I don’t know why I never noticed this before, but there is a calculation in the Appendix of Andy Cutler’s Amalgam Illness, Diagnosis and Treatment book on page 211 that allows me to determine “the probability of having amalgam illness” (i.e., mercury poisoning) based on symptoms. Cool.
I decided to give it a go.
If you have the book, take a look at the list of twenty-six symptoms, their factors, and the algorithm. It is interesting. I speculate that the numbers are based on adults only. I could be wrong though.
First, I did the probability calculation using my old symptoms from 2002. I chose i = 1% or .01. i is the incidence of mercury poisoning in the general population. Since it is unknown, we have to guess.
My result using i = .01: Probability (2002) = 99.99%
Next, I did the calculation using i = .001 or 1 in 1000 for my estimate of mercury poisoning in the general population.
My result using i = .001: Probability (2002) = .99.04%
Well, that was fairly definitive; no need to go any further with 2002 numbers. My 2002 hair test results were inconclusive, probably because I was already supplementing to maintain health, so I wish I had done this exercise back then.
Next, I looked at the list and determined which symptoms I still have today and did those probabilities. There are three of them on the list in the book and they’ve been slowly fading for some time now, but are not altogether gone.
First, I used i = .001: Probability (today) = .00064734%
Next, I used i = .01: Probability (today) = .0065319%
I decided to increase the population incidence estimate to 5 percent. This makes more sense given the adult population with all of those amalgam fillings, all of those pre-21st century vaccinations, and all of those flu shots bombarding the market. I could be wrong though.
Finally, I calculated using i = .05: Probability (today) = .034025%
I like these numbers. Things are definitely looking up.
For me, the curious part about all of this is not the results. It is estimating i.
We could argue all day about what the real incidence rate is here in the States or elsewhere for that matter. For a condition that is, for the average non-rocket scientist, nebulous, it can be a little daunting trying to find a knowledgeable and credible professional to sort it all out. That’s exactly why some people (moi) end up making the choice to invest in self-education and become their own advocate.
Now a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing because once you know some of the symptoms and behaviors of toxic people, it becomes easy to start speculating about individuals, groups, and entire populations. Yes, I hypothesize that once people are aware of this subject, they might find it conceivable that the incidence rate is higher than 5%. I could be wrong though.
