Connection aluminium, folate, magnesium, iodine, b12

[geraldxx]

Well, like i wrote before: It's a trial and error thing. Not everything is coated in case of aluminium and if it's coated with some plastics the question follows, is the plastic maybe even more dangerous?

 

[caledonia]

People can downplay that metals cause negative effects and make snarky comments about it, but that doesn't mean they're still not in your body causing issues.

Based on the research I've done over the past year or two, if have ME or CFS and you're sick enough to be on this forum, there is a good chance that toxic metals are playing a major role in your illness.

@MeganM The best, safest chelation protocol I've found is the Cutler frequent dose chelation protocol. I have more info in my signature link. After you click on that, it's about 3/4 of the way down the page.

The whole chelation thing is a minefield of misinformation. Here is info on what not to do because it makes people sicker: http://cutlersuccessstories.weebly.com/what-not-to-do.html

There are also success stories on that site.

 

[caledonia]

Well, like i wrote before: It's a trial and error thing. Not everything is coated in case of aluminium and if it's coated with some plastics the question follows, is the plastic maybe even more dangerous?

If you mean Teflon - it causes cancer and some other diseases. Dupont just settled a major class action lawsuit - they poisoned the water supply in the area where it was manufactured and made thousands of people sick.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-du-pont-lawsuit-west-virginia-idUSKBN15S18U

 

[geraldxx]

I meant the coating for aluminium storages for food etc. But yes, Teflon is also a big problem but i kicked my teflon pans years ago.

 

[Learner1]

People can downplay that metals cause negative effects and make snarky comments about it, but that doesn't mean they're still not in your body causing issues.

Based on the research I've done over the past year or two, if have ME or CFS and you're sick enough to be on this forum, there is a good chance that toxic metals are playing a major role in your illness.

@MeganM The best, safest chelation protocol I've found is the Cutler frequent dose chelation protocol. I have more info in my signature link. After you click on that, it's about 3/4 of the way down the page.

The whole chelation thing is a minefield of misinformation.

@caledonia we've crossed paths before on chelating.

While we are 100% on the same page about toxicity being an important influence here, my experience is at odds with your advice on how to chelate. The Cutler protocol can be a basic start for people without access to any expertise in chelation, but it is dangerous to suggest its the solution for everyone.

I spent much of 4 years on a stronger version of the Cutler protocol, and got rid of a lot of mercury. I felt great, ate well, and was in the best shape of my life.

Then, I was diagnosed with stage 3 cancer, which had been around for awhile. Most cancers are related to toxicity.

After my cancer treatment, I spent 9 months chelating platinum from the chemo drugs.

I was still toxic. My doctor switched me to PolyMVA, an alpha lipoic acid polymer which can remove toxins from mitochondria. They came pouring out of me on a low dose. My bloodwork showed acute levels and I had all the classic symptoms of arsenic toxicity. I got through that, then lead came out, and my blood pressure (a symptom of lead poisoning) shot up in response, and fell as the load lessened.

At this point, I'm weary of detoxing after 6 years of hard work at it, but glad I've done it. Things I've learned:

1. We don't have any idea how toxic we are. Most of us are far more toxic than we ever imagined.
2. Toxins don't come out together. There's a hierarchy in how the body will deal with them and it takes persistence and changing strategies over time.
3. Different chelating/detox strategies work for different toxins and they work at different depths in our bodies.
4. All your detox paths must be open, or you'll just reabsorb and redeposit them elsewhere, hopefully not your brain...it takes proper pathway support through nutrients - Bs, aminos, antioxidants, botanicals, and binders and proper hydration to do the job.
5. You can speed up the process up to what your kidneys and liver will allow. Monitoring them and feeding them is smart.
6. Going slow, as in my case, may steadily be working the issue, but it may not be fast enough to head off a disaster.
7. Toxins can feed disease and they can impact ATP production and damage mitochondria and DNA.

It's prudent to have good testing and monitoring and expert guidance to avoid undesirable results.

 

[caledonia]

@caledonia we've crossed paths before on chelating.

Yes, I was thinking we had talked before. Thanks for the reminder.

Do you know how to find a good chelation doc - in other words, what protocol did your doc use, or is it proprietary to him/her? I've done other protocols and gotten worse.

Also I think you mean - that the Cutler protocol in and of itself is not dangerous, but the slowness of it is problematic if you have something like cancer crop up and you need to expedite detoxing?

I think people should also add sauna when they're able to handle it; it will detox all the zillions of chemicals that get stored away in our fat (pesticides, plastics, petrochemicals, etc.), plus also metals.

 

[Learner1]

Do you know how to find a good chelation doc - in other words, what protocol did your doc use, or is it proprietary to him/her?

I went to a Bastyr-trained naturopath, but functional medicine providers with different letters after their name can do it, too...

I'd be leery of anyone with a "one size fits all" approach. They should:

• Do lab work, like a Doctors Data provoked urine heavy metals test, provoked ideally with a couple of chelators to see what you have, and repeat it every 9 months or so to see if you're making progress
• Do more labs to check your methylation and antioxidant status to see if you have the ingredients to get the toxins out of you and check kidney and liver function
• Be familiar with and able to choose different chelators (DMSA, DMPS, EDTA, PolyMVA, cilantro, etc.), methods, and protocols depending on your toxins and your unique health status, then prioritize what to do first, determine how fast you can go, and provide a program of supportive nutrients, especially Bs, antioxidants, minerals, and aminos and botanicals like milk thistle, etc.
  
• Monitor your status and adjust as necessary

Also I think you mean - that the Cutler protocol in and of itself is not dangerous, but the slowness of it is problematic if you have something like cancer crop up and you need to expedite detoxing?

Yes. I think somehow us are so toxic we could die before we ever get any significant detoxing done at Cutler's speed...slow but steady is good, and easier on your kidneys and liver, needing less nutritional support, but it can be done faster (and safely) by someone who is experienced at the tasks I made in the points above.

I think people should also add sauna when they're able to handle it; it will detox all the zillions of chemicals that get stored away in our fat (pesticides, plastics, petrochemicals, etc.), plus also metals.

Sweat, in any form, is good. Saunas are excellent, as long as one can tolerate them. Keeping hydrated is essential.

 

[Wishful]

Megan, the initial poster said he'd 'recently read some stuff about the toxicity of aluminium' and seemed to be worried because of it. I wanted to point out that there's a lot of 'stuff about the toxicity of aluminium' out there that is complete nonsense, and is intended to make money for someone, by selling writing, selling dietary advice, 'aluminum detox' that either isn't needed or isn't effective, and then there's the outright quackery of magic beans (or the equivalent). In retrospect I should have added a disclaimer stating that a small number of people do have high sensitivity to aluminum, and that if they are convinced they are one of them, they should ask their doctor for appropriate testing.

My main concern about the initial posting is that I expect a lot of people read a 'frighten the readers into spending money' article and panic, stressing themselves unnecessarily, and wasting resources on scams. My advice is that when people read an article that worries them, they should investigate further and see if the scientific community agrees that there are grounds for concern. The scientific community isn't perfect, but they're a lot more reliable than some 'Health Scare!' magazine.

One more thing: you've twice said that you had 'shiny patches of aluminum under my arms'. You did agree later that you meant an aluminum salt, but then went back to 'aluminum'. Yes it may seem like a technical nit-pick, but to the technically literate, your statement comes across as totally flakey, and yes, people who understand the difference between metallic aluminum and aluminum salts are likely to make fun of you...for the wrong reason, but the misperception is your fault. We can only read the words that you actually wrote, not the ones you _meant_ to write. If you'd written 'shiny patches of aluminum salts', my perception would have been much different.

One more note: I just checked the wikipedia entry for aluminum chlorohydrate, and while it made several references to aluminum not being found a health risk, it didn't include a disclaimer that--as with pretty much everything else in the world--there might be some people who have a valid problem with something that is safe for everyone else. That's just how the world works: imperfectly, so we have to be aware of that.

 

[arewenearlythereyet]

People can downplay that metals cause negative effects and make snarky comments about it, but that doesn't mean they're still not in your body causing issues.

Based on the research I've done over the past year or two, if have ME or CFS and you're sick enough to be on this forum, there is a good chance that toxic metals are playing a major role in your illness.

@MeganM The best, safest chelation protocol I've found is the Cutler frequent dose chelation protocol. I have more info in my signature link. After you click on that, it's about 3/4 of the way down the page.

The whole chelation thing is a minefield of misinformation. Here is info on what not to do because it makes people sicker: http://cutlersuccessstories.weebly.com/what-not-to-do.html

There are also success stories on that site.

I think being specific is the responsible thing to do ...just saying all metals are bad and then referring everything to lead and cadmium is a little disingenuous ....perhaps clarify why aluminium is so toxic with evidence would be a more meaningful argument. I would like to hear your views on aluminium containers, and deodorants with the scientific evidence as to why they are so bad/toxic. I am struggling to understand?

I accept lead and arsenic are bad...but aluminium?

 

[Learner1]

I think being specific is the responsible thing to do ...just saying all metals are bad and then referring everything to lead and cadmium is a little disingenuous ....perhaps clarify why aluminium is so toxic with evidence would be a more meaningful argument. I would like to hear your views on aluminium containers, and deodorants with the scientific evidence as to why they are so bad/toxic. I am struggling to understand?

I accept lead and arsenic are bad...but aluminium?

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/165315-overview#a4

 

[Starsister]

Megan, the initial poster said he'd 'recently read some stuff about the toxicity of aluminium' and seemed to be worried because of it. I wanted to point out that there's a lot of 'stuff about the toxicity of aluminium' out there that is complete nonsense, and is intended to make money for someone, by selling writing, selling dietary advice, 'aluminum detox' that either isn't needed or isn't effective, and then there's the outright quackery of magic beans (or the equivalent). In retrospect I should have added a disclaimer stating that a small number of people do have high sensitivity to aluminum, and that if they are convinced they are one of them, they should ask their doctor for appropriate testing.

My main concern about the initial posting is that I expect a lot of people read a 'frighten the readers into spending money' article and panic, stressing themselves unnecessarily, and wasting resources on scams. My advice is that when people read an article that worries them, they should investigate further and see if the scientific community agrees that there are grounds for concern. The scientific community isn't perfect, but they're a lot more reliable than some 'Health Scare!' magazine.

One more thing: you've twice said that you had 'shiny patches of aluminum under my arms'. You did agree later that you meant an aluminum salt, but then went back to 'aluminum'. Yes it may seem like a technical nit-pick, but to the technically literate, your statement comes across as totally flakey, and yes, people who understand the difference between metallic aluminum and aluminum salts are likely to make fun of you...for the wrong reason, but the misperception is your fault. We can only read the words that you actually wrote, not the ones you _meant_ to write. If you'd written 'shiny patches of aluminum salts', my perception would have been much different.

One more note: I just checked the wikipedia entry for aluminum chlorohydrate, and while it made several references to aluminum not being found a health risk, it didn't include a disclaimer that--as with pretty much everything else in the world--there might be some people who have a valid problem with something that is safe for everyone else. That's just how the world works: imperfectly, so we have to be aware of that.

Wishful, with all due respect, I have gone back and re read all the posts. 1) while I agree with you that there are a lot of gimmicks and entrepreneurs trying to make some money off the latest health trend, I do not see where the initial poster indicated what he had read was in a "scare magazine" any more than it may have been from a credible peer reviewed journal article. 2) if you read again my posts, you will see that I said exactly what I meant...that there was metallic shine to the underarm of my CLOTHES, even after multiple washings, not my SKIN, 3) It was in YOUR post, not mine, that aluminum SALTS is mentioned. You must have gotten confused by my mention of replacing my aluminum chorhydatechlorhydate antiperspirant with using a SALT CRYTAL deodorant. I assumed most people on this forum were familiar with those but to enlighten you, it is a formed solid stick of salt that is called a SALT CRYSTAL deodorant that you can buy in any health food store.
As to your statement that I "come off flakey", having worked in government research, I too am a technical reader and writer and the last thing I would ever be known for is "flakey", as I come from a scientific, MENSA member family. It is unfortunate for you that you seem to have an inclination to putting other people down. A personal ego defense mechanism, I realize, but out of place on this venue in my opinion. Well, just unfortunate, as it is ok for you to be as imperfect as the rest of us. Have a beer on me!

 

[arewenearlythereyet]

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/165315-overview#a4

Thanks for posting this @Learner1 . I have read through it and it still refers to the risk being dependent on toxic load and that only when that load is reached does it cause a problem. Annoyingly it doesn't say what that load is in relation to lead cadmium arsenic etc. I believe it to be a lot higher so I will have a look and post later unless anyone else would like to contribute.

Overall the article appears to be a non screened literature survey. There are some references that it refers to but these don't seem to be available to click through. Without reading whether these were large or small studies, In vitro or invivo or whether they have had good peer review it is difficult to validate what's been said.

There also seems to be a massive absence of references for some key assertions. At least one of these assertions I know has been debunked quite publicly. It also uses the word "may be" a lot. As a person who has run research projects and written papers myself, I can say that this is a classic phrase used to say " person x thinks this but the evidence is not really that compelling".

However the gist of the article does say that by clinical cases in the USA, the main risk of aluminium toxicity is if you have a kidney problem and have dialysis with contaminated water. It also says that water can contain aluminium as a result of treatment.

There are WHO guidelines for how much aluminium should be present in water after treatment. Interesting link here showing what these are and another point of view:

http://www.water.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Industry Guidance/aluminium.pdf

In summary you don't need to worry about aluminium unless you have renal failure and are on dialysis.

The amount of aluminium from water is much lower than food and there is no evidence that our bodies can't deal with the aluminium we consume by food by the reported cases of toxicity in the USA which is in the 800's and led to no deaths.

I will try to find some relative toxicity information vs lead, but I think @Hip already posted some interesting info on this topic.

I still don't get why this is a big deal, other than for a lot of charletons to con money out of people of course.

 

[arewenearlythereyet]

right I've had a check on the web. Basically saying aluminium is toxic is controversial (to say the least) and people without renal problems have nothing to worry about. If you have renal problems be careful. The general consensus is that deodorants have no evidence that these cause harm since absorption through the skin is rare. The main route to getting aluminium in your body is from ingesting it with food (inhalation and skin is not really a problem). As mentioned this element is prolific in the environment so you cant expect to survive on a zero or low aluminium diet.

For those wanting more information and are prepared to read it there is a pdf on the link below (I suggest limiting to pages 3-12)

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=191&tid=34#bookmark01

There is very little on comparative toxic loading. Here is a wiki link showing the various metals for comparison (its wiki so take it with a pinch of salt)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_toxicity

The only other facts I found is that humans typically ingest 7-9mg aluminium per day and can easily get rid of this in faeces and the small amounts (very small) that goes into the bloodstream is removed rapidly via the kidnesy into the urine.

There is no safe level for lead or the others so I think that sort of confirms my earlier points. I certainly would say that if we all consumed 7-9mg daily of lead we would have a bit of a problem.

I welcome any logical scientifically fact-based response if anyone disagrees that aluminum is not comparable to lead, mercury or other heavy metals nor is it a risk to health for people other than those people with dysfunctional kidneys.

In summary conflating aluminium with lead or mercury is incorrect.

 

[Wishful]

Communication is partly a matter of perception. geraldxx phrased his comment in a way that to me indicates something other than careful peer-reviewed material, particularly since it seemed to convince him that aluminum was a scarily hazardous material. I certainly could be wrong. Maybe geraldxx will clear up the matter, since it has resulted in such an active thread. His comment about no coating between the food and the aluminum was also possibly wrong, depending on the food. In oxygen, aluminum forms a protective layer of aluminum oxide (the same material as sapphire). Some fluids and situations can break that down. However, if the aluminum container or heater element doesn't show heavy corrosion, obviously not much has entered the food/fluid.

geraldxx's later comment was very reasonable: that he was going to test his reaction to aluminum to his satisfaction, and move on to something else if it proved negative.

As for the 'shiny patches of aluminum' bit, it doesn't matter whether they formed on your clothes or your skin, they are not patches of _aluminum_. Aluminum is a metal. Aluminum chlorohydrate is not aluminum. Claiming that patches of aluminum were forming is simply an incorrect statement, and the reader has to try to figure out if you simply don't realize the difference between aluminum and an aluminum salt, or if you're seriously irrational. I assumed the former, but also assumed that anything you said about aluminum would be of questionable scientific correctness. As a technical writer you should be well aware of the importance of technical correctness of statements. Making technical bloopers destroys trust in the whole presentation. When I read/hear a technical blooper, I automatically think: "If he/she made that error, what other errors did they make?" For me, your misuse of 'aluminum' seriously damaged your credibility on scientific issues. That's not ego defense, it's just a rational response to technical errors.

I just checked what's in the 'salt crystal' deodorants. I'd heard about them, but didn't know what was in them. It turns out they're aluminum salts. Here's the quote from one website:

"However, if you’re looking to avoid aluminum, crystal deodorants may not be your best choice.

While many claim to be aluminum-free, they are referring to aluminum chlorohydrate, aluminum chloride, aluminum hydroxybromide, or aluminum zirconium.

These types of aluminum are widely used in antiperspirants and deodorants. The aluminum is taken into sweat ducts in the top layer of your skin where they act as a plug, stopping the flow of sweat to your skin’s surface.

There is evidence, however, that this aluminum is absorbed into your body where it may cause serious damage.

The aluminum in crystal deodorant stones is a different type of compound known as an alum, the most common form being potassium alum, also known as potassium aluminum sulfate.

Potassium alum or ammonium alum are natural mineral salts made up of molecules that are too large to be absorbed by your skin. They form a protective layer on your skin that inhibits the growth of odor-causing bacteria. These deodorants are recommended by many cancer treatment centers.

But while this may be a better alternative to most antiperspirants and deodorants on the market, it is not completely aluminum-free."​

Unfortunately, the web site also included several false 'health scares', so I can't take it too seriously, but other sites also confirmed that 'salt crystal antiperspirants' are aluminum salts.


As for build-up of aluminum salts on your clothes, that can be considered a good thing: building up on clothing means that it didn't enter your body.

 

[Learner1]

In summary you don't need to worry about aluminium unless you have renal failure and are on dialysis.

So, you do need to worry about it, at some point...maybe it'd be a good idea to worry about toxicity before one has renal failure...it doesn't all of a sudden bite you after you've crossed over some magical threshold.

The point that's missed in the above discussion is people typically aren't toxic with just one thing, we all carry a unique toxic burden developed over time from our unique environmental experiences, and our ability to mobilize and excrete these substances varies due to genetic expression, the load of competing toxins and other environmental factors, and the availability of cofactors to support these processes.

The problem with large studies and population wide advice is that they're boiled down to what the generic person's experience should be.

Some of us, likely many of us on this site, are canaries in the coal mine, with inefficient detoxification and therefore higher loads of toxins.

The other thing to note when looking at these studies is how toxins were measured. Many are there causing symptoms and disease, but aren't picked up because they're sequestered deep in tissues in mitochondria and won't show up on a blood test for acute exposure.

My own experience was with using DMSA and DMPS to get rid of mercury over a 4 year period, the EDTA to remove platinum over a 9 month period.

One would think I'd be clean by that point....however, my symptoms led us to believe had further toxicity and provoked urine tests showed a some aluminum and lead. I started taking PolyMVA, an alpha lipoic acid polymer, and immediately had acute toxicity symptoms.

Arsenic, which I'd been tested for multiple times and came up clean, showed up in abundance. I had classic symptoms of aarsenic toxicity and my blood measured at acute levels according to CDC guidelines.

The alpha lipoic acid polymer had been created to pull metals out of mitochondrial membranes. It does, based on my experience and lab results. Arsenic can impair ATP production in mitochondria (as can other toxins).

After the arsenic came out, my blood pressure shot up, a symptom of lead toxicity, and I tested positive for acute lead exposure. As the lead load moved through, my blood pressure moved down.

I'm still taking the PolyMVA, and am feeling energized from it these days, and I'm probably getting some of the lesser toxins out. I'll have to do another test one of these days and see if I still have aluminum, but as my kidney function has improved mightily (GFR went down to 50 to back up to 95 after detoxing), I'm not too worried.

Lessons learned are:

1. Most of us have no idea of how toxic we are...toxins are sequestered deep in our bodies and will not show up on blood tests
2. Toxins are related to many diseases and can interfere with mitochondrial function
3. Heavy metals have different characteristics, create different symptoms, and will come out of our bodies at different speeds (and more in sequence than in parallel)
4. Different people have widely varying amounts of various toxins which will affect them differently
5. It is possible to remove toxins, not by charlatans, but by using the principles of biochemistry in a thoughtful, rational manner. Governments have spent significant resources on figuring out how to detoxify people. There are published methods that work.

Aluminum may not be a huge problem for everyone but for some, it likely has an impact.

 

[geraldxx]

Well, there was a recent study in Germany. Don't know if you can read it or try with google translator:

http://al-ex.org/al-ex-news/63-enorme-aluminium-belastung-im-kantinen-essen.html

The results speak their own language and i need to write it the 3rd time: Not all alu-container for food are coated. Not all. The alu is most often only then coated if the food is acidicic. I wrote it before that i checked the food-boxes at my work and these aren't coated, the food lies in blank aluminium. So all this "it's coated" arguments are just fooling people because you need to check yourself if it's coated or not. And even when it's coated with some plastics, who can say what the plastic leeches in the food?

I agree with most posts here. Who can say for sure how toxic someone is and his / her ability to detox metals. Maybe aluminium isn't as deadly as lead is but there are some facts which someone can't just oversee.

 

[Starsister]

I sure know that aluminum cans for soda pop are not coated. Not that even the Splenda or stevia drinks are safe as they still have phosphoric acid in them which leaches the calcium from our bones. I was told this by my primary care doctor in response to my premature near osteoporosis. So that combined with the fact that sodas have been sitting or frocery shelves and then my shelves has caused me to pretty much leave them alone. If I crave some carbonation I but sparkling water with nothing extra and add tart cherry juice and stevia, which is really quite satisfying, but I track not keeping those cans on the shelf in order to reduce chance of anything leaching from into the contents. I know what that plastic coating looks like, I've seen it on tin cans of tomatoe sauce, but rarely see it on anything else. It is a great loss that we have few choices to buy products bottled in glass jars anymore.

 

[arewenearlythereyet]

I note a complete lack of evidence in the replies and still conflating all metals together which I might add is highly misleading. I will leave future readers to make up their own mind

I wish you all well.

 

[Wishful]

I sure know that aluminum cans for soda pop are not coated. ... I know what that plastic coating looks like, I've seen it on tin cans of tomatoe sauce, but rarely see it on anything else. ....

A quick google search shows that aluminum cans are indeed coated with a polymer layer (comestible polymeric coating), typically epoxy or vinyl. It's very thin, and thus hard to see, but it's definitely there. If aluminum cans of cola weren't coated, the cans would probably fail in (days? hours?), so the coating seems to be functioning as intended. I have seen old cans 'sweating' their contents, so the coating does fail eventually, allowing the contents to react with the can and etch pinholes. Maybe don't drink after the 'best before' date?

The first google hit was one of those 'visible science' experiments that clearly shows the existence of the coating. Cut a can open, make a scratch on it, then apply something that reacts with bare aluminum (copper chloride, sodium hydroxide, etc). You can etch the entire can, leaving just the polymer. Tin cans (not sure whether they still have a tin coating on the inside) require a different polymer coating, which is obviously thicker and easier to see.

Compounds leaching from the polymer may be a health concern, but they do prevent aluminum from reacting with the contents.

 

[Wishful]

I've done a quick search to find out whether the aluminum ions in alum ('salt crystal' antiperspirant) is absorbed any more or less than those in aluminum chlorohydrate. I couldn't find a definitive answer. In fact, it looks like both work by providing aluminum ions to block the sweat glands, and the potassium and sulphate ions don't seem to bind the aluminum more strongly than chlorohydrate, so it seems like both forms of antiperspirant would provide the same level of aluminum ion absorption for the same level on sweat-blocking.

If switching from one aluminum salt to another really improved your health, I suggest looking at other ingredients in your old antiperspirant. The evidence implies that aluminum wasn't the active factor.

Feeling better after throwing out your aluminum cookware, etc, also doesn't prove a causal link to aluminum. You would also have changed many other factors in that time period. You might have avoided a food that was packaged in aluminum, or gotten higher levels of chromium from stainless steel cookware; the list of changed factors is probably enormous. Confirming a factor requires scientific testing: controls, double-blind testing, repetition for statistical value, etc.

From this thread, especially the new findings such as 'aluminum-free crystal salt deodorant' apparently providing no less aluminum absorption than the regular commercial products, I'm still unconvinced that aluminum was responsible for some of your symptoms. I can't say that it doesn't contribute at all, but the evidence for it having a contribution just doesn't seem to be there. I still think that you are responding to false information about aluminum that was intended to scare you in just that way. People have made money from your decision to avoid aluminum, which is the whole point of the scare.