Gadolinium Toxicity

Home » Advocacy (Page 2)

Category Archives: Advocacy

Viewpoint Categories

Gadolinium Toxicity – Status and Direction – August 2018

The two of us, Sharon Williams and Hubbs Grimm, have been working together on gadolinium toxicity related issues since 2012 and this website since 2014.  Since it affects us and our many new friends personally, coming to agreement on our “message” has not always been easy but we have done it.

Recently, out of frustration with lack of progress on matters related to gadolinium toxicity from MRI contrast agents, we wanted to do a post that was both reflective of where the medical community has been on this issue and where we believe it ought to go.  While we had similar ideas, we differed in how we wanted to convey the message.  So, we each worked on our own editorial and then we helped each other with the final copy as we have done many times in the past.

Tomorrow we will be posting two editorials about Gadolinium Toxicity.  While our approaches are different, this is not a dispute between us or an attempt to decide which is right and which is wrong.  Instead, it is two people, working together with great respect for each other, expressing their thoughts in an important discussion about something that affects countless other people.  We invite industry representatives to contribute to this discussion.

We hope you will read both editorials and take time to consider the important points we make.

Sharon’s editorial is titled, “Gadolinium Toxicity: If not NSF, then what is it?
Hubbs’ editorial is titled, “Gadolinium Toxicity – Let’s not make the same mistake again

Sharon Williams and Hubbs Grimm
Coauthors of The Lighthouse Project

Coauthors of The Lighthouse Project provide facts about Gadolinium Toxicity to FDA Advisory Committee

As coauthors of The Lighthouse Project, we have provided written comments about the toxic effects of gadolinium and gadolinium retention in patients with normal renal function to the FDA’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee in advance of its September 8, 2017 meeting.  We will be making a brief oral presentation during the Open Public Hearing portion of the meeting which will be held at the FDA’s White Oak Campus in Silver Spring, Maryland.

Our comments are built around the following 6 major points that we cover in making the case that the FDA needs to take action regarding the use of Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents (GBCAs) administered for contrast-enhanced MRIs.

1. Medical literature documents toxicity of gadolinium and systemic implications.
2. The Risk Factors for adverse results are many.
3. NSF-Like Symptoms in patients with normal renal function.
4. Gadolinium from GBCAs does not clear the body in a few days, or even in a few months, allowing plenty of time for the Gd ion to dissociate from the chelate.
5. Underreported Symptoms from Contrast MRIs is a serious problem.
6. There is evidence of clinical implications of gadolinium deposition.

Our detailed comments can be found here:  Comments-from-Lighthouse-Project-FDA-2017-N-1957 .  We also included the following supporting materials:

We will report back later about our experience at the FDA Advisory Committee Meeting.

Sharon Williams and Hubbs Grimm

Television Coverage of Gadolinium Toxicity on Full Measure

Sharyl Attkisson, five-time Emmy Award winner, and recipient of the Edward R. Murrow investigative reporting award, featured Gadolinium Toxicity in her June 11 edition of Full Measure.  Chuck Norris and his wife Gena Norris both talked about her struggle with her related symptoms that resulted in them spending over $1,000,000 on special care.

Our own Sharon Williams was also featured in the segment, both for her own symptoms and for her advocacy including letters to the FDA in starting in 2012 and the maintenance of this website..

Y0u can see a video of the program and read the dialogue here:
http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/mri-06-11-2017

Open Letter to the FDA about Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents

Editorial – May 25, 2017
Sharon Williams

I am very disappointed and frustrated by the May 22, 2017, FDA Safety Announcement about gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs).  I am beginning to wonder how many more people must be adversely affected by retained gadolinium before the FDA decides to take decisive action.

Personally, I don’t blame the FDA or radiologists for what happened to NSF patients.  What happened to those patients was terrible, but I want to believe that no one knew then just how unstable the linear agents are, especially when they remain in the body for longer periods of time like they might do in renally-impaired patients.  However, once the connection between NSF and GBCAs was discovered in 2006, that all began to change.  No longer could the FDA and radiology community say that they didn’t know that gadolinium might be retained from MRI contrast agents or what it might do to the human body when that occurred.

From 2006 until the end of 2013, the FDA and medical community thought that only patients with severe renal problems were at risk of retaining gadolinium.  Warnings were issued and action was taken to better screen renally-impaired patients and reports of new cases of Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis (NSF) dropped dramatically.  However, no one seemed to be investigating what might happen when less gadolinium was retained such as what might occur in patients with “normal” renal function or eGFRs greater than 60.

Since December of 2013 and the first paper by Kanda and his colleagues, the evidence has been mounting that clearly shows that patients with normal renal function retain gadolinium in their brains, bones, and elsewhere in their bodies. This seemed to be news to the FDA and radiology community, but it was something that patients affected by gadolinium have long been trying to tell their doctors.  I first brought it to the attention of the FDA in my letter of October 23, 2012.  In that letter, I noted that evidence of gadolinium retention in patients with normal renal function was reported by Gibby et al. in 2004 – that was 13 years ago, and it occurred after administration of both a linear and a macrocyclic GBCA.

The published literature clearly states that “gadolinium is toxic”.  The FDA has acknowledged that “all GBCAs may be associated with some gadolinium retention in the brain, and other body tissues”.  So why is it okay to keep injecting the least stable gadolinium-based contrast agents into patients when it is highly likely that those people are going to retain some unknown amount of a toxic metal?  Gadolinium is a toxic metal that has been found to be neurotoxic, to impair mitochondrial function, induce oxidative stress, and much more.  Researchers are looking for histological changes in the brain, but what about functional changes? (more…)

%d bloggers like this: