Numerous advocates of this class of dangerous drugs have laid claimed to their safety. Their proclamation is typified in the phrase ‘no convincing evidence’. In the case of the FDA most recent statement: “A casual association between these adverse events and gadolinium retention could not be established”. Their basis “400 million doses”.

Emphasis – “could not be established”.

In his work on the complexity and reliability of healthcare data analytics, Dan LeSueur identifies the obscurity and misery of inconsistent and variability in clinician reporting with inadequate tools and standards for capturing complex data sets. LeSueur declared:
“You’re not working with a finite number of identical parts to create identical outcomes. Instead, you’re looking at an amalgam of individual systems that are so complex we don’t even begin to profess we understand how they work together (that is to say, the human body)”

Broadly speaking, gadolinium-based contrast drug incomplete elimination describes two poorly understood singularities: 1. Peak dose exposure and related retention. 2. Cumulative dose exposure and related retention.
Both involve a convolution of influences including drug type, dose, rate and duration of exposure. These together with patient specific factors will not offer detectable influences of low level metal toxicity of any kind under the clinical presentation of comingling injury, disease and related treatment profiles.

From the words of the late Dr. Barbara Starfield, professor and health services researcher Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
” …the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews—which puts the FDA into an untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.”

How is it that the FDA has set limits on the upper limits of Pb (lead) in lipstick and yet knows nothing about the total body burden of Gd (gadolinium) in bone?

Paracelsus is knocking on the door.

Stephan Brown
Minneapolis, MN
March 2, 2018

This theory makes no common sense. Why would NSF be limited to those who have retained gadolinium due to a compromised renal function, and not affect those with gadolinium retention with normal renal function? Gadolinium retention, no matter why it is retained, is still gadolinium retention. Why wouldn’t those who have retained gadolinium, by any reasoning for their retention, become afflicted with NSF? What makes NSF only viable to certain gadoliniums?