Cheatlation. Yes, that is how it should be spelled
Peter Bowditch
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/
Cheatlation. Yes, that is how it should be spelled (27/8/2005)
On Tuesday, August 23, a 5-year-old boy named Abubakar Tariq Nadama
was killed by a quack in Portersville, Pennsylvania. (Read the story
here.) He died because his mother believed that a charlatan could cure
the boy's autism using a process called chelation. The killer, a real
doctor named Kelly, is not saying much but the story is being spread
around that the boy was being treated for lead poisoning. Of course
this will be the story, because that is the only legal use of the
chelating drug administered by the quack and he has to make sure that
the FDA don't shut him down and his victims' parents can claim on
their health insurance. Put another way, the quack is not only a
killer but he practices insurance fraud. The mother is quite clear
that she brought her son from England to have the mercury taken out of
him, not lead. If Abubakar had been suffering from lead poisoning he
would have been eligible for treatment under the British National
Health Service, and nobody can claim that the parents didn't know this
because the father is employed by the NHS.
The fraud of chelation is just another way for charlatans and
criminals to steal more money from the parents of autistic children.
They lie about mercury in vaccines, they lie about the ability of EDTA
to chelate mercury (it is far more likely to extract calcium, leading
to heart failure), they lie about the results they get.. They care
about nothing but money, and what makes it worse is that these
criminals are supported and endorsed by organisations (like Generation
Rescue and TAAP) which pretend to be acting in the interests of
autistic children.
Here are some quotes from alternative medicine supporters expressing
their outrage at this needless death:
- The boy who died from EDTA chelation treatment would be just as dead
if it had been done to him for lead poisoning
- Of course, the press will probably not mention some of the ugly
truths that are out there about how our children die from other
treatments
- Abubakar is a "true soldier in the struggle"
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
CWatters
"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:gc01h1t6isjcrafuk...@4ax.com...
>The mother is quite clear
> that she brought her son from England to have the mercury taken out of
> him, not lead. If Abubakar had been suffering from lead poisoning he
> would have been eligible for treatment under the British National
> Health Service, and nobody can claim that the parents didn't know this
> because the father is employed by the NHS.
If he had been suffering from Mercury poisioning he would also have got NHS
treatment.
LadyLollipop
<snip spam + proven lying websites>
> --
> Peter Bowditch
HCN
Peter,
This week's update is in top form. Bravo!
One of the champions of the "let's chelate mercury" bunch has written a "it
is not my fault" at the "Huff and Puff" blog:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/autism-and-chelation-whe_b_6286.html
... gag, ick, yuck
My hope is that the mother from the UK actually reveals that she got the
idea from reading Kirby's book. Someone really has to explain WHY an "ear,
nose and throat" doctor was sticking an IV with EDTA into a kid.
The loony-toon email was an eye-opener. Personally I hate all the doo-dads
done with emails, usually the choice made by some relatives to put purple
font on a blue background with decorative squiggles. It makes my eyes hurt.
PeterB
conventional therapy for heavy-metal detoxification that has been in
use since the 1940s. It still is. Some research shows chelation to be
effective in atherosclerotic patients, as well, but AMA and the drug
makers are resistant to such evidence. Do you suppose the expiration
of an otherwise profitable patent on EDTA has anything to do with that?
Of course not, you're a Pharma Blogger. As for heavy metals, mercury
is almost as effectively removed by chelation as lead, and regardless
of mercury load, or reasons for adminstering, chelation for mercury
works the same as it does for lead. This death may have resulted from
an allergic response to one of the chemicals used, but chelation does
work. If your complaint is that a doctor used a standardized treatment
for a non-standardized detox, then let's be clear that you are not
faulting a useful mainstream therapy, but rather the doctor for
performing what you believe to be an unnecessary medical procedure,
without which the child would still be alive. Just as importantly, do
you know the physiology of the child or his health status prior to his
mother seeking help? No, you don't. Do you know what consultation
regarding risk was offered to the parents prior to their child being
treated? No, you don't. When is the last time you raised holy hell
about the +100,000 deaths resulting from side effects of prescription
drugs each year, about which FDA does little or nothing?
PeterB
HCN
"PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125173589....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> First, to be clear, chelation is not an alternative medicine but a
> conventional therapy for heavy-metal detoxification that has been in
> use since the 1940s. It still is.
So why would you let a little kid be stuck with an IV with EDTA by an "ear,
nose and throat" doctor?
Some research shows chelation to be
> effective in atherosclerotic patients, as well, but AMA and the drug
> makers are resistant to such evidence.
Not really. Plug the terms "chelation EDTA" into www.pubmed.gov and you
will get dozens of studies showing it does not work for atherosclerotic
patients.
Do you suppose the expiration
> of an otherwise profitable patent on EDTA has anything to do with that?
> Of course not, you're a Pharma Blogger.
And you are pushing the businesses of those who sell EDTA chelation for
heart conditions.
As for heavy metals, mercury
> is almost as effectively removed by chelation as lead, and regardless
> of mercury load, or reasons for adminstering, chelation for mercury
> works the same as it does for lead.
Not really. EDTA is lousy for mercury. And if there is no lead (or
mercury) in the system it sucks up the available calcium and other essential
elements required for the proper functioning of the organs (like, say the
HEART... look up hypocalcemia). There are better ones, even the more rabid
anti-vax chelator champions know this.
This death may have resulted from
> an allergic response to one of the chemicals used, but chelation does
> work.
NEWSFLASH!!! Dr. Kelly is also an allergist! Do you think he might know
something about allergies? See here:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Cf1XrL9aexUJ:findadoc.upmc.com/PhysicianBioQuery.aspx%3FID%3DH810325%26A%3D%26SS%3D+%22roy+e+kerry%22+md&hl=en&client=safari
(the cached site of the Univ. of Pittsburgh Medical Center, which has since
removed him... Dr. Kerry is listed as: Roy E. Kerry, MD,
ENT & Allergy Assoc.
The most likely explanation is hypocalcemia because the EDTA pulled the
calcium out of the kid's blood.
If your complaint is that a doctor used a standardized treatment
> for a non-standardized detox, then let's be clear that you are not
> faulting a useful mainstream therapy, but rather the doctor for
> performing what you believe to be an unnecessary medical procedure,
> without which the child would still be alive. Just as importantly, do
> you know the physiology of the child or his health status prior to his
> mother seeking help? No, you don't. Do you know what consultation
> regarding risk was offered to the parents prior to their child being
> treated? No, you don't. When is the last time you raised holy hell
> about the +100,000 deaths resulting from side effects of prescription
> drugs each year, about which FDA does little or nothing?
>
> PeterB
A shill for the husksters who sell hope and deliver nothing, or worse death
to desparate parents.
>
Orac
Peter Bowditch <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote:
> From this week's update to The Millenium Project
>
> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/
>
> Cheatlation. Yes, that is how it should be spelled (27/8/2005)
Sadly for the poor boy, it was a clean kill.
--
Orac |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
| interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
| of observation."
| http://oracknows.blogspot.com
Orac
wrote:
> "Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
> news:gc01h1t6isjcrafuk...@4ax.com...
> > From this week's update to The Millenium Project
> >
> > http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/
> >
>
> Peter,
>
> This week's update is in top form. Bravo!
>
> One of the champions of the "let's chelate mercury" bunch has written a "it
> is not my fault" at the "Huff and Puff" blog:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/autism-and-chelation-whe_b_6286.html
>
> ... gag, ick, yuck
>
> My hope is that the mother from the UK actually reveals that she got the
> idea from reading Kirby's book. Someone really has to explain WHY an "ear,
> nose and throat" doctor was sticking an IV with EDTA into a kid.
I was wondering that myself. He probably discovered he could make a lot
more money doing chelation therapy; it's very profitable.
Of course, I have to ask whether he had the necessary safeguards in
place for such a treatment, at the very least a cardiac monitor, a fully
stocked crash cart, and personnel trained in PALS (Pediatric Advanced
Life Support, the pediatric equivalent to ACLS) readily available. If a
patient suffers a cardiac arrest from hypocalcemia brought on by EDTA
chelation, there won't be time to get him to a hospital.
Orac
"PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> First, to be clear, chelation is not an alternative medicine but a
> conventional therapy for heavy-metal detoxification that has been in
> use since the 1940s. It still is. Some research shows chelation to be
> effective in atherosclerotic patients,
No it doesn't. The "some" research to which you refer comes from old
studies with inadequate controls. Every randomized, double-blind
placebo-controlled trial since the early 1990's (save one with only 10
patients that was never expanded upon) has failed to find any benefit to
chelation greater than placebo. No study has ever documented objectively
measured decreases in atherosclerotic plaque due to chelation.
>as well, but AMA and the drug
> makers are resistant to such evidence. Do you suppose the expiration
> of an otherwise profitable patent on EDTA has anything to do with that?
> Of course not, you're a Pharma Blogger.
But EDTA chelation *is* quite profitable for doctors administering it.
It's a relatively cheap drug and they charge $100 per infusion or more.
For atherosclerotic disease, usually 20-40 infusions are recommended.
That's a nice chunk of change per patient.
>As for heavy metals, mercury
> is almost as effectively removed by chelation as lead, and regardless
> of mercury load, or reasons for adminstering, chelation for mercury
> works the same as it does for lead.
Actually, no it doesn't. Lead is quite tightly bound to tissue proteins
containing -SH groups. EDTA is not as strong a binder of mercury as
these proteins. To remove mercury, you need to use a chelation agent
containing -SH groups that has a higher affinity for mercury than the
tissue proteins.
>This death may have resulted from
> an allergic response to one of the chemicals used, but chelation does
> work.
Chelation only works for documented cases of heavy metal poisoning.
There is no evidence it "works" for cardiovascular disease and even less
evidence that it "works" for autism.
[Snip ranting]
Peter Bowditch
That too.
LadyLollipop
"HCN" <h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:16adnbVl3Jx...@comcast.com...
http://drcranton.com/chelation/study8.htm
DOUBLE BLIND STUDY PROVES
EDTA CHELATION THERAPY EFFECTIVE
A Pilot Double Blind Study of Sodium-Magnesium EDTA
in Peripheral Vascular Disease
by Efrain Olzewer, Fuad Calil Sabbage,
and James P. Carter, M.D.
Dr. Carter is Professor and Head of the Nutrition Department, Tulane Medical
Center, New Orleans, Louisiana. Drs Olzewer and Sabbage practice in Sau
Paulo,
Brazil, where this study was conducted.
In this small, pilot, double-blind, placebo controlled study, 20 infusions
of
EDTA increased walking distance in patients with claudication by 376%. Speed
of
both walking and performance on a bicycle exerciser were improved
significantly. The improvement in chelation patients, compared with placebo,
proved highly significant on statistical analysis.
P=0.0003 walking
p=0.00001 bicycle.
Olzewer E, Sabbag FC, Carter JP: A Pilot Double Blind Study of
Sodium-Magnesium
EDTA in Peripheral Vascular Disease. J Natl Med Assn;82(3):174-177.
Effect of EDTA Chelation Therapy Plus
Multi-vitamin/Trace Mineral Supplementation Upon Vascular Dynamics:
Ankle/Brachial Doppler Systolic Blood Pressure Ratio
E.W. McDonagh, DO, C.J. Rudolph, DO, and E. Cheraskin, MD, DMD
Dr. E.W. McDonagh is founder of the McDonagh Medical Center in Gladstone,
Missouri, where he practices with Dr. C..J. Rudolph. Dr. E. Cheraskin is
Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of Oral Medicine at
the University of Alabama.
ABSTRACT: A study of 117 lower extremities in 77 elderly patients with
documented occlusive peripheral vascular stenosis, diagnosed by the Doppler
systolic ankle/brachial (ankle/arm) blood pressure ratio is reported. This
study showed that intravenous ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA)
chelation therapy with supportive multivitamin/trace mineral supplementation
improved arterial blood flow to the legs significantly after approximately
60
days and 26 infusions (P<0.001).
[Note: Blood pressure is normally higher in the ankles than in the arms. An
A/B
ratio of less than approximately 1.0 is considered abnormal and is an
indication of blockage to the flow of blood to the legs]
TABLE:
Effect of EDTA Chelation Therapy with Vitamin/Mineral Supplementation upon
Ankle-Brachial Systolic Pressure
All Patients Sample Size Ankle/Brachial
Pressure Mean Percentage Change Significance of the
Difference of the Means
1 initial
2 final 117
117 0.77±0.22
0.94±0.17
+ 22%
t=8.0041 P<0.001*
Lower (poorer) patients, initial A/B ratio less than 0.80
3 initial
4 final 46
46 0.55±0.19
0.71±0.25
+ 29%
t=3.9771 P<0.001*
Higher (better) patients, initial A/B ratio greater than 0.80
5 initial
6 final 71
71 0.91±0.06
1.08±0.17
+ 19%
t=8.9790 P<0.001*
*statistically significant difference of the means
Journal of Advancement in Medicine Volume 2, Numbers 1/2, Spring/Summer 1989
For the full-text study, go to your nearest medical library or order
The Textbook of EDTA Chelation Therapy.
Benefits of EDTA Chelation Therapy in Arteriosclerosis: A Retrospective
Study of 470 PatientsC. Hancke, MD and K. Flytlie, MD
Claus Hancke M.D. received his medical education at the University of
Copenhagen. He is general practice and is president of the Danish Chelation
Doctors. He is an ABCT diplomate. Knut Flytlie M.D. received his medical
education at the University of Gutenberg, Germany. He is in general practice
and operates a clinic for Preventive Medicine and Chelation. He is an ABCT
diplomate.
ABSTRACT: In a retrospective study we report results of EDTA chelation in
470
patients, using a number of parameters, most of them objective. Although the
patients acted as their own controls, we observed improvements of 80 to 90%,
depending upon the measurement used. Of 92 patients referred for surgical
intervention, only 10 required ultimate surgery after or during their
chelation
therapy, thus saving an estimated 3 million dollars of insurance money. Our
experience covers a period of 6 years and we saw no severe side effects or
casualties arising from the treatment. We conclude that EDTA chelation
therapy
is safe, effective and cost-saving.
Journal of Advancement in Medicine Volume 6, Number 3, Fall 199
EDTA Chelation Therapy:
Efficacy in Brain DisordersH. Richard Casdorph, MD, PhD
H. Richard Casdorph, M.D., Ph.D., is Assistant Clinical Professor of
Medicine
at the University of California Medical School, Irvine, California. He
practices in internal medicine and cardiovascular disease at Long Beach,
California. He received his training in cardiovascular diseases at the Mayo
Clinic and received his Ph.D. degree in Medicine from the University of
Minnesota. He has also taught at UCLA Medical School and has been Chief of
Medicine at Long Beach Community Hospital.
ABSTRACT: Fifteen patients with well-documented impairment of cerebral blood
flow were studied utilizing the isotope technetium 99m. A highly significant
improvement (P = .0005) in cerebral blood flow occurred following
approximately
twenty intravenous infusions of disodium EDTA. All fifteen patients improved
clinically, including one with little or no improvement in measured cerebral
blood flow. EDTA chelates and removes aluminum as well as calcium. Aluminum
has
been incriminated in senile and pre-senile dementia. This study is
especially
noteworthy in view of the fact that medical science has no other effective
treatment for many of these conditions. Radioactive nuclide studies were
performed at the Nuclear Medicine Department of the Lon Beach Memorial
Hospital, California.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FIGURE
1The curve on the left illustrates the normal brain flow curve. The upstroke
of
the A wave indicates blood flowing into the brain followed by a normal
decline
to point B as the washout effect of fresh blood, not containing
radioactivity,
reduces the level of technetium to the baseline at point B. This is followed
by
a slight recirculation wave C, followed by a baseline or steady level of
radioactivity. The 3 sets of curves on the right indicate changes that occur
to
cerebral blood flow with progressively more severe cerebrovascular
occlusion.
As blood flow becomes impaired there is a delay of flow into the brain,
causing
the peak of the A wave to move to the right. This is associated with a
decrease
in the washout phase inasmuch as fresh blood flows less readily into the
brain
to wash out the existing radioactivity. This causes an elevation of b
point
as illustrated. The elevation of point B from normal is taken as an index of
the degree of occlusive cerebrovascular disease, and conversely, the
reversal
of this effect, lowering of point B after EDTA is used as a measure of the
benefit of chelation
therapy.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -FIGURE 2
[]Actual Data as measured by a Searle Radiographics scintillation camera.
This
represents a relatively normal cerebral blood flow for both the right (R)
and
left (L) sides of the brain of a 62 year-old white male with mild diabetes
and
arteriosclerotic heart disease. Even though this study was considered
"normal,"
we note a slight diminution in the amplitude of the A wave over the left (L)
side of the
brain.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -FIGURE 3A
Actual raw data, brain blood flow study of a 51 year old white female with a
mistaken diagnosis of schizophrenia. This measurement showed very reduced
brain blood flow.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-FIGURE 3B
Brain blood flow measurements of that same patient after EDTA chelation
showing
marked improvement in blood flow. The patients clinical symptoms improved
correspondingly.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Raw Data of this type for all 15 patients in this study can be found in in
the:
TEXTBOOK OF EDTA CHELATION THERAPY edited by Elmer M. Cranton, M.D. The
overall
results were consistent with the patient above, as summarized in TABLE 1
below.To order a copy of this TEXTBOOK click
here.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -
- -
- - -TABLE 1TABLE 1Patient Age Diagnosis Elevation of B wave:
Change Number of IV
Treatments Clinical
Improvment
Before
Treatment After
Treatment
1. IH 80 CVA R Brain 7
L Brain 7 4
4 + 3
+ 3 13 YES
2. BM 51 Schizo-
phrenia R Brain 7
L Brain 7 3.5
3.5 + 3.5
+ 3.5 13 YES
3. GM 72 Cerebral
Atrophy R Brain 8.7
L Brain 8 7
6.5 + 1.7
+ 1.5 26 YES
4. LS 62 TIA R Brain 6.5
L Brain 6.4 3.5
3.4 + 3
+ 3 20 YES
5. AN 57 CVA R Brain 5
L Brain 5 2.8
3 + 2.2
+ 2 20 YES
6. EK 65 TIA R Brain 5
L Brain 4.5 3.5
3 + 1.5
+ 1.5 20 YES
7. RG 66 Diabetes
ASO R Brain 6
L Brain 5.6 3
3 + 3
+ 2.5 20 YES
8. GK 66 TIA R Brain 4
L Brain 4 4
4 0
0 20 YES
9. VMC 67 TIA R Brain 6
L Brain 6 3
3.2 + 3
+ 2.8 20 YES
10. LT 72 Cerebral
Atrophy R Brain 5.5
L Brain 5 3.8
3.1 + 1.7
+ 1.9 20 YES
11. MI 76 Cerebral
Atrophy R Brain 6
L Brain 6 4
3.2 + 2
+ 2.8 20 YES
12. EM 92 Cerebral
Atrophy R Brain 9
L Brain 8 7
5.2 + 2
+ 3.8 20 YES
13. HR 68 ASHD R Brain 6
L Brain 5.8 4
3.8 + 2
+ 2 20 YES
14. JV 52 CVD R Brain 4
L Brain 4.5 3
3 + 1
+ 0.5 20 YES
15. HB 80 ASHD R Brain 9
L Brain 7 4
4 + 5
+ 3 20 YES
MEAN: 6.1 3.87 + 2.28 (P=.0005)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Journal of
Advancement in Medicine Volume 2, Numbers 1/2, Spring/Summer 1989For the
full-text study, go to your nearest medical library or order
The Textbook of EDTA Chelation Therapy.
The Correlation Between EDTA Chelation Therapy and Improvement in
Cardiovascular Function: A Meta-AnalysisL. Terry Chappell, MD
John P. Stahl, PhD
ABSTRACT: In order to establish whether there is value in
treating cardiovascular disease with intravenous EDTA chelation therapy, a
meta-analysis was done, based on currently available scientific literature.
A
thorough literature search identified 40 articles on the subject. Nineteen
studies met the criteria for inclusion with data on 22,765 patients. The
meta-analysis revealed a statistical correlation coefficient of 0.88, which
indicates a high positive relationship between EDTA therapy and improved
cardiovascular function. Eighty-seven per cent of the patients included in
the
meta-analysis demonstrated clinical improvement by objective
before-and-after
testing.Journal of Advancement in Medicine Volume 6, Number 3, Fall 1993
EDTA Chelation Therapy:
A Retrospective Study of 2,870 PatientsEfrain Olszewer, MD and James P.
Carter,
MD, DrPHDr. Olszewer is a cardiologist in Sao Paulo, Brazil, where this
study
was conducted.
Dr. Carter is Professor and Head, Nutrition Section, Tulane University
School
of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana.
ABSTRACT:
Results are presented of a 28-month retrospective analysis of 2,870 patients
with documented atherosclerosis and other degenerative, age associated
diseases
who were treated with intravenous disodium magnesium EDTA chelation therapy.
Observed benefits strongly support the use of EDTA chelation therapy for
those
conditions. Marked improvement occurred in 76.9% and good improvement
occurred
in 17% of treated patients with ischemic heart disease. Marked improvement
occurred in 91% and good improvement occurred in 8% of treated patients with
peripheral vascular disease and intermittent claudication. In patients with
cerebrovascular and other degenerative cerebral diseases, 24% had marked
improvement, and 30% had good improvement. Of four patients with
scleroderma,
three had marked improvement and one had good improvement. Seventy-five
percent
of all patients had marked improvement in symptoms of vascular origin.
Independent of pathology, 89% of all treated patients had marked or good
improvement.Journal of Advancement in Medicine, Volume 2, Numbers 1/2,
Spring/Summer 1989
For the full-text study, go to your nearest medical library or order
The Textbook of EDTA Chelation Therapy.
Ninety Percent Reduction in Cancer Mortality After Chelation Therapy with
EDTAWalter Blumer, M.D. and Elmer M. Cranton, M.D.Dr. W. Blumer practices
general medicine and chelation therapy in Netstal, Switzerland.
Dr. Elmer M. Cranton (Dr. Cranton's CV is available on this website.)
ABSTRACT:
Mortality from cancer was reduced 90% during an 18-year follow-up of 59
patients treated with EDTA chelation therapy. Only one of 59 treated
patients
(1.7%) died of cancer while 30 of 172 nontreated control subjects (17.6%)
died
of cancer (P = 0.002). Death from atherosclerosis was also reduced. Treated
patients had no evidence of cancer at the time of entry into this study.
Observations relate only to long term prevention of death from malignant
disease, if chelation therapy is begun before clinical evidence of cancer
occurs. Controls and treated patients lived in the same neighborhood,
adjacent
to a heavily traveled highway in a small Swiss city. Both groups were
exposed
to the same amount of lead from automobile exhaust, industrial pollution and
other carcinogens. Exposure to carcinogens was no greater for the studied
population than exists in most other metropolitan areas throughout the
world.
Statistical analysis showed EDTA chelation therapy to be the only
significant
difference between controls and treated patients to explain the marked
reduction in cancer mortality. Faculty of the University of Zurich Medical
School reviewed this data Journal of Advancement in Medicine, Volume 2,
Numbers
1/2, Spring/Summer 1989.
For the full-text study, go to your nearest medical library or order
The Textbook of EDTA Chelation Therapy
You failed to answer the question.
WHERE were YOU when Dr Wilson KILLED Jesse Gilsinger, HCN?????
Were you outraged with his FRAUD, his COVER UPS, his REPEATED & *DELIBERATE*
VIOLATIONS, his continuing even though Jesse's reading was 114 - more than
double the original safety limit?
Were you outraged knowing that his father found this out IN THE COURT ROOM,
along with the fact that:
The rules for the experiment said: Even if volunteers didn't get visibly
> ill, if tests showed that any of them had a significant reaction called
> "grade 3," the experiment was supposed to be "halted" immediately. Records
> show there were "grade 3" reactions in more than one patient. The first
> time, doctors stopped, called the government and got permission to
> continue, saying an unusual condition with the patient might have been the
> cause. The second time, they stopped, called and got permission again,
> citing another unusual condition. But when it happened a third time, they
> didn't stop, didn't call. Then, a fourth time. They didn't stop or call
> then either
In fact, just a few months before Jesse had signed up for the experiment,
> several monkeys given viruses similar to Jesse's got sick. And two of them
> died.
HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HCN!!!!!
NEWSFLASH
DR WILSON REMAINS ON
STAFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LadyLollipop
"Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:orac_usa-CF9F54...@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
> In article <1125173589....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>> First, to be clear, chelation is not an alternative medicine but a
>> conventional therapy for heavy-metal detoxification that has been in
>> use since the 1940s. It still is. Some research shows chelation to be
>> effective in atherosclerotic patients,
>
> No it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
http://www.integrative-med.com/TOPICS/subtopics/Chelation_Therapy.html
The Sacred Cow of Bypass Surgeryby James Biddle MD
Today's topic is perhaps the most controversial of all alternative
medicaltherapies - Chelation Therapy. What is it? The IV infusion of a
syntheticamino acid called EDTA that binds lead and other toxic metals,
pulling
them outof the body thru the urine.
Why is it so controversial? Because some physicians
also use it to treat vascular disease, or clogging of the arteries from
cholesterol plaques. Why do conventional physicians get so outraged
aboutChelation Therapy?
Because they think it doesn't work for vascular disease.To put this in
perspective, let's first look at the usual and customary treatments for
heart
disease, or clogging of the coronary arteries. The conservative approach is
to
give medicines like nitrates and beta-blockers todecrease the heart's demand
for oxygen, which lessens angina. The next approach is angioplasty, in which
a
catheter is used to balloon open thenarrowed part of the artery. The last
approach is coronary artery bypass grafting, in which segments of the
clogged
arteries are replaced surgically.These procedures can help decrease
symptoms,
but are they needed and do they improve survival?
A Harvard group of cardiologists published two studies in JAMA showing that
when patients are sent for bypass surgery or angioplasty, 75-80% were judged
not to require the procedure upon referral for second opinion. Then, in the
journal Circulation, there was no difference in survival between patients
randomized to have either bypass surgery or conservative medical
treatment.Even worse, the Lancet showed that when patients were randomized
to
have either angioplasty or conservative medical treatment, the angioplasty
group actually had more heart attacks and deaths (6.3%) than the medical
group
(3.3%).
Therefore, the published data show that these invasive and expensive
procedures
are 75-80% unjustified and do not improve survival overall.
***On the other hand, studies published in the Journal of Advancement in
Medicine show that of 22,765 vascular patients treated with IV Chelation
Therapy, 87% had objectively-measured improvements. In addition, 30 patients
with narrowing of the carotid artery had an average of 30% improvement by
ultrasound after 30 treatments of EDTA. But my favorite study is from
Denmark,
where they gave IV Chelation Therapy to vascular patients who were already
on
the waiting list for either bypass surgery or leg amputation. Using IV EDTA,
58
of 65 bypass patients and 24 of 27 amputation patients were able to cancel
their surgeriesand walk away.****
With such remarkable data, why is Chelation Therapy not given
moreconsideration? I believe the main culprits are publication bias and
paradigm boxes.
****You see, the Journal of Advancement in Medicine is not listed in the
National Library of Medicine, so the "powers that be" will not consider the
data.****
***However, all the journals that are listed have refused to publish any
positive studies concerning Chelation Therapy, while they are happy to
publish
negative studies.****
That's publication bias. A paradigm box is the limitation of our ability to
consider a concept or option outside of our current knowledge and training.
Physicians truly have the best interests of their patients at heart, but
***they've been fundamentally trained to reject Chelation Therapy,***
***so are generally unwilling or unable to take an honest look at the
data.***
***Unfortunately, their paradigm box has been constructed by the huge
pharmaceutical giants, who are the sole advertisers of every medical journal
listed in the National Library of Medicine.***
I dare to say that they have a vested financial interest in suppressing
knowledge of a relatively inexpensive, non-invasive, and non-toxic
alternative
for treating vascular disease.
****I've seen scores of vascular patients improve dramatically with
ChelationTherapy.***
Just as in the studies above,
****I've seen about 80% respond favorably,***
which makes me think that probably 20% of patients actually will benefit
from
angioplasty or bypass surgery. Maybe if we limit these procedures to those
who
first fail a trial of Chelation Therapy, we actually can improve survival
and
also save Medicare from bankruptcy.
tp://www.drcranton.com/chelation/carter.htm
Both the CCHI and the National Council on Health Fraud purport to be
scientific
and authoritative sources of information. A significant portion of their
activities, however, have nothing to do with real quackery, but are rather a
means to coerce practitioners of medicine to adhere to practices approved by
medical politicians. The end result is to preserve certain monopolistic and
economic advantages enjoyed by organized medicine.
An important reason that research into the use of EDTA in the treatment of
atherosclerosis and its complications stopped after 1960, until the mid
1980s,was because of an
*** active and vicious campaign of misinformation and unjust harassment of
physicians who used EDTA in their practices. Scientific researchers who
showed
an interest were also discouraged and harassed.***
http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/articles/p182.htm#quack
Here is the photo of the man behind the web
sitehttp://www.quackwatch.com/index.html. He often attacks various health
products and practices by making false claims about them, as if those claims
came FROM them, and then knocks down these straw men of his own device.
****One of the most ***evil*** people on the web is a former psychiatrist
who
lashes out against just about every possible alternative health product or
practice. It is, in fact, a hall of fame. If you are mentioned in his
pages
you can assume you are doing a good job! He attacks chelation therapy, of
course, but he selects a "straw man" to attack. In other words, the early
explanation of how chelation therapy works is well proven to be false, event
hough many people are still repeating those lies. But, the more thoughtful
intravenous doctors have discarded this early theory and gone on to the
second
theory, mentioned on another page (Click Here).After EDTA was found
effective
in chelating and removing toxic metals from the blood, some scientists
postulated that hardened arteries could be softened ifthe calcium in their
walls was removed. The first indication that EDTA treatment might benefit
patients with atherosclerosis came from Clarke, Clarke,and Mosher, who, in
1956, reported that patients with occlusive peripheralvascular disease said
they felt better after treatment with EDTA [AmericanJournal of Medical
Science
230:654-666, 1956]. (Source)
http://drcranton.com/chelation/rebuttal.htm
BUSTING THE QUACKBUSTERS
REBUTTAL TO "QUACKWATCH" WEBSITE OPPOSING CHELATION THERAPY:
By Elmer M. Cranton, M.D.
There exist a number of self-styled medical thought-police types who call
themselves "quack busters." They are fond of attacking alternative and
emerging medical therapies in favor of the existing medical monopoly. They
even have their own Quackwatch Internet website. It is uncertain where the
money comes from to fund those efforts, but it might be enlightening to
trace
that money back to its original source. One investigator alleges that
funding
comes from pharmaceutical manufacturers.
For years these so-called quackbusters have attacked nutritional
supplementation with high potency multi-vitamins as "quackery." As
summarized
elsewhere on this website (Nutrition In The News), recent scientific studies
now prove that virtually anyone can benefit from nutritional
supplementation.
With egg on their faces from this recent vitamin research, those same
critics
continue to attack chelation therapy. I will now answer, point by point, an
article on the Quackwatch website by Dr. Saul Green entitled "CHELATION
THERAPY: UNPROVEN CLAIMS AND UNSOUND THEORIES," in which Dr. Green attempts
to
discredit EDTA chelation using half-truths, speculation, and false
statements.
ALSO
Click Here to read:
A MEDICAL SCHOOL PROFESSOR BUSTS THE QUACKBUSTERS
Opponents and critics of EDTA chelation, such as Saul Green, rarely state
that
chelation "does not work" or that chelation is "proven not to work." Instead
they merely state that it is "unproven." They are evasive and set a double
standard. Bypass surgery, balloon angioplasty and close to 80% of all other
therapies routinely used by medical doctors in everyday practice are also
"unproven," using those same unreasonable standards. Most widely-accepted
and
traditional medical therapies have never been subjected to double-blind,
placebo controlled clinical trials costing many millions of dollars?as
demanded
by opponents of chelation therapy.
Detractors of chelation therapy insist that large, multimillion-dollar
studies
be performed, giving half the patients a placebo, with the placebo group
"blinded"?unknown to the investigators until the study is complete (called
"double-blind" because neither the doctors nor the patients know who gets
the
placebo and who gets the active medication). Drug companies are required by
the
FDA to test new prescription drugs in this manner before they can make
marketing claims. On the other hand, bypass surgery, balloon angioplasty and
most other widely accepted medical procedures have never been subjected to
that
type of testing. Because patent protection has long since expired on EDTA,
there is no source of funding for such a study. N.I.H., the government
source
for research money, has repeatedly refused to fund a research grant to study
EDTA chelation.
Saul Green makes an issue of an FTC ruling in 1998 relating to advertising
for
EDTA chelation therapy. Because the FDA has not yet approved EDTA chelation
therapy for treatment of atherosclerosis, the FTC ruled that it is not
proper
to imply otherwise in advertisements to the lay public. The informed consent
provided to patients by chelation doctors has always made that fact clear,
but
once again politically powerful critics of chelation therapy have generated
adverse publicity, using what was essentially a non-issue. That FTC ruling
was
based partly on their opinion that professional physicians associations,
such
as the American College for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM), should not
advertise directly to the lay public. The FTC ruling does not apply to the
doctor patient relationship. Training courses on chelation therapy continue
to
be given to practicing physicians twice yearly by ACAM.
Drug companies quickly patent their newly developed remedies, which allows
them
to charge high prices (usually a dollar or more per capsule, sometimes much
more) to recapture their millions of dollars in expenses for the
FDA-required
double blind studies. EDTA is a generic drug. Patent protection expired many
years ago. Double-blind placebo studies of adequate size have therefore
never
been funded and probably will not be funded in the future unless N.I.H. or a
private foundation can be convinced to do so with either public or
philanthropic funds. (In 2002 a $30 million research proposal for a
multi-center study of EDTA chelation therapy is under consideration by
N.I.H.
Let's all hope that it gets funded.)
Many highly positive smaller studies have been published proving EDTA
chelation
therapy, reporting objective measurements of before and after improvements.
Statistical analyses of those improvements are highly significant. Summaries
of
those studies can be read on the following webpage: Chelation Research. A
chapter from my recent book, Bypassing Bypass Surgery, summarizes the vast
amount of research supporting EDTA chelation therapy.
Those studies that support EDTA chelation are good science and are
scientifically valid. Only if it is assumed that placebo effect could cause
long-term, sustained increases in objective blood flow measurements to the
brain, heart and extremities through diseased arteries can those studies be
ignored. Placebo effect has never been observed to last more than 6 months.
Benefit from chelation therapy comes on slowly; increasing for 3 to 5 months
after treatment is complete and persisting for years after a course of
therapy.
Placebo benefit has never acted that way.
Saul Green's quackbuster attack on chelation therapy states that those
published studies are poorly designed and therefore meaningless. I challenge
any educated lay reader to review those studies and not be impressed. It
always
desirable to have bigger and better studies. There is always room for
improvement. That same statement could be made about any study ever
published.
All of the existing clinical data is positive and highly significant on
statistical analysis. Independent researchers, at different research
facilities, using different technology, were able to duplicate the positive
findings of increased blood flow through blocked arteries. Statistical
analysis
continues to show consistent high significance.
The bypass surgery and balloon angioplasty industries gross upwards of $6
billion per year. The cardiovascular drug industry takes in upwards of $100
billion dollars per year. If the existing studies of chelation therapy were
to
be accepted as valid, those industries would suffer enormous losses. They
have
no reason to want to see chelation therapy accepted.
In recent years opponents of chelation have published several a number of
small
sham studies, falsely alleging that EDTA chelation does not work. In every
instance those studies were actually supportive of EDTA chelation therapy,
but
they contained an erroneous conclusion otherwise. Click here for an analysis
of
deceptive studies. The recent PATCH study in Calgary, Canada, is a truly
blatant example of that practice. That kind of junk science proves nothing,
and
the studies cited actually contain evidence to support EDTA chelation
therapy.
Nonetheless, they are quickly published in mainstream medical journals,
interspersed with full-page, four-color advertisements for new and expensive
pharmaceutical drugs. The news media then prominently print articles stating
that EDTA chelation therapy has been proven not to work.
A wise consumer will review all existing sources of information and then
make
up his or her own mind about what is best. A Ford salesman will most likely
tell you that a Ford is superior to a Chevrolet and vice versa. Consumers
should be allowed to decide what feels right for them, without being
subjected
to a "time-bomb-in-chest" hard-sell, with a high-pressure, frightening sales
pitch at a time when they are highly vulnerable. Treadmills and angiograms
are
very effective and can be frightening marketing tools leading to expensive,
dangerous and often unnecessary therapies.
Mark Twain once said that, "If the only tool you have is a hammer,
everything
looks like a nail." A similar statement could be made about cardiologists,
whose only tool is a catheter with balloon attached, or surgeons with their
scalpels. The same might also be said of a chelation therapist. Buyer
beware!
Be an informed consumer. Every therapist has their own bias.
Saul Green writes that the Kitchell, Meltzer reappraisal study in 1963
showed
no significant benefit. I have described their exact data on the following
webpage: Chelation Critics Deceive the Public. You decide for yourself if
you
think it shows significant benefit or not. For political, economic and
other
unknown reasons, researchers occasionally interpret their data in a way that
fits their personal prejudices, either positive or negative. When an
unbiased,
objective appraisal is made of that same data, the opposite conclusion can
sometimes be supported. That has happened repeatedly with chelation therapy.
The facts are presented (Chelation Critics Deceive the Public) to enable
readers to form their own opinions.
Saul Green states that chelation is "not recognized by the scientific
community." That is not true unless it is assumed that the many highly
trained
physicians who administer chelation therapy are not scientific. He engages
in
name-calling. Doctors who disagree with Saul Green are called unscientific.
Various segments of the medical community join together in professional
associations with the goal of protecting their turf and maintaining a
monopoly
in their field as much as possible. It is not justified for one such group
to
state that other medical scientists who disagree are "unscientific." This
merely represents a disagreement between experts, between differing factions
of
the medical profession-a common occurrence in any profession. Emerging,
complimentary and alternative therapies often confront that type of bias.
Saul Green writes that at least fifteen different reports document that EDTA
did not benefit patients. That is not true! For the most part, he cites
letters to the editor, which report an occasional treatment failure. No
therapy is 100% effective and treatment failures do occur with EDTA.
However,
more than 85% of patients have been helped. These anecdotal reports of
treatment failures are used by critics, but anecdotal reports of treatment
success are rejected by critics. This represents more evidence of the double
standard. Saul Green also misrepresents the the unscientific studies
previously
mentioned as documenting that EDTA chelation does not work, Chelation
Critics
Deceive the Public.
Arteriograms before and after treatment are demanded by critics to prove
benefit from chelation therapy. It is not possible, however, to accurately
measure decreases in atherosclerotic plaque unless the diameter of the
artery
is increased by approximately 25%. In the presence of turbulent blood flow
past plaques, it requires only a 10% increase in arterial diameter to double
the flow of blood (Poiseuille's Law of hemodynamics as can be found in any
textbook of medical physiology or biophysics). As proven in studies,
arteriograms and ultrasound are not sensitive enough to consistently measure
changes of less than 25% in the diameter of a blood vessel. Increases much
less
than that can greatly relieve or totally eliminate symptoms, and are not
detectable on arteriograms. Studies which measure heart and organ function
and
total blood flow consistently prove that EDTA chelation therapy is highly
beneficial.
If patients improve their physical endurance, if exercise tolerance
increases
and if symptoms improve, that provides good scientific evidence of benefit.
If
measurements of walking distance on a treadmill with an uphill incline
consistently increase after treatment and with statistical significance,
that
is valid scientific proof of benefit. Angiograms are not sensitive enough
to
measure even a doubling in blood flow. Angiograms are marketing tools
frequently used to justify bypass surgery and balloon angioplasty; however,
angiograms cannot show increases in arterial diameter that can increase
blood
flow by 200% or more. They do, however, show the surgeons where to cut and
are
necessary to place a balloon or stent in angioplasty. And sometimes those
procedures are necessary.
Saul Green is in error when he states that the Curt Diehm study in Germany
did
not show benefit. The raw data from that study has been analyzed by medical
school professors in the United States and found to be highly positive, as
documented in detail on the following webpage: Critique of the Heidelberg
Study. Patients who received EDTA increased their walking distance by an
average of 400%, compared to 60% increase in the control group patients, who
received an active drug, not a placebo. The manufacturer of the control drug
funded the study and reserved the right to manipulate and report the data in
their own way. Patients who responded best were eliminated from the final
data. Final results were measured immediately, 3 months before full
improvement from EDTA could be expected. Analysis of raw data from that
study
proves that EDTA chelation therapy was highly effective in treating arterial
blockage in the legs.
The adverse side effects described by Saul Green were reported many years
ago
when massive doses of EDTA were infused in a very short time. Any medicine
given in overdose can cause harm. There are no documented reports of harm
when
EDTA has been administered using the currently approved protocol. In rare
reports of adverse side-effects, the current protocol was not followed.
Even
when administered improperly, 10 deaths in a million patients indicates that
chelation is infinitely safer than surgery or balloon angioplasty, which
result
in death from complications in approximately 3 out of every hundred patients
treated.
Fifty thousand people die in automobile accidents every year and another
200,000 are seriously injured. I tell my patients that the drive to the
clinic
in an automobile to get chelation therapy is statistically far more
dangerous
that the chelation they receive after they arrive. More than 8,000 deaths
and
200,000 hospitalizations each year result from complications of ibuprofen,
naproxen, aspirin and other widely accepted pain remedies, many of which are
available without prescription. EDTA chelation therapy is infinitely safer
than even those treatments. Critics of chelation therapy never put things in
proper perspective.
Saul Green goes on to speculate about a number of theoretical reasons why
chelation therapy might possibly be dangerous. He completely ignores the
amazing safety record of a million patients who have received the therapy.
The
dangers of surgery and angioplasty are well proven, not just
theoretical?three
percent death rate and twenty percent or more serious but non-fatal
complications. It is not necessary to merely speculate why invasive
procedures
might possibly cause harm. Saul Green's statements about why chelation
might
be dangerous have not been supported by more than 40 years of experience.
The Danish study mentioned by Saul Green was misrepresented and proved
nothing.
It was actually a positive study and showed benefit from chelation therapy.
Saul Green states that the FDA once had EDTA chelation on their list of
"Health
Care Frauds." The FDA has long since removed chelation therapy from that
list,
and for good reason. Why did they do that?
In my opinion, it is a beneficial and highly cost effective therapy.
BE SURE TO READ:
If EDTA Chelation Therapy is so Good, Why Is It Not More Widely Accepted?
by
Dr. James P. Carter, MD, DrPH
A Professor of Cardiology Critiques Bypass Surgery.
Chelation Critics Deceive the Public by Elmer M. Cranton, MD
ttp://www.life-enhancement.com/article_template.asp?ID=166
PATIENTS CANCEL BYPASS SURGERIES AFTER EDTA TREATMENTS
It is common place for physicians to help heart disease patients who have
failed all the standard treatments to make remarkable - even unbelievable -
recoveries, once given EDTA. Many patients on waiting lists for bypass
surgery
have found, after a series of EDTA chelation treatments, that they did not
need
the surgery. One particular study found that when 65 patients who had been
on
the waiting list for bypass surgery for an average of six months were
treated
with EDTA, the symptoms in 89% of them improved so much that they canceled
their surgery.3
http://www.healingdaily.com/oral-chelation/oral-edta-chelation.htm
EDTA removes toxic metals from the blood. Studies have shown that as people
age
they continuously accumulate toxic metals: lead, mercury, aluminum, iron,
cadmium, and arsenic, among others. The accrual of these toxins invites an
increased risk for various diseases, especially heart disease. The less of
these metals we have in our bodies, the more likely we are to be
physiologically healthy or simply feel good, and the lower our risk for
heart
disease. Because EDTA is so effective at removing unwanted metals and other
minerals from the blood, it has been the standard, FDA-approved treatment
for
lead, mercury, aluminum, and cadmium poisoning for more than 50 years. EDTA
normalizes the distribution of most metallic elements in the body.
>
>
>>as well, but AMA and the drug
>> makers are resistant to such evidence. Do you suppose the expiration
>> of an otherwise profitable patent on EDTA has anything to do with that?
>> Of course not, you're a Pharma Blogger.
>
>
>
>>As for heavy metals, mercury
>> is almost as effectively removed by chelation as lead, and regardless
>> of mercury load, or reasons for adminstering, chelation for mercury
>> works the same as it does for lead.
>
>
>
>>This death may have resulted from
>> an allergic response to one of the chemicals used, but chelation does
>> work.
>
>
>
> [Snip ranting]
I did,,,,,,,,,,,,Yours
>
> --
> Orac
LadyLollipop
"Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote
<snip liars lying for liars>
> In article,
> Peter Bowditch <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>
>> From this week's update to The Millenium Project
>>
>> <snip proven lying websites + spam>
>>
>
>
> --
> Orac
LadyLollipop
"Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> In article <mMednR8Gjch...@comcast.com>, "HCN" <h...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
PeterB
> In article <1125173589....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > First, to be clear, chelation is not an alternative medicine but a
> > conventional therapy for heavy-metal detoxification that has been in
> > use since the 1940s. It still is. Some research shows chelation to be
> > effective in atherosclerotic patients,
>
> No it doesn't. The "some" research to which you refer comes from old
> studies with inadequate controls. Every randomized, double-blind
> placebo-controlled trial since the early 1990's (save one with only 10
> patients that was never expanded upon) has failed to find any benefit to
> chelation greater than placebo. No study has ever documented objectively
> measured decreases in atherosclerotic plaque due to chelation.
Thiemann's study of EDTA in its trial comparison to Fludilat in
treating heart patients proves you wrong, but not by reducing arterial
plaque. The likely mechanism following reduction of heavy metals in
tissue is improved function of endothelial cells, allowing for
increased production of <a
href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=nitric%20oxide"
onmouseover="window.status='nitric oxide'; return true;"
onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">nitric oxide</a>, a
condition known as The Endothelial Relaxing Factor. That result
provides for relaxation of arterial pathways and permits more efficient
blood flow to the heart. The attempted coverup of these effects
constitute a scandal for the pharmaceutical industry, although such a
mistake was not to be repeated. Still, benefits to patients from EDTA
in comparison to fludilat were so dramatic that even a deliberately
flawed study could not have engendered such numbers. Today, studies
funded by Big Pharma are designed to show evidence for reduction in
chemical markers associated, but not linked, to actual diseases. In
this manner, patients are symptomatically managed, but not
pathologically resolved. The end product is a patient whose disease
management requires long-term drug dependency, engendering the greatest
profits with the least rate of attrition. It's been a perfect formula
for quite a while -- except for one thing. The public is catching on.
> >as well, but AMA and the drug
> > makers are resistant to such evidence. Do you suppose the expiration
> > of an otherwise profitable patent on EDTA has anything to do with that?
> > Of course not, you're a Pharma Blogger.
>
> But EDTA chelation *is* quite profitable for doctors administering it.
> It's a relatively cheap drug and they charge $100 per infusion or more.
> For atherosclerotic disease, usually 20-40 infusions are recommended.
> That's a nice chunk of change per patient.
Doctors are well-paid by any measure, however most licensed
practicioners won't chance condemnation from their state medical boards
over this procedure. Those who do so have taken time to look at the
facts in the best interest of their patients.
>
>
> >As for heavy metals, mercury
> > is almost as effectively removed by chelation as lead, and regardless
> > of mercury load, or reasons for adminstering, chelation for mercury
> > works the same as it does for lead.
>
> Actually, no it doesn't. Lead is quite tightly bound to tissue proteins
> containing -SH groups. EDTA is not as strong a binder of mercury as
> these proteins. To remove mercury, you need to use a chelation agent
> containing -SH groups that has a higher affinity for mercury than the
> tissue proteins.
ie, chelation works the same (by the same principle) regardless of the
heavy metal target, whereas differences in EDTA are specific to the
target, and I'm aware of differences in EDTA formulations. I would be
surprised if this case was treated using MgNa2EDTA, as that would not
have worked in any event with regard to mercury.
>
> >This death may have resulted from
> > an allergic response to one of the chemicals used, but chelation does
> > work.
>
> Chelation only works for documented cases of heavy metal poisoning.
> There is no evidence it "works" for cardiovascular disease and even less
> evidence that it "works" for autism.
The Thiemann study demonstrated a remarkable benefit in atherosclerotic
patients, and I'm happy their attempt at concealing that evidence
failed. Those who ask for peer-reviewed evidence of this assume that
the same publication channels beholden to their Big Pharma sponsors
will publish facts embarrassing to that relationship, and autonymously
at that. It doesn't work that way. Also, the research of Dr. Amy
Holmes (now retired) and Dr. Stephanie Cave, authors of "What Your
Doctor May Not Tell You About Children's Vaccinations," have achieved
excellent results in autistic patients with chelation therapy over the
years.
PeterB
Mark Probert
> First, to be clear, chelation is not an alternative medicine but a
> conventional therapy for heavy-metal detoxification that has been in
> use since the 1940s. It still is.
You are technically correct. However, when promoted for something, such
as treating atuism, it falls under the broad spectrum of Alt Med.
Some research shows chelation to be
> effective in atherosclerotic patients, as well,
Effective? Interesting. Can you post anything that shows that the
coronary lumina or peripheral doppler studies are increased after
chelation? That would require that the studies were done prior, and
subsequent to the therapy.
but AMA and the drug
> makers are resistant to such evidence. Do you suppose the expiration
> of an otherwise profitable patent on EDTA has anything to do with that?
Nope. They could still charge BIG BUCKS for their services in
administering the treatment in their offices, etc. The cost of the
chemical is miniscule, the cost of their time could be astronomical.
> Of course not, you're a Pharma Blogger.
And you are a *P*ontificating*B*ullshitter.
LadyLollipop
Mark Probert
Yes, PeterB is The *P*ontificating*B*ullshitter.
Jeff
> From this week's update to The Millenium Project
>
> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/
>
> Cheatlation. Yes, that is how it should be spelled (27/8/2005)
No it shouldn't. Chealation is a valid way to treat heavy metal poisoning.
The problem was using a treatment with a known risk of death for something
which is has not been shown to be effective.
Jeff
Mark Probert
> From this week's update to The Millenium Project
>
> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/
>
> Cheatlation. Yes, that is how it should be spelled (27/8/2005)
>
> On Tuesday, August 23, a 5-year-old boy named Abubakar Tariq Nadama
> was killed by a quack in Portersville, Pennsylvania. (Read the story
> here.) He died because his mother believed that a charlatan could cure
> the boy's autism using a process called chelation. The killer, a real
> doctor named Kelly, is not saying much but the story is being spread
> around that the boy was being treated for lead poisoning. Of course
> this will be the story, because that is the only legal use of the
> chelating drug administered by the quack and he has to make sure that
> the FDA don't shut him down and his victims' parents can claim on
> their health insurance. Put another way, the quack is not only a
> killer but he practices insurance fraud. The mother is quite clear
> that she brought her son from England to have the mercury taken out of
> him, not lead. If Abubakar had been suffering from lead poisoning he
> would have been eligible for treatment under the British National
> Health Service, and nobody can claim that the parents didn't know this
> because the father is employed by the NHS.
Peter, his father is an MD working for the NHS. There is no question in
my mind that the CHEATlation treatment here in the US was for autism,
and that any claim to the contrary is for insurance fraud purposes.
Mark Probert
> "Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
> news:gc01h1t6isjcrafuk...@4ax.com...
>
>>From this week's update to The Millenium Project
>
>
> <snip spam + proven lying websites>
Mark Probert
> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1125173589....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>First, to be clear, chelation is not an alternative medicine but a
>>conventional therapy for heavy-metal detoxification that has been in
>>use since the 1940s. It still is.
>
>
> So why would you let a little kid be stuck with an IV with EDTA by an "ear,
> nose and throat" doctor?
>
> Some research shows chelation to be
>
>>effective in atherosclerotic patients, as well, but AMA and the drug
>>makers are resistant to such evidence.
>
>
> Not really. Plug the terms "chelation EDTA" into www.pubmed.gov and you
> will get dozens of studies showing it does not work for atherosclerotic
> patients.
Add atherosclerosis and the results, while only around 50, are stunning.
I'll post a few of the abstracts...in other threads.,..
> Do you suppose the expiration
>
>>of an otherwise profitable patent on EDTA has anything to do with that?
>>Of course not, you're a Pharma Blogger.
>
>
> And you are pushing the businesses of those who sell EDTA chelation for
> heart conditions.
>
> As for heavy metals, mercury
>
>>is almost as effectively removed by chelation as lead, and regardless
>>of mercury load, or reasons for adminstering, chelation for mercury
>>works the same as it does for lead.
>
>
> Not really. EDTA is lousy for mercury. And if there is no lead (or
> mercury) in the system it sucks up the available calcium and other essential
> elements required for the proper functioning of the organs (like, say the
> HEART... look up hypocalcemia). There are better ones, even the more rabid
> anti-vax chelator champions know this.
>
> This death may have resulted from
>>an allergic response to one of the chemicals used, but chelation does
>>work.
>
>
> NEWSFLASH!!! Dr. Kelly is also an allergist! Do you think he might know
> something about allergies?
He is a board certified ENT specialist who is a member of the American
Medical Association.
Mark Probert
> "Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
> news:gc01h1t6isjcrafuk...@4ax.com...
>
>>From this week's update to The Millenium Project
>>
>>http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/
>>
>>Cheatlation. Yes, that is how it should be spelled (27/8/2005)
>
>
> No it shouldn't. Chealation is a valid way to treat heavy metal poisoning.
The treatment to treat heavy metal poisoning is properly spelled
'chelation.' The treatment touted to treat autism by using IV chemicals,
is properly spelled "CHEATlation."
> The problem was using a treatment with a known risk of death for something
> which is has not been shown to be effective.
Exactly, Why confuse the two?
Peter Bowditch
Eric Bohlman
> On Tuesday, August 23, a 5-year-old boy named Abubakar Tariq Nadama
> was killed by a quack in Portersville, Pennsylvania. (Read the story
> here.) He died because his mother believed that a charlatan could cure
> the boy's autism using a process called chelation. The killer, a real
> doctor named Kelly, is not saying much but the story is being spread
> around that the boy was being treated for lead poisoning. Of course
> this will be the story, because that is the only legal use of the
> chelating drug administered by the quack and he has to make sure that
> the FDA don't shut him down and his victims' parents can claim on
Point of correction: in the US, the practice of medicine is regulated by
individual state authorities; the FDA only regulates the manufacture and
marketing of drugs and medical devices. It would be the Pennsylvania
authorities who could shut down Kelly's practice.
[snip]
> Here are some quotes from alternative medicine supporters expressing
> their outrage at this needless death:
>
> - The boy who died from EDTA chelation treatment would be just as dead
> if it had been done to him for lead poisoning
If it had been done to him for lead poisoning, it would very likely have
been malpractice; oral DMSA, not IV EDTA, has been the first-line
treatment of lead poisoning since the mid-1970s.
Jeff
"Mark Probert" <markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:farQe.2062$OT1...@fe09.lga...
> Jeff wrote:
>> "Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>> news:gc01h1t6isjcrafuk...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>From this week's update to The Millenium Project
>>>
>>>http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/
>>>
>>>Cheatlation. Yes, that is how it should be spelled (27/8/2005)
>>
>>
>> No it shouldn't. Chealation is a valid way to treat heavy metal
>> poisoning.
>
> The treatment to treat heavy metal poisoning is properly spelled
> 'chelation.' The treatment touted to treat autism by using IV chemicals,
> is properly spelled "CHEATlation."
Chelation with EDTA is a treatment for heavy-metal poisoning. It is not a
treatment for autism that works.
>> The problem was using a treatment with a known risk of death for
>> something which is has not been shown to be effective.
>
> Exactly, Why confuse the two?
It is the same treatment. In one case (lead), it has some efficacy, in the
other (autism), it doesn't.
Jeff
Mark Probert
Chelation for heavy metal poisoning is an accepted treatment.
CHEATlation for autism is not an accepted treatment and the patient and
their family, and some insurance company, are CHEATed out of hope and money.
LadyLollipop
> Jeff wrote:
>> "Mark Probert" <markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
>> news:farQe.2062$OT1...@fe09.lga...
>>
>>>Jeff wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:gc01h1t6isjcrafuk...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>From this week's update to The Millenium Project
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheatlation. Yes, that is how it should be spelled (27/8/2005)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No it shouldn't. Chealation is a valid way to treat heavy metal
>>>>poisoning.
>>>
>>>The treatment to treat heavy metal poisoning is properly spelled
>>>'chelation.' The treatment touted to treat autism by using IV chemicals,
>>>is properly spelled "CHEATlation."
>>
>>
>> Chelation with EDTA is a treatment for heavy-metal poisoning. It is not a
>> treatment for autism that works.
>>
>>
>>>>The problem was using a treatment with a known risk of death for
>>>>something which is has not been shown to be effective.
>>>
>>>Exactly, Why confuse the two?
>>
>>
>> It is the same treatment. In one case (lead), it has some efficacy, in
>> the other (autism), it doesn't.
>
> Chelation for heavy metal poisoning is an accepted treatment. CHEATlation
> for autism is not an accepted treatment and the patient and their family,
> and some insurance company, are CHEATed out of hope and money.
We wouldn't won't to mention this, shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
http://www.newsinferno.com/storypages/8-02-2005~003.html
President Signs Law Creating National Database on Medical Errors - Critics
Believe Under-Reporting Will Continue
Date Published: August 2, 2005
Source: Newsinferno.com News Staff
In an effort to reduce medical errors and improve safety, President Bush
signed into law bill S 544 creating a national patient safety database.
The intent of the legislation is to encourage health care providers to
report errors to safety organizations which can analyze trends and create
proposals to help prevent similar mistakes from occurring in the future.
The data which will be available will not identify specific patients, health
care providers, or individuals who report problems and it cannot be used
against providers as evidence in malpractice suits, other litigation, or by
accrediting bodies or regulators.
The President stated that " by providing doctors with information about what
treatments work and what treatments cause problems, we will reduce medical
errors that injure and cause the deaths of thousands of Americans each
year."
Reaction to the legislation, which passed the Senate on July 21 and the
House on July 27, was mixed. For example, J. Edward Hill, president of the
American Medical Association , said the law is "the catalyst we need to
transform the current culture of blame and punishment into one of open
communication and prevention."
Dr. Hill added, "Future errors can be avoided as we learn from past
mistakes. This law strikes the proper balance between confidentiality and
the need to ensure responsibility throughout the health care system."
Critics, however, argued that the law should have included federal penalties
for medical errors and that it does not guarantee that providers will report
mistakes.
Margaret Van Amringe, vice president for public policy and government
relations for the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare
Organizations ( JCAHO), said "There's no incentive to report useful
information if you know it is going to be used against you. If you don't
have the information then you are not going to solve the problem."
To further address these concerns JCAHO said it might be one of the groups
responsible creating a subsidiary "patient safety organization."
Reporting of errors has always been a serious problem within the medical
community. There are several reasons for this including: (1) exposure to
civil liability; (2) exposure to governmental sanctions and penalties; (3)
licensing problems associated with most documented errors; (4) loss of
revenue and/or reputation especially with respect to hospitals or other
medical facilities.
In January of 2003, the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) reported that
just 5% of U.S. doctors are responsible for 54% of all malpractice. Yet even
after a doctor has been found liable for malpractice, there is no guarantee
that he or she will be penalized in any way with respect to practicing
medicine.
In fact, only a small percentage of the worst doctors have their licenses
suspended and even fewer have their licenses revoked. The rest are either
shifted around (similar to the way in which priests who were known to have
abused children were simply transferred to other parishes) or move to
another community in the same or another state.
In any event, such "problem" doctors have no difficulty in continuing to
practice medicine. Doctors have even been known to move to other countries
in order to continue practicing medicine when their ability to do so in the
United States has been compromised as a result of extremely serious
infractions.
It is well known in the medical profession itself that doctors are not
always inclined to report their errors, or those of their colleagues, for a
number of reasons. These include: (a) the desire to escape punishment; (b)
the unwillingness to admit their negligence; (c) the belief that protecting
a colleague will somehow ensure the same degree of loyalty from that person
when and if the tables are turned; (d) fear of retribution from one or more
superiors; (e) a reluctance to bring one's hospital into disrepute; and (f)
sheer arrogance.
This routine lack of accountability for medical errors is the main reason
why they remain so prevalent and continue to be a threat throughout this
country and the world.
In 2001, the JCAHO announced certain standards for medical practice in
hospitals in the United States including working actively to prevent medical
errors, designing patient safety systems, and encouraging and acting on
internal reports of errors. Creating a standard and actually having doctors
follow it are two entirely different matters, however.
In the last decade, 84% of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) and 60%
of hospitals failed to report medical errors to the government, allowing
many health care professionals to literally get away with murder. Many
experts see this disregard of reporting requirements as being as close to
having a "license to kill" as you can come without being James Bond.
Consider the recent case of Charles Cullen, a registered nurse who may have
killed as many as 40 patients at 10 hospitals in New Jersey and Pennsylvania
over the course of 16 years.
Although Mr. Cullen was investigated on a number of occasions with respect
to misusing potentially lethal drugs and was fired or allowed to resign from
a number of hospitals, he was permitted to "hopscotch" from hospital to
hospital without the slightest difficulty.
The penalty for failing to report errors may include the removal of legal
protections from the government, yet this penalty is rarely imposed. While
information on incompetent doctors is supposed to be listed in the NPDB,
oftentimes reportable incidents fail to make it any further than the
hospital they occurred at.
The doctors involved are simply given a slap on the wrist and then permitted
to return to their duties. A new debate has arisen as to whether the
information on the NPDB should be available to the public. Of course doctors
are strongly opposed to such an idea, claiming that once a malpractice claim
is filed, their record will be tainted even if that claim is unsuccessful.
In New York, for example, the Department of Health (DOH) has been criticized
for failing to revoke medical licenses in appropriate situations. One cause
of this, however, may be the fact that New York City hospitals have been
repeatedly cited as being the worst in the state for reporting medical
errors, even those resulting in death, to the DOH.
In 2001, the state Commissioner of Health, Dr. Antonia C. Novello, stated:
"People are not unemployable just because they have made a mistake, but when
you break the trust of the public good, I don't think you should be able to
practice." Yet doctors who have made mistake after mistake are still
practicing and still making preventable medical errors. In fact, more than
75% of doctors who were disciplined in the past 8 years began working again
after they were punished by the state.
What is missing here is a clear and concise plan explaining how hospitals
should handle problematic doctors and preventable medical errors. Also
missing is a uniform system which provides information on previously
disciplined medical professionals so that subsequent employers are aware of
their past record.
Such a system would have saved many patients from being killed by Charles
Cullen in New Jersey and Pennsylvania between 1987 and 2003.
As is often the case, money is also part of the problem. Simply stated, no
medical facility wants to get rid of a good earner and, as luck would have
it, doctors with disciplinary problems are often among the top third of
moneymakers at their given hospitals.
Doctors who are consistent and plentiful income producers are often praised
for their ability to provide a constant patient stream to the hospital while
actually avoiding punishment for any questionable practices resulting in
preventable medical errors.
In this regard, consider the chilling situation that occurred at Redding
Medical Center in California. One particular cardiologist was
single-handedly responsible for making his small, rural hospital one of the
most lucrative business enterprises for its owner, Tenet Healthcare.
Unfortunately, the doctor was only able to do this by intentionally making
false diagnoses of heart-related problems in order to justify performing
hundreds, if not thousands, of unnecessary procedures and surgeries.
While other staff members were suspicious of the goings on at the hospital,
their concerns were dismissed by their superiors until the scheme was
exposed by one patient, a 55-year-old reverend, who sought a second opinion
after he was told he needed emergency triple bypass surgery.
A highly qualified cardiologist was shocked by the diagnosis and told the
patient that his heart was in perfect shape. Federal agents raided the
hospital and Tenet was eventually forced to pay $54 million in penalties for
the unnecessary heart procedures.
This, however, does not change the fact that this single doctor was a staple
at the Redding Medical Center for almost two decades and was being protected
by his superiors who were only concerned with the enormous annual revenue he
produced and not the quality or legitimacy of his practice.
Thus, it remains to be seen if a reporting system without any real teeth
will be able to take a significant bite out of the problem of medical
errors.
Mark Probert
Actually, I have mentioned it to my clients and we are developing means
to ensure maximum compliance. It is not in the hospital's best interests
to allow underreporting, since that could expose it to serious liability
issues.
Rich
"LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:0WKQe.289606$x96.209865@attbi_s72...
You seem to be looking for a lot of milage out of that silly article. It
doesn't really make your point, though. It says nothing that defends
chelation for autism (or atherosclerosis), and the legislation that it
reports is a GOOD thing.
--
--Rich
Recommended websites:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/
LadyLollipop
Sure you have Mark.
You NEVER mention it here.
and we are developing means
*WE* who?
> to ensure maximum compliance. It is not in the hospital's best interests
> to allow underreporting, since that could expose it to serious liability
> issues.
OH?
Let's see:
As is often the case, money is also part of the problem. Simply stated, no
medical facility wants to get rid of a good earner and, as luck would have
it, doctors with disciplinary problems are often among the
*****top third of
moneymakers at their given hospitals*****.
*****Doctors who are consistent and plentiful income producers are often
praised
for their ability to provide a constant patient stream to the hospital******
while
actually avoiding punishment for any questionable practices resulting in
preventable medical errors.
*****In this regard, consider the chilling situation that occurred at
Redding
Medical Center in California. One particular cardiologist was
single-handedly responsible for making his small, rural hospital one of the
most lucrative business enterprises for its owner, Tenet Healthcare. ******
******Unfortunately, the doctor was only able to do this by intentionally
making
false diagnoses of heart-related problems in order to justify performing
hundreds, if not thousands, of unnecessary procedures and surgeries.******
While other staff members were suspicious of the goings on at the hospital,
their concerns were dismissed by their superiors until the scheme was
exposed by one patient, a 55-year-old reverend, who sought a second opinion
after he was told he needed emergency triple bypass surgery.
A highly qualified cardiologist was shocked by the diagnosis and told the
patient that his heart was in perfect shape. Federal agents raided the
hospital and Tenet was eventually forced to pay $54 million in penalties for
the unnecessary heart procedures.
This, however, does not change the fact that this single doctor was a staple
at the Redding Medical Center for almost two decades and was being
*****protected by his superiors who were only concerned with the enormous
annual revenue he
produced and not the quality or legitimacy of his practice.******
Now, you were saying??
Rich
>
>>> We wouldn't won't to mention this, shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
>>>
>>> http://www.newsinferno.com/storypages/8-02-2005~003.html
>>>
>>>
>>> President Signs Law Creating National Database on Medical Errors -
>>> Critics
>>> Believe Under-Reporting Will Continue
>>
>> Actually, I have mentioned it to my clients
>
> Sure you have Mark.
>
> You NEVER mention it here.
>
> and we are developing means
>
> *WE* who?
>
>> to ensure maximum compliance. It is not in the hospital's best interests
>> to allow underreporting, since that could expose it to serious liability
>> issues.
>
> OH?
>
> Now, you were saying??
He was saying just what he said, ". . . developing means to ensure maximum
compliance." Wouldn't you want hospitals and companies like Mark's to be
doing just that? What fault do you find in that? And how does a strident
"news" report of medical fraud that occurred years ago make it wrong?
LadyLollipop
"Rich" <jos...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:_MNQe.7161$UE2....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>
> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:vpNQe.291956$_o.166383@attbi_s71...
>>
>
>>>> We wouldn't won't to mention this, shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.newsinferno.com/storypages/8-02-2005~003.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> President Signs Law Creating National Database on Medical Errors -
>>>> Critics
>>>> Believe Under-Reporting Will Continue
>>>
>>> Actually, I have mentioned it to my clients
>>
>> Sure you have Mark.
>>
>> You NEVER mention it here.
>>
>> and we are developing means
>>
>> *WE* who?
>>
>>> to ensure maximum compliance. It is not in the hospital's best interests
>>> to allow underreporting, since that could expose it to serious liability
>>> issues.
>>
>> OH?
>>
>> Now, you were saying??
I wasn't asking you, Rich.
I'll wait and let Mark speak for himself.
---snip---
Rich
I'm sure he will.
Mark Probert
Yes, I have. You may recall that I mentioned the Institute for
Healthcare Improvement a few months ago when I said that "organized
medicine" (whatever that is) is working to improve the quality of their
care.
As for mentioning it here, no one here pays me. When it became topical,
I commented on it.
> and we are developing means
>
> *WE* who?
My staff, and my clients who are interested in addressing serious
problems that can adversely affect patients, and the institutions bottom
line.
BTW, since we invesitgate every reported adverse event for my clients,
this legislation is a good money maker for my firm.
>>to ensure maximum compliance. It is not in the hospital's best interests
>>to allow underreporting, since that could expose it to serious liability
>>issues.
>
>
> OH?
>
> Let's see:
>
> As is often the case, money is also part of the problem. Simply stated, no
> medical facility wants to get rid of a good earner and, as luck would have
> it, doctors with disciplinary problems are often among the
>
> *****top third of
> moneymakers at their given hospitals*****.
That may be true in that case. However, I know of several doctors where
my clients have either pulled admitting privileges, or severely
restricted them. These actions were based on systems already in place
and were the direct result of investigations conducted by either my
staff or myself.
> *****Doctors who are consistent and plentiful income producers are often
> praised
> for their ability to provide a constant patient stream to the hospital******
> while
> actually avoiding punishment for any questionable practices resulting in
> preventable medical errors.
Sadly, that does happen. However, when you add up the overall financial
costs, it is cheaper in the long run to get rid of the bad apples.
> *****In this regard, consider the chilling situation that occurred at
> Redding
> Medical Center in California. One particular cardiologist was
> single-handedly responsible for making his small, rural hospital one of the
> most lucrative business enterprises for its owner, Tenet Healthcare. ******
>
>
> ******Unfortunately, the doctor was only able to do this by intentionally
> making
> false diagnoses of heart-related problems in order to justify performing
> hundreds, if not thousands, of unnecessary procedures and surgeries.******
This doctor, and anyone who knew of his practices and did not step
forward, should be criminally prosecuted for fraud, assualt, etc. If one
patient died as a result of his actions, then he should be charged with
manslaughter, at least, and, depending on the criminal law in
California, homicide. In NY, his actions would constitute depraved
indifference homicide which is treated the same way as intentional murder.
> While other staff members were suspicious of the goings on at the hospital,
> their concerns were dismissed by their superiors until the scheme was
> exposed by one patient, a 55-year-old reverend, who sought a second opinion
> after he was told he needed emergency triple bypass surgery.
That is the problem that the new law and the procedures we design and
implement addresses. When a staff member has concerns, they should feel
absolutely free to express them, and the concerns should always be
looked into. The investigation should be done outside of the usual
administrative framework by someone who is concerned solely with
protecting the institution (which serves to protect the individual
patient, as the institution is the payer (money and reputation) of last
resort.
> A highly qualified cardiologist was shocked by the diagnosis and told the
> patient that his heart was in perfect shape. Federal agents raided the
> hospital and Tenet was eventually forced to pay $54 million in penalties for
> the unnecessary heart procedures.
Damn...I could have cost them just a few thousand dollars if I had been
asked to conduct an investigation regarding the concerns raised by
staff. In fact, it would probalbly have cost the hospital around $10K
for a thorough investigation. That would be CHEAP!
> This, however, does not change the fact that this single doctor was a staple
> at the Redding Medical Center for almost two decades and was being
> *****protected by his superiors who were only concerned with the enormous
> annual revenue he
> produced and not the quality or legitimacy of his practice.******
>
> Now, you were saying??
See above. I have had administrators, etc. dismissed over their lack of
cooperation in an investigation. If I feel we are being stonewalled in
the slightest way, we shine the light of the investigation on the
stonewaller.
You have never dealt with me professionally, and frankly, I would never
want to deal with me professionally. In mha, I am 'Mr. Nice Guy' in
comparison.
Mark Probert
I have spoken!
Orac
"PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> Orac wrote:
> > In article <1125173589....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > First, to be clear, chelation is not an alternative medicine but a
> > > conventional therapy for heavy-metal detoxification that has been in
> > > use since the 1940s. It still is. Some research shows chelation to be
> > > effective in atherosclerotic patients,
> >
> > No it doesn't. The "some" research to which you refer comes from old
> > studies with inadequate controls. Every randomized, double-blind
> > placebo-controlled trial since the early 1990's (save one with only 10
> > patients that was never expanded upon) has failed to find any benefit to
> > chelation greater than placebo. No study has ever documented objectively
> > measured decreases in atherosclerotic plaque due to chelation.
>
> Thiemann's study of EDTA in its trial comparison to Fludilat in
> treating heart patients proves you wrong, but not by reducing arterial
> plaque.
Citation, please? A PubMed searchof "Thiemann" and "chelation" comes up
with no references.
>The likely mechanism following reduction of heavy metals in
> tissue is improved function of endothelial cells, allowing for
> increased production of <a
> href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=11&k=nitric%20oxide"
> onmouseover="window.status='nitric oxide'; return true;"
> onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">nitric oxide</a>, a
> condition known as The Endothelial Relaxing Factor.
Ads from a commercial site.
That result
> provides for relaxation of arterial pathways and permits more efficient
> blood flow to the heart. The attempted coverup of these effects
> constitute a scandal for the pharmaceutical industry, although such a
> mistake was not to be repeated. Still, benefits to patients from EDTA
> in comparison to fludilat were so dramatic that even a deliberately
> flawed study could not have engendered such numbers. Today, studies
> funded by Big Pharma are designed to show evidence for reduction in
> chemical markers associated, but not linked, to actual diseases. In
> this manner, patients are symptomatically managed, but not
> pathologically resolved. The end product is a patient whose disease
> management requires long-term drug dependency, engendering the greatest
> profits with the least rate of attrition. It's been a perfect formula
> for quite a while -- except for one thing. The public is catching on.
Randomized, controlled study, please? Preferably one that shows
objective evidence for your claims regarding EDTA chelation.
[Snip]
> > >As for heavy metals, mercury
> > > is almost as effectively removed by chelation as lead, and regardless
> > > of mercury load, or reasons for adminstering, chelation for mercury
> > > works the same as it does for lead.
> >
> > Actually, no it doesn't. Lead is quite tightly bound to tissue proteins
> > containing -SH groups. EDTA is not as strong a binder of mercury as
> > these proteins. To remove mercury, you need to use a chelation agent
> > containing -SH groups that has a higher affinity for mercury than the
> > tissue proteins.
>
> ie, chelation works the same (by the same principle) regardless of the
> heavy metal target, whereas differences in EDTA are specific to the
> target, and I'm aware of differences in EDTA formulations. I would be
> surprised if this case was treated using MgNa2EDTA, as that would not
> have worked in any event with regard to mercury.
You missed the point. Tissue proteins bind mercury tighter than EDTA,
regardless of which EDTA formulation you use. EDTA cannot successfully
compete for binding of mercury ions. For that, you need a chelating
agent whose chemical affinity for mercury ions is considerably higher
than the -SH group-containing tissue proteins. It's a simple matter of
chemical equilibrium, taught in most Chemistry 101 courses.
> >
> > >This death may have resulted from
> > > an allergic response to one of the chemicals used, but chelation does
> > > work.
> >
> > Chelation only works for documented cases of heavy metal poisoning.
> > There is no evidence it "works" for cardiovascular disease and even less
> > evidence that it "works" for autism.
>
> The Thiemann study demonstrated a remarkable benefit in atherosclerotic
> patients, and I'm happy their attempt at concealing that evidence
> failed.
You have the PubMed citation?
>Those who ask for peer-reviewed evidence of this assume that
> the same publication channels beholden to their Big Pharma sponsors
> will publish facts embarrassing to that relationship, and autonymously
> at that. It doesn't work that way. Also, the research of Dr. Amy
> Holmes (now retired) and Dr. Stephanie Cave, authors of "What Your
> Doctor May Not Tell You About Children's Vaccinations," have achieved
> excellent results in autistic patients with chelation therapy over the
> years.
Really? Did they do a randomized, controlled study? What were their
objective endpoints? At what time points? Where was this study
published? Do you have a PubMed citation?
--
Orac |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
| interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
| of observation."
| http://oracknows.blogspot.com
Orac
"LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> <snip liars lying for liars>
Snipping what I said won't change that it was almost certainly chelation
that killed that boy.
Orac
"LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:orac_usa-CF9F54...@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
> > In article <1125173589....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> First, to be clear, chelation is not an alternative medicine but a
> >> conventional therapy for heavy-metal detoxification that has been in
> >> use since the 1940s. It still is. Some research shows chelation to be
> >> effective in atherosclerotic patients,
> >
> > No it doesn't.
>
> Yes, it does.
>
> http://www.integrative-med.com/TOPICS/subtopics/Chelation_Therapy.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chelation.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chelationpharm.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chelationimp.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chelationfraud.html
LadyLollipop
> In article <EY9Qe.286096$x96.58361@attbi_s72>,
> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:orac_usa-CF9F54...@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
>> > In article <1125173589....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> > "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> First, to be clear, chelation is not an alternative medicine but a
>> >> conventional therapy for heavy-metal detoxification that has been in
>> >> use since the 1940s. It still is. Some research shows chelation to
>> >> be
>> >> effective in atherosclerotic patients,
>> >
>> > No it doesn't.
>>
>> Yes, it does.
>>
>> http://www.integrative-med.com/TOPICS/subtopics/Chelation_Therapy.html
The page cannot be displayed
<snip QUACK QUACK>
>
> --
> Orac <snip>
Restore:
http://www.integrative-med.com/TOPICS/subtopics/Chelation_Therapy.html
The Sacred Cow of Bypass Surgeryby James Biddle MD
Today's topic is perhaps the most controversial of all alternative
medicaltherapies - Chelation Therapy. What is it? The IV infusion of a
syntheticamino acid called EDTA that binds lead and other toxic metals,
pulling
them outof the body thru the urine.
Why is it so controversial? Because some physicians
also use it to treat vascular disease, or clogging of the arteries from
cholesterol plaques. Why do conventional physicians get so outraged
aboutChelation Therapy?
Because they think it doesn't work for vascular disease.To put this in
perspective, let's first look at the usual and customary treatments for
heart
disease, or clogging of the coronary arteries. The conservative approach is
to
give medicines like nitrates and beta-blockers todecrease the heart's demand
for oxygen, which lessens angina. The next approach is angioplasty, in which
a
catheter is used to balloon open thenarrowed part of the artery. The last
approach is coronary artery bypass grafting, in which segments of the
clogged
arteries are replaced surgically.These procedures can help decrease
symptoms,
but are they needed and do they improve survival?
A Harvard group of cardiologists published two studies in JAMA showing that
when patients are sent for bypass surgery or angioplasty, 75-80% were judged
not to require the procedure upon referral for second opinion. Then, in the
journal Circulation, there was no difference in survival between patients
randomized to have either bypass surgery or conservative medical
treatment.Even worse, the Lancet showed that when patients were randomized
to
have either angioplasty or conservative medical treatment, the angioplasty
group actually had more heart attacks and deaths (6.3%) than the medical
group
(3.3%).
Therefore, the published data show that these invasive and expensive
procedures
are 75-80% unjustified and do not improve survival overall.
***On the other hand, studies published in the Journal of Advancement in
Medicine show that of 22,765 vascular patients treated with IV Chelation
Therapy, 87% had objectively-measured improvements. In addition, 30 patients
with narrowing of the carotid artery had an average of 30% improvement by
ultrasound after 30 treatments of EDTA. But my favorite study is from
Denmark,
where they gave IV Chelation Therapy to vascular patients who were already
on
the waiting list for either bypass surgery or leg amputation. Using IV EDTA,
58
of 65 bypass patients and 24 of 27 amputation patients were able to cancel
their surgeriesand walk away.****
With such remarkable data, why is Chelation Therapy not given
moreconsideration? I believe the main culprits are publication bias and
paradigm boxes.
****You see, the Journal of Advancement in Medicine is not listed in the
National Library of Medicine, so the "powers that be" will not consider the
data.****
***However, all the journals that are listed have refused to publish any
positive studies concerning Chelation Therapy, while they are happy to
publish
negative studies.****
That's publication bias. A paradigm box is the limitation of our ability to
consider a concept or option outside of our current knowledge and training.
Physicians truly have the best interests of their patients at heart, but
***they've been fundamentally trained to reject Chelation Therapy,***
***so are generally unwilling or unable to take an honest look at the
data.***
***Unfortunately, their paradigm box has been constructed by the huge
pharmaceutical giants, who are the sole advertisers of every medical journal
listed in the National Library of Medicine.***
I dare to say that they have a vested financial interest in suppressing
knowledge of a relatively inexpensive, non-invasive, and non-toxic
alternative
for treating vascular disease.
****I've seen scores of vascular patients improve dramatically with
ChelationTherapy.***
Just as in the studies above,
****I've seen about 80% respond favorably,***
which makes me think that probably 20% of patients actually will benefit
from
angioplasty or bypass surgery. Maybe if we limit these procedures to those
who
first fail a trial of Chelation Therapy, we actually can improve survival
and
also save Medicare from bankruptcy.
tp://www.drcranton.com/chelation/carter.htm
Both the CCHI and the National Council on Health Fraud purport to be
scientific
and authoritative sources of information. A significant portion of their
activities, however, have nothing to do with real quackery, but are rather a
means to coerce practitioners of medicine to adhere to practices approved by
medical politicians. The end result is to preserve certain monopolistic and
economic advantages enjoyed by organized medicine.
An important reason that research into the use of EDTA in the treatment of
atherosclerosis and its complications stopped after 1960, until the mid
1980s,was because of an
*** active and vicious campaign of misinformation and unjust harassment of
physicians who used EDTA in their practices. Scientific researchers who
showed
an interest were also discouraged and harassed.***
http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/articles/p182.htm#quack
Here is the photo of the man behind the web
sitehttp://www.quackwatch.com/index.html. He often attacks various health
products and practices by making false claims about them, as if those claims
came FROM them, and then knocks down these straw men of his own device.
****One of the most ***evil*** people on the web is a former psychiatrist
who
lashes out against just about every possible alternative health product or
practice. It is, in fact, a hall of fame. If you are mentioned in his
pages
you can assume you are doing a good job! He attacks chelation therapy, of
course, but he selects a "straw man" to attack. In other words, the early
explanation of how chelation therapy works is well proven to be false, event
hough many people are still repeating those lies. But, the more thoughtful
intravenous doctors have discarded this early theory and gone on to the
second
theory, mentioned on another page (Click Here).After EDTA was found
effective
in chelating and removing toxic metals from the blood, some scientists
postulated that hardened arteries could be softened ifthe calcium in their
walls was removed. The first indication that EDTA treatment might benefit
patients with atherosclerosis came from Clarke, Clarke,and Mosher, who, in
1956, reported that patients with occlusive peripheralvascular disease said
they felt better after treatment with EDTA [AmericanJournal of Medical
Science
230:654-666, 1956]. (Source)
http://drcranton.com/chelation/rebuttal.htm
BUSTING THE QUACKBUSTERS
REBUTTAL TO "QUACKWATCH" WEBSITE OPPOSING CHELATION THERAPY:
By Elmer M. Cranton, M.D.
There exist a number of self-styled medical thought-police types who call
themselves "quack busters." They are fond of attacking alternative and
emerging medical therapies in favor of the existing medical monopoly. They
even have their own Quackwatch Internet website. It is uncertain where the
money comes from to fund those efforts, but it might be enlightening to
trace
that money back to its original source. One investigator alleges that
funding
comes from pharmaceutical manufacturers.
For years these so-called quackbusters have attacked nutritional
supplementation with high potency multi-vitamins as "quackery." As
summarized
elsewhere on this website (Nutrition In The News), recent scientific studies
now prove that virtually anyone can benefit from nutritional
supplementation.
With egg on their faces from this recent vitamin research, those same
critics
continue to attack chelation therapy. I will now answer, point by point, an
article on the Quackwatch website by Dr. Saul Green entitled "CHELATION
THERAPY: UNPROVEN CLAIMS AND UNSOUND THEORIES," in which Dr. Green attempts
to
discredit EDTA chelation using half-truths, speculation, and false
statements.
ALSO
Click Here to read:
A MEDICAL SCHOOL PROFESSOR BUSTS THE QUACKBUSTERS
Opponents and critics of EDTA chelation, such as Saul Green, rarely state
that
chelation "does not work" or that chelation is "proven not to work." Instead
they merely state that it is "unproven." They are evasive and set a double
standard. Bypass surgery, balloon angioplasty and close to 80% of all other
therapies routinely used by medical doctors in everyday practice are also
"unproven," using those same unreasonable standards. Most widely-accepted
and
traditional medical therapies have never been subjected to double-blind,
placebo controlled clinical trials costing many millions of dollars?as
demanded
by opponents of chelation therapy.
Detractors of chelation therapy insist that large, multimillion-dollar
studies
be performed, giving half the patients a placebo, with the placebo group
"blinded"?unknown to the investigators until the study is complete (called
"double-blind" because neither the doctors nor the patients know who gets
the
placebo and who gets the active medication). Drug companies are required by
the
FDA to test new prescription drugs in this manner before they can make
marketing claims. On the other hand, bypass surgery, balloon angioplasty and
most other widely accepted medical procedures have never been subjected to
that
type of testing. Because patent protection has long since expired on EDTA,
there is no source of funding for such a study. N.I.H., the government
source
for research money, has repeatedly refused to fund a research grant to study
EDTA chelation.
Saul Green makes an issue of an FTC ruling in 1998 relating to advertising
for
EDTA chelation therapy. Because the FDA has not yet approved EDTA chelation
therapy for treatment of atherosclerosis, the FTC ruled that it is not
proper
to imply otherwise in advertisements to the lay public. The informed consent
provided to patients by chelation doctors has always made that fact clear,
but
once again politically powerful critics of chelation therapy have generated
adverse publicity, using what was essentially a non-issue. That FTC ruling
was
based partly on their opinion that professional physicians associations,
such
as the American College for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM), should not
advertise directly to the lay public. The FTC ruling does not apply to the
doctor patient relationship. Training courses on chelation therapy continue
to
be given to practicing physicians twice yearly by ACAM.
Drug companies quickly patent their newly developed remedies, which allows
them
to charge high prices (usually a dollar or more per capsule, sometimes much
more) to recapture their millions of dollars in expenses for the
FDA-required
double blind studies. EDTA is a generic drug. Patent protection expired many
years ago. Double-blind placebo studies of adequate size have therefore
never
been funded and probably will not be funded in the future unless N.I.H. or a
private foundation can be convinced to do so with either public or
philanthropic funds. (In 2002 a $30 million research proposal for a
multi-center study of EDTA chelation therapy is under consideration by
N.I.H.
Let's all hope that it gets funded.)
Many highly positive smaller studies have been published proving EDTA
chelation
therapy, reporting objective measurements of before and after improvements.
Statistical analyses of those improvements are highly significant. Summaries
of
those studies can be read on the following webpage: Chelation Research. A
chapter from my recent book, Bypassing Bypass Surgery, summarizes the vast
amount of research supporting EDTA chelation therapy.
Those studies that support EDTA chelation are good science and are
scientifically valid. Only if it is assumed that placebo effect could cause
long-term, sustained increases in objective blood flow measurements to the
brain, heart and extremities through diseased arteries can those studies be
ignored. Placebo effect has never been observed to last more than 6 months.
Benefit from chelation therapy comes on slowly; increasing for 3 to 5 months
after treatment is complete and persisting for years after a course of
therapy.
Placebo benefit has never acted that way.
Saul Green's quackbuster attack on chelation therapy states that those
published studies are poorly designed and therefore meaningless. I challenge
any educated lay reader to review those studies and not be impressed. It
always
desirable to have bigger and better studies. There is always room for
improvement. That same statement could be made about any study ever
published.
All of the existing clinical data is positive and highly significant on
statistical analysis. Independent researchers, at different research
facilities, using different technology, were able to duplicate the positive
findings of increased blood flow through blocked arteries. Statistical
analysis
continues to show consistent high significance.
The bypass surgery and balloon angioplasty industries gross upwards of $6
billion per year. The cardiovascular drug industry takes in upwards of $100
billion dollars per year. If the existing studies of chelation therapy were
to
be accepted as valid, those industries would suffer enormous losses. They
have
no reason to want to see chelation therapy accepted.
In recent years opponents of chelation have published several a number of
small
sham studies, falsely alleging that EDTA chelation does not work. In every
instance those studies were actually supportive of EDTA chelation therapy,
but
they contained an erroneous conclusion otherwise. Click here for an analysis
of
deceptive studies. The recent PATCH study in Calgary, Canada, is a truly
blatant example of that practice. That kind of junk science proves nothing,
and
the studies cited actually contain evidence to support EDTA chelation
therapy.
Nonetheless, they are quickly published in mainstream medical journals,
interspersed with full-page, four-color advertisements for new and expensive
pharmaceutical drugs. The news media then prominently print articles stating
that EDTA chelation therapy has been proven not to work.
A wise consumer will review all existing sources of information and then
make
up his or her own mind about what is best. A Ford salesman will most likely
tell you that a Ford is superior to a Chevrolet and vice versa. Consumers
should be allowed to decide what feels right for them, without being
subjected
to a "time-bomb-in-chest" hard-sell, with a high-pressure, frightening sales
pitch at a time when they are highly vulnerable. Treadmills and angiograms
are
very effective and can be frightening marketing tools leading to expensive,
dangerous and often unnecessary therapies.
Mark Twain once said that, "If the only tool you have is a hammer,
everything
looks like a nail." A similar statement could be made about cardiologists,
whose only tool is a catheter with balloon attached, or surgeons with their
scalpels. The same might also be said of a chelation therapist. Buyer
beware!
Be an informed consumer. Every therapist has their own bias.
Saul Green writes that the Kitchell, Meltzer reappraisal study in 1963
showed
no significant benefit. I have described their exact data on the following
webpage: Chelation Critics Deceive the Public. You decide for yourself if
you
think it shows significant benefit or not. For political, economic and
other
unknown reasons, researchers occasionally interpret their data in a way that
fits their personal prejudices, either positive or negative. When an
unbiased,
objective appraisal is made of that same data, the opposite conclusion can
sometimes be supported. That has happened repeatedly with chelation therapy.
The facts are presented (Chelation Critics Deceive the Public) to enable
readers to form their own opinions.
Saul Green states that chelation is "not recognized by the scientific
community." That is not true unless it is assumed that the many highly
trained
physicians who administer chelation therapy are not scientific. He engages
in
name-calling. Doctors who disagree with Saul Green are called unscientific.
Various segments of the medical community join together in professional
associations with the goal of protecting their turf and maintaining a
monopoly
in their field as much as possible. It is not justified for one such group
to
state that other medical scientists who disagree are "unscientific." This
merely represents a disagreement between experts, between differing factions
of
the medical profession-a common occurrence in any profession. Emerging,
complimentary and alternative therapies often confront that type of bias.
Saul Green writes that at least fifteen different reports document that EDTA
did not benefit patients. That is not true! For the most part, he cites
letters to the editor, which report an occasional treatment failure. No
therapy is 100% effective and treatment failures do occur with EDTA.
However,
more than 85% of patients have been helped. These anecdotal reports of
treatment failures are used by critics, but anecdotal reports of treatment
success are rejected by critics. This represents more evidence of the double
standard. Saul Green also misrepresents the the unscientific studies
previously
mentioned as documenting that EDTA chelation does not work, Chelation
Critics
Deceive the Public.
Arteriograms before and after treatment are demanded by critics to prove
benefit from chelation therapy. It is not possible, however, to accurately
measure decreases in atherosclerotic plaque unless the diameter of the
artery
is increased by approximately 25%. In the presence of turbulent blood flow
past plaques, it requires only a 10% increase in arterial diameter to double
the flow of blood (Poiseuille's Law of hemodynamics as can be found in any
textbook of medical physiology or biophysics). As proven in studies,
arteriograms and ultrasound are not sensitive enough to consistently measure
changes of less than 25% in the diameter of a blood vessel. Increases much
less
than that can greatly relieve or totally eliminate symptoms, and are not
detectable on arteriograms. Studies which measure heart and organ function
and
total blood flow consistently prove that EDTA chelation therapy is highly
beneficial.
If patients improve their physical endurance, if exercise tolerance
increases
and if symptoms improve, that provides good scientific evidence of benefit.
If
measurements of walking distance on a treadmill with an uphill incline
consistently increase after treatment and with statistical significance,
that
is valid scientific proof of benefit. Angiograms are not sensitive enough
to
measure even a doubling in blood flow. Angiograms are marketing tools
frequently used to justify bypass surgery and balloon angioplasty; however,
angiograms cannot show increases in arterial diameter that can increase
blood
flow by 200% or more. They do, however, show the surgeons where to cut and
are
necessary to place a balloon or stent in angioplasty. And sometimes those
procedures are necessary.
Saul Green is in error when he states that the Curt Diehm study in Germany
did
not show benefit. The raw data from that study has been analyzed by medical
school professors in the United States and found to be highly positive, as
documented in detail on the following webpage: Critique of the Heidelberg
Study. Patients who received EDTA increased their walking distance by an
average of 400%, compared to 60% increase in the control group patients, who
received an active drug, not a placebo. The manufacturer of the control drug
funded the study and reserved the right to manipulate and report the data in
their own way. Patients who responded best were eliminated from the final
data. Final results were measured immediately, 3 months before full
improvement from EDTA could be expected. Analysis of raw data from that
study
proves that EDTA chelation therapy was highly effective in treating arterial
blockage in the legs.
The adverse side effects described by Saul Green were reported many years
ago
when massive doses of EDTA were infused in a very short time. Any medicine
given in overdose can cause harm. There are no documented reports of harm
when
EDTA has been administered using the currently approved protocol. In rare
reports of adverse side-effects, the current protocol was not followed.
Even
when administered improperly, 10 deaths in a million patients indicates that
chelation is infinitely safer than surgery or balloon angioplasty, which
result
in death from complications in approximately 3 out of every hundred patients
treated.
Fifty thousand people die in automobile accidents every year and another
200,000 are seriously injured. I tell my patients that the drive to the
clinic
in an automobile to get chelation therapy is statistically far more
dangerous
that the chelation they receive after they arrive. More than 8,000 deaths
and
200,000 hospitalizations each year result from complications of ibuprofen,
naproxen, aspirin and other widely accepted pain remedies, many of which are
available without prescription. EDTA chelation therapy is infinitely safer
than even those treatments. Critics of chelation therapy never put things in
proper perspective.
Saul Green goes on to speculate about a number of theoretical reasons why
chelation therapy might possibly be dangerous. He completely ignores the
amazing safety record of a million patients who have received the therapy.
The
dangers of surgery and angioplasty are well proven, not just
theoretical?three
percent death rate and twenty percent or more serious but non-fatal
complications. It is not necessary to merely speculate why invasive
procedures
might possibly cause harm. Saul Green's statements about why chelation
might
be dangerous have not been supported by more than 40 years of experience.
The Danish study mentioned by Saul Green was misrepresented and proved
nothing.
It was actually a positive study and showed benefit from chelation therapy.
Saul Green states that the FDA once had EDTA chelation on their list of
"Health
Care Frauds." The FDA has long since removed chelation therapy from that
list,
and for good reason. Why did they do that?
In my opinion, it is a beneficial and highly cost effective therapy.
BE SURE TO READ:
If EDTA Chelation Therapy is so Good, Why Is It Not More Widely Accepted?
by
Dr. James P. Carter, MD, DrPH
A Professor of Cardiology Critiques Bypass Surgery.
Chelation Critics Deceive the Public by Elmer M. Cranton, MD
ttp://www.life-enhancement.com/article_template.asp?ID=166
PATIENTS CANCEL BYPASS SURGERIES AFTER EDTA TREATMENTS
It is common place for physicians to help heart disease patients who have
failed all the standard treatments to make remarkable - even unbelievable -
recoveries, once given EDTA. Many patients on waiting lists for bypass
surgery
have found, after a series of EDTA chelation treatments, that they did not
need
the surgery. One particular study found that when 65 patients who had been
on
the waiting list for bypass surgery for an average of six months were
treated
with EDTA, the symptoms in 89% of them improved so much that they canceled
their surgery.3
http://www.healingdaily.com/oral-chelation/oral-edta-chelation.htm
EDTA removes toxic metals from the blood. Studies have shown that as people
age
they continuously accumulate toxic metals: lead, mercury, aluminum, iron,
cadmium, and arsenic, among others. The accrual of these toxins invites an
increased risk for various diseases, especially heart disease. The less of
these metals we have in our bodies, the more likely we are to be
physiologically healthy or simply feel good, and the lower our risk for
heart
disease. Because EDTA is so effective at removing unwanted metals and other
minerals from the blood, it has been the standard, FDA-approved treatment
for
lead, mercury, aluminum, and cadmium poisoning for more than 50 years. EDTA
normalizes the distribution of most metallic elements in the body.
>>as well, but AMA and the drug
>> makers are resistant to such evidence. Do you suppose the expiration
>> of an otherwise profitable patent on EDTA has anything to do with that?
>> Of course not, you're a Pharma Blogger.
>>As for heavy metals, mercury
>> is almost as effectively removed by chelation as lead, and regardless
>> of mercury load, or reasons for adminstering, chelation for mercury
>> works the same as it does for lead.
>>This death may have resulted from
>> an allergic response to one of the chemicals used, but chelation does
>> work.
> [Snip ranting]
I did,,,,,,,,,,,,Yours
LadyLollipop
> In article <B%9Qe.288504$_o.131327@attbi_s71>,
> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>> <snip liars lying for liars>
>
> Snipping what I said won't change that it was almost certainly chelation
> that killed that boy.
We shall wait and see, and if it did, it happens, as with all procedures.
>
> --
> Orac <snip>
Orac
"LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:orac_usa-E38236...@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
> > In article <B%9Qe.288504$_o.131327@attbi_s71>,
> > "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>
> >> <snip liars lying for liars>
> >
> > Snipping what I said won't change that it was almost certainly chelation
> > that killed that boy.
>
> We shall wait and see, and if it did, it happens, as with all procedures.
If the autopsy concludes that chelation killed that boy, will you admit
that it did, Jan?
LadyLollipop
You amazing complete lack of observation is showing, and well as your your
lack of reading comprehension.
Mark Probert
> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:orac_usa-D034EF...@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
>
>>In article <%27Re.291885$x96.254092@attbi_s72>,
>>"LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:orac_usa-E38236...@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
>>>
>>>>In article <B%9Qe.288504$_o.131327@attbi_s71>,
>>>>"LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>><snip liars lying for liars>
>>>>
>>>>Snipping what I said won't change that it was almost certainly
>>>>chelation
>>>>that killed that boy.
>>>
>>>We shall wait and see, and if it did, it happens, as with all procedures.
>>
>>If the autopsy concludes that chelation killed that boy, will you admit
>>that it did, Jan?
>>
> lack of reading comprehension.
Spineless coward.
LadyLollipop
Mark Probert
No, it is not name calling. Referring to you as a spineless coward who
dodges every hard question is merely being accurate.
Orac
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 21:16:03 -0400, Orac <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <%27Re.291885$x96.254092@attbi_s72>,
> > "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:orac_usa-E38236...@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
> >> > In article <B%9Qe.288504$_o.131327@attbi_s71>,
> >> > "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> <snip liars lying for liars>
> >> >
> >> > Snipping what I said won't change that it was almost certainly chelation
> >> > that killed that boy.
> >>
> >> We shall wait and see, and if it did, it happens, as with all procedures.
> >
> >If the autopsy concludes that chelation killed that boy, will you admit
> >that it did, Jan?
>
> Come on Orac. If the autopsy results conclude that chelation killed
> the boy then the medical examiner will be accused of being part of
> evil organized medicine to explain the findings. Sorry to belabor the
> obvious.
I know, I know. I was just hoping to get Jan on record, so that we could
see what she says when the final autopsy results are reported.
Orac
"LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:orac_usa-D034EF...@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
> > In article <%27Re.291885$x96.254092@attbi_s72>,
> > "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >> We shall wait and see, and if it did, it happens, as with all procedures.
> >
> > If the autopsy concludes that chelation killed that boy, will you admit
> > that it did, Jan?
>
> You amazing complete lack of observation is showing, and well as your your
> lack of reading comprehension.
Dodge noted. I'll ask again: If the autopsy concludes that chelation
killed that boy, will you admit that it did, Jan?
--
Orac |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
| interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
| of observation."
LadyLollipop
> In article <6qkkh1lfdrcvtgk1i...@4ax.com>, Rich.@. wrote:
A pity Orac is replying to the cyberstalker.
>
>> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 21:16:03 -0400, Orac <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <%27Re.291885$x96.254092@attbi_s72>,
>> > "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:orac_usa-E38236...@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
>> >> > In article <B%9Qe.288504$_o.131327@attbi_s71>,
>> >> > "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> >> >>
>> >> >> <snip liars lying for liars>
>> >> >
>> >> > Snipping what I said won't change that it was almost certainly
>> >> > chelation
>> >> > that killed that boy.
>> >>
>> >>
****We shall wait and see, and if it did, it happens, as with all
procedures.********
>> >
>> >If the autopsy concludes that chelation killed that boy, will you admit
>> >that it did, Jan?
>>
>> Come on Orac. If the autopsy results conclude that chelation killed
>> the boy then the medical examiner will be accused of being part of
>> evil organized medicine to explain the findings. Sorry to belabor the
>> obvious.
>
> I know, I know. I was just hoping to get Jan on record, so that we could
> see what she says when the final autopsy results are reported.
>
> --
> Orac |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
> | interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
> | of observation."
> |
You AMAZING *lack* of observation is showing.
As well as PROOF that Richard H, Jacobson is a cyberstalker, attacking ONCE
AGAIN.
*I* am on record.
/|\
|
Cue for Richard H Jacobson/akaRich..@.. to post with his usual stalking and
attacking me.
Just watch. Just like clockwork.
Sorry to belabor the obvious.
Somethings are so predictable
--------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Best defense to logic is ignorance
LadyLollipop
> In article <14vSe.308505$_o.28531@attbi_s71>,
> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:orac_usa-D034EF...@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
>> > In article <%27Re.291885$x96.254092@attbi_s72>,
>> > "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> >> We shall wait and see, and if it did, it happens, as with all
>> >> procedures.
>> >
>> > If the autopsy concludes that chelation killed that boy, will you admit
>> > that it did, Jan?
>>
>> You amazing complete lack of observation is showing, and well as your
>> your
>> lack of reading comprehension.
>
> Dodge noted. I'll ask again: If the autopsy concludes that chelation
> killed that boy, will you admit that it did, Jan?
>
> --
> Orac
You amazing complete lack of observation is showing, and well as your your
lack of reading comprehension.
Cue for Richard H Jacobson/akaRich..@.. to post with his usual stalking and
Rich
>
> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:orac_usa-BB5427...@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
>> In article <6qkkh1lfdrcvtgk1i...@4ax.com>, Rich.@. wrote:
>
> A pity Orac is replying to the cyberstalker.
>>
>>> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 21:16:03 -0400, Orac <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <%27Re.291885$x96.254092@attbi_s72>,
>>> > "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >> news:orac_usa-E38236...@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
>>> >> > In article <B%9Qe.288504$_o.131327@attbi_s71>,
>>> >> > "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> <snip liars lying for liars>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Snipping what I said won't change that it was almost certainly
>>> >> > chelation
>>> >> > that killed that boy.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>
> ****We shall wait and see, and if it did, it happens, as with all
> procedures.********
Jan, it is amazing how you can demonstrate such outrage over the deaths of
Ben Kolb and Jesse Gelsinger, and even repeatedly berate people here for not
sharing your lugubriousness; but when Abubakar Tariq Nadama dies, you have
not a tear, and can toss it off with, "it happens [yawn]". Perhaps it's
because little Abubakar is a foreigner with a funny name.
What a hypocrite!
Peter Bowditch
When the anti-vaccination liars wanted to hold a day of prayer for
baby slaughterer Alan Yurko, I asked why nobody was planning to pray
for the child he killed. Jan told me that there was no need to pray
for him because he was dead.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
LadyLollipop
Right on cue, he does his attacking, poor Rich!
LadyLollipop
>
> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:JZ3Te.329070$xm3.49233@attbi_s21...
>>
>> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:orac_usa-BB5427...@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
>>> In article <6qkkh1lfdrcvtgk1i...@4ax.com>, Rich.@. wrote:
>>
>> A pity Orac is replying to the cyberstalker.
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 21:16:03 -0400, Orac <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >In article <%27Re.291885$x96.254092@attbi_s72>,
>>>> > "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> >> news:orac_usa-E38236...@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
>>>> >> > In article <B%9Qe.288504$_o.131327@attbi_s71>,
>>>> >> > "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> <snip liars lying for liars>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Snipping what I said won't change that it was almost certainly
>>>> >> > chelation
>>>> >> > that killed that boy.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>
>> ****We shall wait and see, and if it did, it happens, as with all
>> procedures.********
>
> Jan, it is amazing how you can demonstrate such outrage over the deaths of
> Ben Kolb and Jesse Gelsinger,
I demonstrated NO rage over the death of Ben Kolb. What I did say is all on
record.
I was most outraged with ALL THE FACTS OF the death of Jesse Gelsinger and
ALL the LIES told here and RIGHTFULLY SO!!
and even repeatedly berate people here for not
> sharing your lugubriousness;
My what????
but when Abubakar Tariq Nadama dies, you have
> not a tear,
You do NOT know what *I* have!
<snip remaining insults from a REPEATED L I A R & REPEATED HARASSED>
>
> --Rich
It matters not what the subject is, Richard H Jacobson sees my name and
starts foaming at the mouth.
His pattern of cyberstalking and badgering started long before me, I just
happened to be his current target, all others he has run off, boo hoo, he
has failed to do that with me. See his pattern here:
http://tinyurl.com/39u2g
Cue for Richard H Jacobson/akaRich..@.. to post with his usual cyberstalking
LadyLollipop
Peter Bowditch
>I demonstrated NO rage over the death of Ben Kolb. What I did say is all on
>record.
Jut mentioned him in 97 newsgroup messages in a single
Peter Bowditch
>I demonstrated NO rage over the death of Ben Kolb. What I did say is all on
>record.
Just mentioned him 97 times in a single month in newsgroup messages,
none of which had to do with him. In fact, I think the first time you
mentioned him was to show that Alan Yurko wasn't so bad because Ben
Kolb had died in an accident.
I agree, however, that you showed no rage. Ben was just a means to an
end for you. I would ask if you prayed for him, but I know that you
think dead children are not worth praying for.
LadyLollipop
"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:j74qh1h16dqvbld71...@4ax.com...
> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>I demonstrated NO rage over the death of Ben Kolb. What I did say is all
>>on
>>record.
>
> Just mentioned him 97 times in a single month in newsgroup messages,
> none of which had to do with him.
Mentioned him, but didn't have to do with him.
Any more lies, Peter?
In fact, I think the first time you
> mentioned him was to show that Alan Yurko wasn't so bad because Ben
> Kolb had died in an accident.
Think again. Any more lies, Peter?
>
> I agree, however, that you showed no rage. Ben was just a means to an
> end for you.
Any more lies, Peter?
I would ask if you prayed for him,
That's very strange, since sadly you are deceived that there is no God.
Any more lies, Peter?
but I know that you
> think dead children are not worth praying for.
It's too late to pray when one is dead.
Four lies in one post.
> --
> Peter Bowditch
<snip proven lying websites & spam>
Peter Bowditch
>
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>news:j74qh1h16dqvbld71...@4ax.com...
>> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I demonstrated NO rage over the death of Ben Kolb. What I did say is all
>>>on
>>>record.
>>
>> Just mentioned him 97 times in a single month in newsgroup messages,
>> none of which had to do with him.
>
>Mentioned him, but didn't have to do with him.
Precisely. Not one of the threads had anything to do with Ben Kolb,
yet you kept bring up his name.
>
>Any more lies, Peter?
>
>
> In fact, I think the first time you
>> mentioned him was to show that Alan Yurko wasn't so bad because Ben
>> Kolb had died in an accident.
>
>Think again. Any more lies, Peter?
Was Alan Yurko Innocent, Jan?
LadyLollipop
> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>>news:j74qh1h16dqvbld71...@4ax.com...
>>> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I demonstrated NO rage over the death of Ben Kolb. What I did say is all
>>>>on
>>>>record.
>>>
>>> Just mentioned him 97 times in a single month in newsgroup messages,
>>> none of which had to do with him.
>>
>>Mentioned him, but didn't have to do with him.
>
> Precisely. Not one of the threads had anything to do with Ben Kolb,
> yet you kept bring up his name.
Precisely
Jun 27 2002, 9:51 pm
From: Peter Bowditch <pet...@ratbags.com
Subject: Bringing up Ben Kolb
>
>>
>>Any more lies, Peter?
>>
>>
>> In fact, I think the first time you
>>> mentioned him was to show that Alan Yurko wasn't so bad because Ben
>>> Kolb had died in an accident.
>>
>>Think again. Any more lies, Peter?
>
> Was Alan Yurko Innocent, Jan?
Back to the your statement.
>In fact, I think the first time you
>>> mentioned him was to show that Alan Yurko wasn't so bad because Ben
>>> Kolb had died in an accident.
YOU thought WRONG!
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
From: jdrew63...@aol.com (Jan) - Find messages by this author
Date: 02 Jan 2002 19:00:58 GMT
Local: Wed, Jan 2 2002 2:00 pm
Subject: Re: A Lesson from Ben
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse
Did anyone see Dateline last night?
This post is NOT intended to go after any *ONE* individual.
It is reported by the Institute of Medicine that medical mistakes is the 8th
leading cause of deaths.
One of those mistakes happend to a 7 year old child named Ben Kolb. He went
in
for a simple ear operation.
In the operating room there were two mediciations. Lidocaine (which was to
be
injected) and Adrenalin Chorlide Solution. They were both taken out of the
bottles and put in bowls (both looked like water). The Adrenalin was
injected
rather than the Lidocaine. Little Ben died. This happen in a Florida
hospital,
Martin Memorial. The doctor who injected the wrong thing was devastated as
well
as the administrator of the hospital. They did the RIGHT thing and were
truthful with the parents. In turn the parents dropped the law suit. The
administrator also did her level best to made known this mistake in
operating
room procedure.
It has been 6 years since this happened. There is NO government agency to
oversee and investigate this happenings. No mandatory reporting. There is a
joint committee who authorizes and give accredations. They were informed of
this mistake in hospital procedure. To this day it has NOT been reported to
all
other hospitals.
The questions from Datline were *WHY*?
Per example:
If this were a mistake by avaiation, say a broken bolt problem,,,,,,ALL
airlines would have to meet centain guidelines. Yet we don't have these
regulations in medicine.
Why? Is it because of *ego*? Is it because we are looking all over for a
mistake killing *ONE* person caused by alt. medicine. Is it because we are
busy
after those who sell herbs and supplements? Is it because we are hunting
down
alt. practitioners whom we can throw in jail? Is it because we are busy
protecting the public from what is called *fraud*? Is it because we have sue
happy people wasting the courts time and money? Is this a BIG game?
Why isn't Stephen Barrett using his efforts to correct such a simple and
easily
corrected mistake?
Can you get Dateline in Australia Peter? How about putting up a page about
Ben
Kolb?
It is ridiculous that this country has soooooo many regulations and
guidlines
for everything, except medicine.
The big question is *WHY*?
Jan
Rich
Why waste your time typing unnecessary question marks when you could
actually learn something?
From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: lu·gu·bri·ous
Pronunciation: lu-'gü-brE-&s also -'gyü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin lugubris, from lugEre to mourn; akin to Greek lygros
mournful
1 : MOURNFUL; especially : exaggeratedly or affectedly mournful <dark,
dramatic and lugubrious brooding -- V. S. Pritchett>
2 : DISMAL <a lugubrious landscape>
- lu·gu·bri·ous·ly adverb
- lu·gu·bri·ous·ness noun
>
> but when Abubakar Tariq Nadama dies, you have
>> not a tear,
>
> You do NOT know what *I* have!
>
> <snip remaining insults from a REPEATED L I A R & REPEATED HARASSED>
\
If "it happens" is an insult, you've insulted yourself. You said it, not me.
> It matters not what the subject is, Richard H Jacobson
This thread is not about aloha Rich.
LadyLollipop
I did, as usual, it did NOT work.
> From www.m-w.com:
>
> Main Entry: lu·gu·bri·ous
> Pronunciation: lu-'gü-brE-&s also -'gyü-
> Function: adjective
> Etymology: Latin lugubris, from lugEre to mourn; akin to Greek lygros
> mournful
> 1 : MOURNFUL; especially : exaggeratedly or affectedly mournful <dark,
> dramatic and lugubrious brooding -- V. S. Pritchett>
> 2 : DISMAL <a lugubrious landscape>
> - lu·gu·bri·ous·ly adverb
> - lu·gu·bri·ous·ness noun
>
>
> That would be a LIE as usual.
>
>>
>> but when Abubakar Tariq Nadama dies, you have
>>> not a tear,
>>
>> You do NOT know what *I* have!
>>
>> <snip remaining insults from a REPEATED L I A R & REPEATED HARASSED>
> \
>
> If "it happens" is an insult, you've insulted yourself. You said it, not
> me.
I have done, no such thing.
>
>> It matters not what the subject is, Richard H Jacobson
>
> This thread is not about aloha Rich.
That's correct, sadly he is a cyberstalker.
Let's see you remind him, when he posts with his cues, Rich.
We'll see if you are selective.
Orac
"LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:orac_usa-BB5427...@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
> > In article <6qkkh1lfdrcvtgk1i...@4ax.com>, Rich.@. wrote:
>
> A pity Orac is replying to the cyberstalker.
> >
> >> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 21:16:03 -0400, Orac <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <%27Re.291885$x96.254092@attbi_s72>,
> >> > "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:orac_usa-E38236...@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
> >> >> > In article <B%9Qe.288504$_o.131327@attbi_s71>,
> >> >> > "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> <snip liars lying for liars>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Snipping what I said won't change that it was almost certainly
> >> >> > chelation
> >> >> > that killed that boy.
> >> >>
> >> >>
>
> ****We shall wait and see, and if it did, it happens, as with all
> procedures.********
If it was chelation that killed the boy, will you join me in condemning
Dr. Kerry as a quack? Yes or no? It's a simple question.
--
Orac |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
| interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
| of observation."
Orac
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:51:22 GMT, "LadyLollipop"
> <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >> > Snipping what I said won't change that it was almost certainly
> >>> >> > chelation
> >>> >> > that killed that boy.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >
> > ****We shall wait and see, and if it did, it happens, as with all
> >procedures.********
>
> But when it happens with a conventional treatment Jan is quick to
> invoke evil organized medicine to explain the death. Funny that Jan
> does not say it happens with all procedures when the death is due to a
> conventional procedure.
>
> But when the death is due to some alternative procedure (and chelation
> for autism is certainly alternative) then she just says "it happens".
> Well if a treatment with absolutely no credible evidence for efficacy
> is used then the death is a senseless one that should never have
> happened.
>
> Jan does not care that the child died since it's death was due to
> alternative treatment. She only cares when children die from
> conventional treatment since she can use the death to advance her own
> anti-conventional agenda. And her anti-conventional agenda is born out
> of her deep seated hatred of CM for not indulging her in her somatic
> hypervigilance.
Yes, it is a rather striking difference in Jan's reaction. If this had
been, say, an oncologist given chemotherapy and the patient died from a
reaction to the drug, Jan would be ranting and raving about
"conventional medicine" and how the patient would have been alive if not
for the oncologist pushing toxic medicines. From conventional medicine,
she will not accept justification for any complications or
treatment-related deaths. Ah, but now note the marked contrast to this
case, were it's an altie using chelation a disease for which there is no
evidence that the treatment does any good whatsoever.
Now suddenly Jan's all caution and saying "let's wait and see what the
autopsy finds."
--
Orac |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
| interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
| of observation."
Rich
It's usual that your attempts to learn something do not work? Now THAT I
believe!
>
>
>
>> From www.m-w.com:
>>
>> Main Entry: lu·gu·bri·ous
>> Pronunciation: lu-'gü-brE-&s also -'gyü-
>> Function: adjective
>> Etymology: Latin lugubris, from lugEre to mourn; akin to Greek lygros
>> mournful
>> 1 : MOURNFUL; especially : exaggeratedly or affectedly mournful <dark,
>> dramatic and lugubrious brooding -- V. S. Pritchett>
>> 2 : DISMAL <a lugubrious landscape>
>> - lu·gu·bri·ous·ly adverb
>> - lu·gu·bri·ous·ness noun
>>
>>
>> That would be a LIE as usual.
>>
>>>
>>> but when Abubakar Tariq Nadama dies, you have
>>>> not a tear,
>>>
>>> You do NOT know what *I* have!
>>>
>>> <snip remaining insults from a REPEATED L I A R & REPEATED HARASSED>
>> \
>>
>> If "it happens" is an insult, you've insulted yourself. You said it, not
>> me.
>
> I have done, no such thing.
Are you denying that you shrugged off this child's death with, ". . . it
happens, as with all procedures"?
<snip off-topic rant about the other Rich>
LadyLollipop
> In article <JZ3Te.329070$xm3.49233@attbi_s21>,
> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:orac_usa-BB5427...@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
>> > In article <6qkkh1lfdrcvtgk1i...@4ax.com>, Rich.@. wrote:
>>
>> A pity Orac is replying to the cyberstalker.
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 21:16:03 -0400, Orac <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <%27Re.291885$x96.254092@attbi_s72>,
>> >> > "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:orac_usa-E38236...@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
>> >> >> > In article <B%9Qe.288504$_o.131327@attbi_s71>,
>> >> >> > "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> <snip liars lying for liars>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Snipping what I said won't change that it was almost certainly
>> >> >> > chelation
>> >> >> > that killed that boy.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>>
>> ****We shall wait and see, and if it did, it happens, as with
>> all
>> procedures.********
>
> If it was chelation that killed the boy, will you join me in condemning
> Dr. Kerry as a quack? Yes or no? It's a simple question.
NO
LadyLollipop
"Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote
<snip>
> In article <a5jph15c635jp1eat...@4ax.com>, Rich.@. wrote:
<snip what the cyberstalker wrote>
This thread is not about Jan
>
>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:51:22 GMT, "LadyLollipop"
>> <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> >> > Snipping what I said won't change that it was almost certainly
>> >>> >> > chelation
>> >>> >> > that killed that boy.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >
>> > ****We shall wait and see, and if it did, it happens, as with
>> > all
>> >procedures.********
>
> --
> Orac <snip lies>
It matters not what the subject is, Richard H Jacobson sees my name and
starts foaming at the mouth.
His pattern of cyberstalking and badgering started long before me, I just
happened to be his current target, all others he has run off, boo hoo, he
has failed to do that with me. See his pattern here:
http://tinyurl.com/39u2g
Cue for Richard H Jacobson/akaRich..@.. to post with his usual cyberstalking
LadyLollipop
"Rich" <jos...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:AHrTe.2468$Gh....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
Rich
> This thread is not about Jan
Of course it is. It's about you and your blind support of che[at]lation and
all the other altie quackery that abounds. It's not like we are discussing
your choice of automobiles, or how well you keep your lawn. We're discussing
Jan and alternative medicine, and specifically, Jan and che[at]lation and
the murdering quacks who sell it. So it's all on topic.
Rich
So if chelation killed him, you are not going to be outraged if Dr. Kerry is
"STILL ON STAFF"?
LadyLollipop
"Rich" <jos...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote
<snip usual harassing and lies>
>
> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:tPsTe.314326$_o.96981@attbi_s71...
>
>> This thread is not about Jan
>
>
> --
Rich
>
> "Rich" <jos...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote
>
> <snip usual harassing and lies>
>>
>> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>> news:tPsTe.314326$_o.96981@attbi_s71...
>>
>>> This thread is not about Jan
>
LOL! So it's about Aloha Rich instead? Jan, the dictionary should have your
picture at the entry for hypocrite.
Clinton
Orac wrote:
> > But when the death is due to some alternative procedure (and chelation
This brings up many interesting question, (separate from whether
autism is caused by Hg or can be helped by chelation).
1st - for Hg toxicity is EDTA an appropriate
chelating agent. I know some people feel that EDTA can
actually cause neuron tubule damage when it mobilizes Hg.
Is oral edta safer than IV edta?
2nd - Take an Hg toxic individual such as a dentist. A chelator
is administered such as DMPS. Many people can backfire
BECAUSE the chelator actually mobilizes the Hg.
http://www.dmpsbackfire.com/reports/default.shtml
For the sake of argument, suppose there was Hg in this child's system.
While it would seem less likely with the smaller amounts of Hg
"theorized" to be left in the nervous system of some autistic
childeren, Did it even occur to you that in general mobilizing Hg with
a chelator in and of itself is dangerous and could exacerbate any
health condition, or does your assumption
of no association with Hg drive your conclusion?
LadyLollipop
Read for comprehension, Rich.
The *simply* question was:
If it was chelation that killed the boy, will you join me in condemning
Dr. Kerry as a quack?
>
>
Peter Bowditch
>> If it was chelation that killed the boy, will you join me in condemning
>> Dr. Kerry as a quack? Yes or no? It's a simple question.
>
>NO
At last, a definitive answer. Now we know.
If it is proven that Dr Kerry killed the boy by administering
che(at)lation, Jan will not condemn Dr Kerry as a quack.
And she won't pray for the boy either, apparently because Jan thinks
that I am an atheist. Sad that.
LadyLollipop
> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>> If it was chelation that killed the boy, will you join me in condemning
>>> Dr. Kerry as a quack? Yes or no? It's a simple question.
>>
>>NO
>
> At last, a definitive answer. Now we know.
No at last, I've always been a straight shooter.
>
> If it is proven that Dr Kerry killed the boy by administering
> che(at)lation, Jan will not condemn Dr Kerry as a quack.
That's correct.
Neither did I condemn the doctor that made a mistake that killed Ben Kolb as
a quack.
It is the *organized medicne* members that use the word *quack* to condemn
anythng not endorsed by EOM.
>
> And she won't pray for the boy either, apparently because Jan thinks
> that I am an atheist. Sad that.
My praying has absolutely nothing to do with you.
It is sad indeed that you are an atheist. It is also sad, that you deceiving
say, I think you are an atheist.
You must be baiting, and I am not biting.
> --
> Peter Bowditch
<snip proven lying websites and spam>
LadyLollipop
Richard H Jacobson is a BLATANT L I A R
He wrote the below
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 07:36:03 GMT, "LadyLollipop"
> <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> If it is proven that Dr Kerry killed the boy by administering
>>> che(at)lation, Jan will not condemn Dr Kerry as a quack.
>>
>>That's correct.
>>
>>Neither did I condemn the doctor that made a mistake that killed Ben Kolb
>>as
>>a quack.
>
*No, Jan said he was a member of evil organized medicine and that he
murdered the child.*
I said NO SUCH THING!!!!!
Here is what I said:
. They did the right thing and my heart goes out to the doctor, and all
those involved. The parents in turn also did the right thing and dropped the
lawsuit. I was indeed very sad for everyone.
===========
Rich is soooooooooooo ate up with his stalking, hatred and attacking, you
can NOT believe a word he says!!!
He needs help!!!!
============
Mark Probert
> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> <snip>
>
>>In article <a5jph15c635jp1eat...@4ax.com>, Rich.@. wrote:
>
>
> <snip what the cyberstalker wrote>
>
> This thread is not about Jan
>
>>>On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:51:22 GMT, "LadyLollipop"
>>><LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>Snipping what I said won't change that it was almost certainly
>>>>>>>>>chelation
>>>>>>>>>that killed that boy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>> ****We shall wait and see, and if it did, it happens, as with
>>>>all
>>>>procedures.********
>
>
>>--
>>Orac <snip lies>
Snip Jan's feeble diversion....Orac's wisdom restored...
Mark Probert
Hmmm...answering yourself...must cut down on the snipping.
Rich
>
> "Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
> news:bk4th1924f0l9m26j...@4ax.com...
>> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> If it was chelation that killed the boy, will you join me in condemning
>>>> Dr. Kerry as a quack? Yes or no? It's a simple question.
>>>
>>>NO
>>
>> At last, a definitive answer. Now we know.
>
> No at last, I've always been a straight shooter.
Except for defining your terms, expecially accusatory ones.
>>
>> If it is proven that Dr Kerry killed the boy by administering
>> che(at)lation, Jan will not condemn Dr Kerry as a quack.
>
> That's correct.
>
> Neither did I condemn the doctor that made a mistake that killed Ben Kolb
> as a quack.
>
> It is the *organized medicne* members that use the word *quack* to condemn
> anythng not endorsed by EOM.
There is no "EOM", Jan. You cannot show even a scrap of evidence of ANYTHING
being "endorsed" by any group called "*organized medicine*".
>>
>> And she won't pray for the boy either, apparently because Jan thinks
>> that I am an atheist. Sad that.
>
> My praying has absolutely nothing to do with you.
>
> It is sad indeed that you are an atheist. It is also sad, that you
> deceiving say, I think you are an atheist.
So you DO think Peter is an atheist.
Mark Probert
> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:DLwTe.90420$084.19043@attbi_s22...
>
>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>>news:bk4th1924f0l9m26j...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>"LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>If it was chelation that killed the boy, will you join me in condemning
>>>>>Dr. Kerry as a quack? Yes or no? It's a simple question.
>>>>
>>>>NO
>>>
>>>At last, a definitive answer. Now we know.
>>
>>No at last, I've always been a straight shooter.
>
> Except for defining your terms, expecially accusatory ones.
Quite true. Jan refuses to provide clear and precise definitions of the
RealMedicine hating epithets she uses.
>>>If it is proven that Dr Kerry killed the boy by administering
>>>che(at)lation, Jan will not condemn Dr Kerry as a quack.
>>
>>That's correct.
>>
>>Neither did I condemn the doctor that made a mistake that killed Ben Kolb
>>as a quack.
>>
>>It is the *organized medicne* members that use the word *quack* to condemn
>>anythng not endorsed by EOM.
>
> There is no "EOM", Jan. You cannot show even a scrap of evidence of ANYTHING
> being "endorsed" by any group called "*organized medicine*".
However, that will not stop her from attributing whatever she wants to
use to bash RealMedicine to some non-existent group, i.e. *organized
medicine*.
>>>And she won't pray for the boy either, apparently because Jan thinks
>>>that I am an atheist. Sad that.
>>
>>My praying has absolutely nothing to do with you.
>>
>>It is sad indeed that you are an atheist. It is also sad, that you
>>deceiving say, I think you are an atheist.
>
> So you DO think Peter is an atheist.
Of course she does. Deep down inside, I bet she thinks that Jews,
Bhuddists, Moslems, etc. are atheists since we do not accept Jesus as
the Messiah.
Orac
"LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> <snip>
>
> > In article <a5jph15c635jp1eat...@4ax.com>, Rich.@. wrote:
>
> <snip what the cyberstalker wrote>
>
> This thread is not about Jan
Perhaps not, but it is about your blithe dismissal of the death of a
5-year-child with "it happens, as with all procedures."
Orac
Mark Probert <markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> > "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> > news:DLwTe.90420$084.19043@attbi_s22...
> >>It is sad indeed that you are an atheist. It is also sad, that you
> >>deceiving say, I think you are an atheist.
> >
> > So you DO think Peter is an atheist.
>
> Of course she does. Deep down inside, I bet she thinks that Jews,
> Bhuddists, Moslems, etc. are atheists since we do not accept Jesus as
> the Messiah.
She doesn't appear to like Catholics all that much, either, if her past
remarks about "praying to saints" are any indication.
Orac
"LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
OK, I'll add another question: if it is found that it was chelation that
killed the boy, will you be outraged if Dr. Kerry continues to practice
medicine and continues to be "still on staff"?
LadyLollipop
> In article <ZNsTe.313126$x96.152256@attbi_s72>,
> "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > In article <a5jph15c635jp1eat...@4ax.com>, Rich.@. wrote:
>>
>> <snip what the cyberstalker wrote>
>>
>> This thread is not about Jan
>
> Perhaps not, but it is about your blithe dismissal of the death of a
> 5-year-child with "it happens, as with all procedures."
This thread is not about me, period.
Nor your opinion.
>
> --
> Orac
LadyLollipop
"Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote .
<snip Orac's harassing>
> In article <JjJTe.1823$wH6....@fe10.lga>,
> Mark Probert <markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
<snip Mark's harassing>
>> Rich wrote:
<snip Rich's harassing>
>> > "LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>> > news:DLwTe.90420$084.19043@attbi_s22...
>
>> >>It is sad indeed that you are an atheist. It is also sad, that you
>> >>deceiving say, I think you are an atheist.
>
> --
> Orac
LadyLollipop
"Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:orac_usa-261B38...@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
Mark Probert
> "Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:orac_usa-52C8B7...@optonline.svc.highwinds-media.com...
>
>>In article <ZNsTe.313126$x96.152256@attbi_s72>,
>>"LadyLollipop" <LadyLo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Orac" <orac...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>In article <a5jph15c635jp1eat...@4ax.com>, Rich.@. wrote:
>>>
>>><snip what the cyberstalker wrote>
>>>
>>>This thread is not about Jan
>>
>>Perhaps not, but it is about your blithe dismissal of the death of a
>>5-year-child with "it happens, as with all procedures."
>
>
> This thread is not about me, period.
>
> Nor your opinion.
>
>>--
>>Orac
>
>
> It matters not what the subject is, Richard H Jacobson
Hey, clueless one, if it is not about Jan (all threads are about Jan),
it sure is not about Richard, who you are obsessed with and you stalk
(which is well documented).
Mark Probert
> Most interesting that so many of the *gang* cares so very much what I think.
The fact is, you are a judgmental blowhard. We just want to see if you
are consistent and not being selective.
I note that you, as usual, dodged the question.