The main feature shown with NSF has been disease distribution that primarily affects the lower arms and hands, and the lower legs and feet, what has been termed 'glove and sock' distribution. Winter is coming, so glove and sock is an appropriate subject matter.
Like with NSF, GDD also shows 'glove and sock' distribution in the subacute stage. GDD also shows a number of other A symptoms (symptoms that are more specific): brain fog, skin burning, pin and needles, boring bone pain, and B symptoms (seen with many diseases): vision problems, gastrointestinal abnormalities. The A symptoms are essentially identical to other heavy metal toxicities, lead being the classic. Also they share the B symptoms as well.
The 'glove and sock' distribution however seems to be unique for NSF and GDD. Does this mean this is a unique symptom complex for gadolinium, not seen in lead, mercury, arsenic, and chromium? Possibly, but this may actually more likely reflect the method that Gd has entered the body, compared to the others. Most heavy metals enter the body through oral consumption; classic descriptions: mercury from eating contaminated fish, lead from paint pealed off the wall and eaten by children (mainly in the 19th century). Gd enters the body through direct vascular injection, and often with rapid speed of injection. The vascular beds of the lower arms/hands and lower legs/feet are the farthest away from the heart and blood travels the slowest in those locations, so the longest duration for Gd to be deposited in those locations. The GBCAs pool for a longer time in 'glove and sock' distribution.
This is why in the classic Ca-/Zn-DTPA treatment regimen, the patients are given the chelator while the patient is sitting initially, to allow the chelator to also pool where the GBCA had pooled.
To prove that 'glove and sock' distribution is a reflection of the method of administration of the heavy metal and not the type (gadolinium) one would have to inject lead intravenously to lead toxicity sufferers. This is ofcourse inhuman and entirely unethical to do. In part I mention this as a number of critics have expressed to me that where my studies have been limited is that they are missing certain types of data acquisitions being done on GDD patients - I listen to them but many of them are unethical. Others are simply very expensive - but important studies none the less, and I would love that I, or more importantly others, do them. This latter group is mainly large scale studies with a control group: very important but very expensive.