Heavy Metal Testing

Should you be testing to find out if you have too many heavy metals in your body before you do something about it? Maybe not. Testing methods need to evolve to be more reliable and cost effective. Results need to be carefully interpreted. Caution needs to be taken to ensure that the stress from diagnosis and resulting treatments don't do more harm than good.

The cost of treating heavy metal toxicity (Zeolite Clinoptilolite and Chlorella) is less expensive than testing for the presence of stored heavy metals in your body. So when it feels safe to assume that most people have exposure to toxins, it may be reasonable to treat toxicity without the burden of proving the source of chronic health problems.

---

DOC, CAN YOU TEST ME FOR "TOXIC METALS"? CHALLENGES OF TESTING FOR TOXICANTS IN PATIENTS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

Targeted environmental laboratory testing may be warranted in a patient based on findings of a thorough environmental history and physical exam, but should not include a “shotgun” approach for a variety of toxicants.
Acting on the results of inappropriate tests may lead to significant health-related costs due to associated treatments and procedures, in pediatric patients this may be particularly problematic. 
“Provocation” urine testing is an inappropriate environmental test that measures urinary excretion of metals after administration of a chelating agent such as 2,3-dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA; succimer). These tests offer no reliable diagnostic value, as there are no validated reference ranges for “provoked” urine metals in children; further, there are potential side effects from chelating agents.
Further, if urine metal tests are ordered incorrectly, the results can be misinterpreted and lead to stress in the family or misdiagnosis of toxicity. If a provider is concerned about arsenic toxicity, the urinary arsenic test should be ordered with “speciation” (rather than total arsenic) to determine if the arsenic is the “organic” or “inorganic” form. 
Hair analysis for elements (including metals) is increasing in popularity and can lead to potentially misleading and/or spurious results. These tests cannot distinguish if the metal is biologically deposited within the hair or externally deposited on the hair’s surface from sources such as air pollution, dust, or hair treatments. 

Zajac, Lauren et al. “Doc, can you test me for "toxic metals"? Challenges of testing for toxicants in patients with environmental concerns.” Current problems in pediatric and adolescent health care vol. 50,2 (2020): 100762. doi:10.1016/j.cppeds.2020.100762

---

AMERICAN COLLEGE OF MEDICAL TOXICOLOGY POSITION STATEMENT ON POST-CHELATOR CHALLENGE URINARY METAL TESTING

Unfortunately, the practice of post-challenge urine metal testing and its application to assessment of metal poisoning often leads to unwarranted and prolonged oral and/or intravenous administration of chelating agents, in response to the results of serial post-challenge testing that remain elevated above non-challenge reference values. Chelation therapy based on such laboratory values, in addition to being of no benefit to patient outcome, may actually prove harmful; catastrophic outcomes such as acute fatal hypocalcemia have been reported following the improper use of a chelating agent, edetate disodium (Na2–EDTA). In addition, the safer formulation of this agent, CaNa2–EDTA, has been demonstrated to increase urinary excretion of essential minerals such as iron, copper, and zinc.

American College of Medical Toxicology. “American College of Medical Toxicology position statement on post-chelator challenge urinary metal testing.” Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology vol. 6,1 (2010): 74-5. doi:10.1007/s13181-010-0039-0