"You should not imply that i was not mercury toxic because i got better."

I am not. There are huge numbers of people who are mercury toxic. I was implying that you may have had other problems that were much worse than mercury toxicity. I wasn't questioning whether you had mercury in your body, just such a huge response from such low doses of chelation for such a short period of time. I don't doubt that you were quite sick, although I am inviting others to question the steps you have taken besides chelation, as they may have been tremendously beneficial.

"i had 8 amalgams removed. i had amalgams since a teenager, so maybe 20 years of amalgams. "

I had 25 amalgams, and the average age of them was probably around 25 years. Some were as old as 40 years.

"I don't know anyone else that did so many differnet things to get better and i don;t know anyone that got better as quick as i did. when i was sick, i was just as sick as everyone else. "

That is why we should focus on all the things you did besides chelation. I don't doubt that chelation was helpful for you, although since you were using such a low dosage for such a short time, the other measures you took seem to have been much more helpful.

I am still wondering if there is any good test to measure mercury toxicity. I guess it is very hard to prove. Many years ago I said to a physician that my health problems might be mercury related since I had so many mercury fillings. He ordered a blood test for mercury which showed nothing. Another physician ordered a hair test for toxic metals, which also showed nothing. I did not have any provocative tests done, although even if they would have been done and showed a great increase in mercury excretion with a large dose of DMSA, the results would have been dimissed as being not significant.