are back to the same level as before the amalgams were removed (hopefully one has been supplementing things like mag, zinc, B12, folate so that those are actually better of course, but I think preferably a broad spectrum of nutrients so that more subtle issues are addressed as well). The 18-mo number is more conservative, which is reasonable given the importance of what's at stake.