Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 932 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 128,771
Pageviews Today: 224,013Threads Today: 69Posts Today: 1,438
03:17 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Chelation therapy?

 
bunlet
Offer Upgrade

User ID: 101146
Canada
06/03/2006 12:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Chelation therapy?
Does this stuff work? I've read articles saying it's good for you, others saying it does nothing to help you at all. Have any of you ever tried it? The suppositories are cheap and are supposed to be as good as the i.v. but they are suppositories. So any help or opinions here? I'm in pain.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74468
United States
06/03/2006 12:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chelation therapy?
Personally, I think the ass is an exit hole, not an entry
crt
User ID: 93491
United States
06/03/2006 12:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chelation therapy?
What are you taking the Chelation for? I use EDTA for potential plaque build up.
It does work, you have to stick with it, and smoking isn't good for it either.
ac10
User ID: 100409
United States
06/03/2006 12:46 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chelation therapy?
a source of information about natural chelation, curezone:

[link to owen.curezone.com]

dr. jon barron has a product called metal magic which easily chelates heavy metals out of the body using chlorella and cilantro:

[link to www.baselinenutritionals.com]
Duncan Kunz

User ID: 101461
United States
06/03/2006 12:58 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chelation therapy?
I don't know much about the ins and outs of chelation therapy, but from what I understand, it's not accepted or taught at both MD and DO schools.

Here's what Quackwatch [link to www.quackwatch.org] says:

"Chelation therapy, as discussed in this article, is a series of intravenous infusions containing disodium EDTA and various other substances. It is sometimes done by swallowing EDTA or other agents in pill form. Proponents claim that EDTA chelation therapy is effective against atherosclerosis and many other serious health problems. Its use is widespread because patients have been led to believe that it is a valid alternative to established medical interventions such as coronary bypass surgery. However, there is no scientific evidence that this is so. It is also used to treat nonexistent "lead poisoning," "mercury poisoning," and other alleged toxic states that practitioners diagnose with tests on blood, urine, and/or hair."

"The proponents' viewpoints have been summarized in four books: The Chelation Answer: How to Prevent Hardening of the Arteries and Rejuvenate Your Cardiovascular System (1982), by Morton Walker, D.P.M., and Garry Gordon, M.D.; Chelation Therapy: The Key to Unclogging Y our Arteries (1985), by John Parks Trowbridge, M.D., and Morton Walker D.P.M.; A Textbook on EDTA Chelation Therapy (1989), by Elmer M. Cranton, M.D.; and Bypassing Bypass: The New Technique of Chelation Therapy (2nd edition, 1990), by Elmer Cranton, M.D., and Arline Brecher. The scientific jargon in these books may create the false impression that chelation therapy for atherosclerosis, and a host of other conditions, is scientifically sound. The authors allege that between 300,000 and 500,000 patients have safely benefited. However, their evidence consists of anecdotes, testimonials, and poorly designed experiments."

"This article identifies the major claims made for EDTA chelation and examines each in light of established scientific fact. The sources used for this review included position papers of professional societies, technical textbooks, research and review articles, newspaper articles, patient testimonials, medical records, legal depositions, transcripts of court testimony, privately published books, clinic brochures, and personal correspondence. [Note: Chelation with other substances has legitimate use in a few situations. For example, deferoxamine (Desferol) is used to treat iron-overload from multiple transfusions. But this is not related to the topic of this article, and chelation with disodium EDTA is not a substitute for Desferol chelation.]"

Again, I don't know any of the details, so I'm certainly not an 'expert'; my opinions are probably irrelevant. You can either trust Quackwatch or not; it's up to you.
Where's the EVIDENCE, Jim?
one who knows
User ID: 101516
United States
06/03/2006 01:18 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chelation therapy?
Nope, can't work as advertised. Yes, EDTA chelates heavy metals, we use it in blood tubes to bind calcium and prevent blood clotting when a tube is collected. But...the free ionized calcium in our bloodstream is controlled in a very narrow range...too low or high is death. The calcium which binds to cholesterol ester molecules in atheromatous plaque is INSIDE the cell wall and is bound to the ester with a covalent chemical bond (e.g. think of super glue of the calcium ion to the cholesterol ester). If EDTA is put into the bloodstream it will bind the free floating calcium ions (or magnesium) as fast as possible ---- NOT go into the cell wall and rip a calcium ion off an ester molecule!! If you did give enough EDTA to have any real effect you would bind the blood Ca and result in death (considered a bad outcome!) Most of the "studies" were not double blinded controlled studies. Furthermore, most people scared enough to submit to chelation therapy ALSO make some lifestyle changes: quit smoking, change diet, exercise more, etc., etc., all of which have dramatically significant effects on cardiovascular event rates. You would have to design a trial with two groups with similar high risk lifestyles - one gets a placebo and the other chelation and neither patient or administering doc knows which - follow them for 5 years and see if the group which really received the chelation had a statistically lower event rate. That study DOES NOT EXIST and now would be unethical to do because the groups could not receive aspirin, statin drugs etc. that reduce heart attack rates by 40% alone.
(Bye the way, this is OLD HAT stuff that has been around for several decades and became repopularized about 30 years ago when Laetrile infusion clinics sprung up in Mexico to cure all cancers! Remember Steve McQueen? Laetrile didn't work either.)
Parsingman

User ID: 75701
United States
06/03/2006 02:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chelation therapy?
Speaking of Quackwatch ...

[link to www.quackpotwatch.org]
"When the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to treat everything as if
it were a nail."
-- Abraham Maslow
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74124
United States
06/03/2006 03:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chelation therapy?
I've heard many wondeerful testimonies about chelation therapy.

The book "Bypassing Bypass" is all about chelation and healthy lifestyle changes.
duncan kunz nli
User ID: 101461
United States
06/04/2006 04:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chelation therapy?
Parsingman, the people at Quackwatch refer to double-blind medical studies.

The link you gave says everything from Quackwatch is part of a (ghasp!) CONSPIRACY!
Parsingman

User ID: 75701
United States
06/04/2006 04:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chelation therapy?
Why *blush* who would EVER believe in conspiracy theories??


Say, here's a little more information about Steven Barrett from a court case Quackwatch lost in California.

Mind you, these are the words OF THE COURT.


[link to www.quackpotwatch.org]

A. Wallace I. Sampson, M.D.

Dr. Sampson was offered apparently to testify concerning the scientific method generally, standards of clinical medical research the nature of homeopathic medical science, and the nature of the information upon which much of homeopathic science may be said to rest. The thrust of his testimony appeared directed to the conclusion that the evidence supporting claims of efficacy for homeopathic drugs does not meet the standard that he believes applies to valid clinical studies. In this regard, his testimony was largely an attempt to discredit the group of reference sources known as "Materia Medica," which resources the U.S. FDA recognizes as a significant source of information concerning homeopathic drugs.

All of Dr. Sampson’s testimony was quite general in nature and he did not provide any specific facts that would tend to support any particular finding as to Defendants’ products. Dr. Sampson, a retired medical doctor with an oncology specialty, has had only limited involvement in clinical research studies. He has little expertise in research methodology and does not instruct in that area. He is not an expert in pharmacology. He admitted to having had no experience with or training in homeopathic medicine or drugs. He was unfamiliar with any professional organizations related to homeopathy, including the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia Convention of the United States, which group is responsible for designation and de-designation of such drugs as "official" drugs recognized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. He thus does not have expertise as to the drug products that are the sole products at issue in this case. While he stated that he teaches a university course on "alternative medicine," Dr. Sampson admitted that the course does not instruct on how such methods may be practiced, but rather is a course designed to highlight the criticisms of such alternative practices. Therefore, the Court finds that Dr. Sampson has relatively thin credentials to opine on the general questions of the proper standards for clinical or scientific research or other methods of obtaining valid evidence about the efficacy of drugs. The Court further finds that Dr. Sampson lacks experience in the field of homeopathic drugs, which renders his testimony of little or no weight in this case.

In addition, Dr. Sampson admitted to having done absolutely no investigation concerning Defendants’ specific products. He admitted to no real knowledge as to their ingredients and acknowledged that he had not seen any of the products prior to the trial. He admitted that he was aware of no tests ever performed on Defendants’ products by anyone. In view of the foregoing, Dr. Sampson did not show that the evidence in the Materia Medica as it relates to the ingredients in Defendants’ products is invalid. Accordingly, the Court finds that the testimony of Dr. Sampson did not show that there is no valid scientific or medical evidence to support the claims associated with Defendants’ products, even according to his own standards.



B. Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Dr. Barrett was offered on several issues by the Plaintiff, but the Court found that there was substantial overlap on the issues that he and Dr. Sampson were asked to address. Thus, in order to avoid duplicative or cumulative evidence (see Cal. Evidence Code §§ 352, 411, 723), Dr. Barrett’s testimony was limited by the Court to the sole issue of FDA treatment of homeopathic drugs. The relevancy of this issue was questionable at best, since the Plaintiff had previously asserted that its case did not depend on or seek to establish any violation of federal food and drug laws or regulations. Nevertheless, Plaintiff elicited testimony from Dr. Barrett on his experience with the FDA as it relates to regulation of homeopathic drugs.

Dr. Barrett was a psychiatrist who retired in or about 1993, at which point he contends he allowed his medical license to lapse. Like Dr. Sampson, he has no formal training in homeopathic medicine or drugs, although he claims to have read and written extensively on homeopathy and other forms of alternative medicine. Dr. Barrett’s claim to expertise on FDA issues arises from his conversations with FDA agents, his review of professional literature on the subject and certain continuing education activities.

As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation of homeopathic drugs, the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area. Expertise in FDA regulation suggests a knowledge of how the agency enforces federal statutes and the agency’s own regulations. Dr. Barrett’s purported legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent. He is not a lawyer, although he claims he attended several semesters of correspondence law school. While Dr. Barrett appears to have had several past conversations with FDA representatives, these appear to have been sporadic, mainly at his own instigation, and principally for the purpose of gathering information for his various articles and Internet web-sites. He has never testified before any governmental panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation of drugs. Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated given that he has not had a current medical licence in over seven years. For these reasons, there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett qualified as an expert on the issues he was offered to address. Moreover, there was no real focus to his testimony with respect to any of the issues in this case associated with Defendants’ products.



C. Credibility of Plaintiff’s experts

Furthermore, the Court finds that both Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett are biased heavily in favor of the Plaintiff and thus the weight to be accorded their testimony is slight in any event. Both are long-time board members of the Plaintiff; Dr. Barrett has served as its Chairman. Both participated in an application to the U.S. FDA during the early 1990s designed to restrict the sale of most homeopathic drugs. Dr. Sampson’s university course presents what is effectively a one-sided, critical view of alternative medicine. Dr. Barrett’s heavy activities in lecturing and writing about alternative medicine similarly are focused on the eradication of the practices about which he opines. Both witnesses’ fees, as Dr. Barrett testified, are paid from a fund established by Plaintiff NCAHF from the proceeds of suits such as the case at bar. Based on this fact alone, the Court may infer that Dr. Barrett and Sampson are more likely to receive fees for testifying on behalf of NCAHF in future cases if the Plaintiff prevails in the instant action and thereby wins funds to enrich the litigation fund described by Dr. Barrett. It is apparent, therefore, that both men have a direct, personal financial interest in the outcome of this litigation. Based on all of these factors, Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett can be described as zealous advocates of the Plaintiff’s position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts. In light of these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said that Drs. Barrett and Sampson are themselves the client, and therefore their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well.
"When the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to treat everything as if
it were a nail."
-- Abraham Maslow
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 101461
United States
06/04/2006 04:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chelation therapy?
74124, understand that I am not a chelation advocate or debunker; I don't know about it. Two guys I play bluegrass with say it's bogus and they're both MDs. I'll stick with them, because I've known them both for fifteen years, and they seem to make sense. But that's just me.

However, testimonials come in all flavors. For everyone who says a therapy is great, ther's another one who says it's worthless. But what's really worthless are the testimonials themselves, and here's why.

If I take the XYZ pill and I get healthy, I can say that "XYZ cured me" and it won't have any statistical significance at all, because the person reading the testimonial won't have a clue as to whether there was a CAUSAL rather than CASUAL relationship beteen the XYZ pill and getting better.

Maybe the person also stopped shooting meth, or changed her diet or just had a spontaneous cure. How could we tell what really WAS the cause of the cure, based on ANY testimonial? We can't.

But a double-blind study, on the other hand -- especially if it's done with a large population and is repeated -- will eliminate any guesswork. For example, if

* A thousand people take part in the test and half of them take the xyz pill and the other half take a placebo (something which looks like xyz but isn't); and if

* Neither the testers nor the subjects know which one they took until after the test is complete; and if

* Ten percent of the people taking the placebo get better and 48 pecent of the people taking the XYZ pill get better; then

* We KNOW that the XYZ pill works (at least some of the time).

That's the only way I can think of to systematically test whether a drug or a procedure works.

And so far, there haven't been any double-blind studies of chelation therapies that I know of.

You gotta ask yourself why all the people who are practicing chelation therapies haven't gone ahead and done these tests themselves!
Parsingman

User ID: 75701
United States
06/04/2006 06:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chelation therapy?
It turns out there *have* been double-blind studies done (despite Quackwatch's claims) that show chelation therapy to be effective.

[link to drcranton.com]

The group that claims that a double-blind study shows chelation therapy *doesn't* work contains all the usual suspects.

I just love the smell of conspiracies in the morning!

coffeecup

At this point one would want to grab onto the details of the actual studies and *not* just read the results, but read the whole thing to see how they came to those results.
"When the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to treat everything as if
it were a nail."
-- Abraham Maslow
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 101733
Canada
06/04/2006 07:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chelation therapy?
ty parsingman
from your link
[link to video.google.com]
bunlet  (OP)

User ID: 101733
Canada
06/04/2006 08:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Chelation therapy?
[link to video.google.com]

I'm gonna try it.





GLP