Chelation Archives

Dr Stoll and others on chelation IV - heres a skeptic

[ Chelation Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!
 
        

Dr Stoll and others on chelation IV - heres a skeptic

Posted by
Towzer [590.2424] on December 28, 2007 at 22:36:01:

This is an article i read on chelation
I have just started treatment - see below

Damn again. This had to be perhaps the most exaggerated, deceptive sales pitch I had ever seen for chelation therapy! Osteoporosis and kidney stones? (Never mind that chelation therapy would be expected, if anything to make osteoporosis worse. Never mind that chelation therapy can actually damage the kidneys, rather than cure stones.) There were claims made in this flyer for chelation therapy that even I had never heard before! (And, having been a regular on misc.health.alternative, I thought I had heard them all.)

Before I go on, perhaps I should explain exactly what chelation therapy is and what its advocates claim it can do. Chelating agents (like EDTA) are ring-shaped molecules that are water-soluble and bind divalent metal ions like calcium, magnesium, manganese, mercury, aluminum, nickel, zinc, and iron, closing around them like a ring, preventing them from exercising their toxic effects and allowing them to be more easily excreted by the kidneys. The calcium salt of EDTA exchanges its calcium ion for ions for which EDTA has more affinity, like lead, and is used for lead poisoning; the sodium salt exchanges its sodium ions for calcium and is used to treat hypercalcemia (from malignancy, for example). Chelation agents are used in conventional medicine to treat heavy metal toxicity and are very effective for that purpose. One particular purpose for which a chelation agent (deferoxamine) is very effective is for the treatment of iron overload from multiple transfusions.

So where does cardiovascular disease come in? The atherosclerotic plaques that result in the narrowing of the lumen of blood vessels, causing low blood flow to the heart when in the coronary vasculature and claudication or limb loss when in the peripheral vasculature of the leg, often have calcium deposits in them. Back in the 1950's some scientists postulated that that "hardened" arteries might be "softened" if the calcium were removed with a chelation agent. Sounds nice, neat, and logical, right?

Neat, logical-sounding--and wrong.

Let's speculate why chelation as a therapy for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease refuses to die. Chelation therapy is probably the form of alternative medicine most commonly pushed by M.D.'s, mainly because, unlike most alternative therapies, chelation therapy has to be given intravenously. The requirement for intravenous delivery means doctors have to administer it. "Healers" or "naturopaths" can't administer it, at least not without an M.D. to supervise. (Some alties claim to have come up with an oral regimen for chelation therapy, but these regimens are so bogus that even other alties have a hard time defending them without sounding ridiculous.) Chelation therapy is also highly profitable. A single infusion generally costs around $100-150, which has to be paid in cash because insurance companies won't pay for it. Most chelation therapy regimens require 20 to 40 treatments, and some end up requiring up to 100 treatments.

It doesn't take very much searching to find glowing testimonials about the joys of chelation therapy for heart disease and peripheral vascular disease. Its touted benefits include eliminating angina without the need for cardiac bypass surgery; reversal of atherosclerosis; healing of diabetic ulcers; improved cellular function (whatever that means); reversal of the aging process; lowring of cholesterol and triglyceride levels in the blood; and the claims listed above in the flyer. The problem is, there is no evidence that supports any of those claims. Remember what I said about cancer testimonials and how they are used to sell alternative cancer "cures." The same sorts of principles apply to chelation therapy, with the exception being that the reason for the glowing testimonials is almost certainly nothing more than the placebo effect, as I'll try to explain below.

First off, let's look at the claims one by one. I'm going to look at the less common claims first. Aches and pains? There is no scientific or clinical trial evidence that chelation relieves aches and pains. Alzheimer's? Ditto (although the chelationists are cleverly appropriating conflicting preclinical research that may--I repeat, may--implicate heavy metal toxicity in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's). Diabetes? No evidence. Osteoporosis? Definitely no evidence. (In fact, if anything, based on mechanism alone, we would expect chelation to leech calcium out of the bone by lowering blood calcium and thus causing parathyroid hormone levels to rise.) Kidney stones? No data. (But there is evidence that EDTA and other chelators can be toxic to the kidneys.) Impaired memory or concentration? No evidence. Extend maximum life span? Definitely no evidence! Agh, enough!

Let's look at the most common use for chelation therapy, atherosclerotic vascular disease leading to heart disease or peripheral vascular disease and start with the basic science first. There have been four mechanisms by which chelation therapy has been said by its advocates to help atherosclerotic vascular disease. First was the "roto-rooter" hypothesis, in which the removal of calcium from the plaques causes the plaques to disintegrate. The problem is that plaque is made up of cells, debris, and fat. Calcium is usually not deposited until relatively late in the process, and it is quite possible to suffer a fatal heart attack from a calcium-free plaque. Chemically, EDTA can't even penetrate the lipid-rich cell membranes and fatty deposits anyway. Even worse, the stoichiometry is impossible, with the maximum possible amount of calcium bound by the usual dose of EDTA being negligible, about 0.02% of total body calcium removed per dose, or 0.3% of by a full course. Not unexpectedly, there has never been a study that shows a decrease in the amount of calcium in atherosclerotic plaques as a result of chelation therapy. By the 1980's, the "roto-rooter" hypothesis had been discredited. But alties are resourceful; they soon came up with another one, which was that lowering calcium in the blood, as chelation undeniably does, caused calcium to be removed from the bone, causing parathyroid hormone to be secreted and promote the remineralization of bone from calcium leeched from the atherosclerotic plaques. The problem is, the physiology doesn't work that way, as is explained here. A third hypothetical mechanism proposed (and still used today) was that EDTA blocks production of free radicals by binding heavy metal ions, particularly iron. Two problems: First, most iron is bound to proteins and unavailable to catalyze the generation of free radicals anyway. Second, in the case of iron at least, EDTA does not decrease its oxidative capability and may actually increase it. The fourth hypothesis is that chelation therapy prevents mutation of cells that become atheromas, the precursors to atherosclerotic lesions. The problem is, the cells that produce atheromas are not mutants, nor does the production of atheromas depend upon mutations in the vascular smooth muscle cells lining arteries. Finally, there is actually a fifth "hypothesis" I have recently heard of is that is winding its way through altieland; that is, that chelation somehow increases the generation of nitric oxide, a natural vasodilator. There is one study that suggests it might improve blood flow by this mechanism. This is the study all the chelationists tout. What the chelationists don't tell you is that it was a small study with only 8 patients and that a more recent, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study failed to show any benefit in terms of increased blood flow.

There have been several clinical studies that are described in detail here, here, here, and here. I'll summarize briefly. There were several studies before 1990, but none of them were randomized and many didn't even have a control group. (Actually, even as far back as the 1963, Kitchell et al, based on a study of 38 patients, concluded that EDTA "was not a useful tool in the treatment of coronary disease.") Another notable series was reported in 1989, when Olszewer and Carter reported a study of 2,870 patients with severe claudication in which 75% reported subjective improvement with chelation. The problem is, there was no control group, nor was there any objective measure of improvement reported. These same two authors followed the study up in 1990 with a randomized study of patients with severe claudication that claimed to show the same sort of results, but only studied 10 patients. In 1992, a group of surgeons in Denmark tried to replicate Olszewer and Carter's results with a larger group of patients and saw no improvement in claudication pain in the chelation group compared to the placebo group. The most recent study was in 2002, a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study that showed no benefit from chelation over placebo.

Despite all these negative studies, the combined weight of which should have been enough to put afinal stake through the heart of chelation as a tratment for atherosclerotic vascular disease and then shine sunlight on it so that it explodes in flame, so great is the clamor for chelation therapy by alties that the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine decided to sponsor yet another clinical trial to test the efficacy of chelation therapy in cardiovascular disease. My guess is that this trial will be negative too, but it will be years before the results are known. Even in the unlikely event that it is not entirely negative, given the previous trials, I consider it unlikely that the NCCAM trial will show a large effect. Finding only a small effect would, in essence, disprove the extraordinary claims of chelationists, because the large effects claimed by chelationists should be mind-numbingly easy to spot in even small clinical trials. My further prediction is that, if the trial is negative, it still won't spell the end of doctors pushing chelation therapy for all the conditions listed in the flier above. (After all, there are still alt-med "healers" pushing laetrile, twenty years after it was shown to have no significant antitumor effect in humans.) The bottom line is that many studies have been done, but not a single well-designed, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study has shown a benefit of chelation therapy in cardiovascular disease, nor has any well-designed study shown objective evidence that chelation decreases atherosclerotic plaque or increases blood flow.

So what's the harm? Chelation therapy is not without risks. Chelationists will claim that millions of treatments have been given safely. However, chelation can cause low blood calcium leading to tetany and cardiac arrhythmias, occasionally fatal, kidney failure, anticoagulation leading to bleeding complications, vasculitis, and autoimmune reactions. Chelation seriously depletes serum zinc, which can lead to compromise of the immune system. There's also another factor to consider, which is that the use of chelation over proven treatments can delay treatment, puttin the patient at risk for more serious complications, such as heart attack or limb loss. The American Heart Association has concluded that there is "no scientific evidence to demonstrate any benefit of this form of therapy."

So what should I do? I googled this doctor and haven't been able to find much about him other than a practice address. Nor could I find out much about this "Wellness Education Foundation" that is sponsoring the talk. (Oddly enough, it doesn't seem to have a website, as far as I can tell.) I thought of calling the number on the flyer and showing up to the talk, but it's the same evening as one of my clinic days. Getting out of clinic in time and making it there would be very difficult indeed. Still, it would have been quite amusing to see the look on Dr. GHL's face when he realized a fellow physician had come to his talk in the room, one who has made himself fairly familiar with the actual scientific literature (as opposed to the altie literature) on chelation. (Heh heh. The thought still tempts me.) No, I think my best bet is to find out who from the company running the nursing/rehab facility I should write to and then write a letter to them explaining my concerns. Boring, but possibly effective, especially if sent by old-fashioned snail mail. At the very least it ought to cause some annoyance.




Re: Dr Stoll and others on chelation IV - heres a skeptic

Posted by PhillyLady [3423.2761] on December 28, 2007 at 23:21:56:

In Reply to: Dr Stoll and others on chelation IV - heres a skeptic posted by Towzer [590.2424] on December 28, 2007 at 22:36:01:

Hi Towser:

Who wrote this article? Where did you read it?



Re: Dr Stoll and others on chelation IV - heres a skeptic Archive in Monopoly!

Posted by Walt Stoll [93.1903] on December 29, 2007 at 08:14:20:

In Reply to: Dr Stoll and others on chelation IV - heres a skeptic posted by Towzer [590.2424] on December 28, 2007 at 22:36:01:

Sorry, Towser.

This the best summary of the allopathic, monopoly's disinformation campaign that I have read in years!

How many chelations have YOU done? I practiced strictly allopathic medicine for 15 years before my mother HAD it ( by another physician) and I watched her blossom. I have done literally hundreds of 30 treatment series for what I had treated allopathically for those 15 years and saw for myself the benefits that were safer, less expensive and more effective than anything I had done before--which involved every allopathic specialist available.

I hope you can learn enough to cut through the blarney and not try to help the current "disease care" monopoly in this country maintain their strangle hold upon our population. You have bought their "crap" hook line and sinker.

Walt

Follow Ups:


Re: Dr Stoll and others on chelation IV - heres a skeptic

Posted by lmd [4332.1399] on December 29, 2007 at 12:22:02:

In Reply to: Dr Stoll and others on chelation IV - heres a skeptic posted by Towzer [590.2424] on December 28, 2007 at 22:36:01:

Well..... I`m glad my body did not read that article. I turned down triple bypass when the tests showed 3 blocked arteries, one 100%. After 20 IV EDTA chelation treatments, the tests were repeated on the same equipment, same tecnicians, etc. (muga/mibi tests) It then showed that only 2 arteries were affected with restricted flow, and neither was completed blocked as had been the case before the chelation was started. This was 15 years ago, so the lesson is that these articles are a wandering mind which is not bases on actual reality. Good luck on finding the truth, because this abstract is far from helpful.



Re: Dr Stoll and others on chelation IV - heres a skeptic

Posted by Jayne [10093.4381] on December 29, 2007 at 14:33:21:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll and others on chelation IV - heres a skeptic posted by lmd [4332.1399] on December 29, 2007 at 12:22:02:

I like Your words, lmd!
I 'turned down' triple bypass!!!!
I had a heart attack and that is what they wanted to do to me.......... I said NO!
Well,,if we can't place a stent, it will HAVE to be a Bypass!! I said you'd better get the stent right!!!

Then I had Chelation from a study group, but don't know or probably never will, IF I got the real stuff!!


:-)



Re: Dr Stoll and others on chelation IV - heres a skeptic

Posted by Walt Stoll [93.1903] on December 30, 2007 at 07:41:55:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll and others on chelation IV - heres a skeptic posted by lmd [4332.1399] on December 29, 2007 at 12:22:02:

Thanks, lmd!

I have had more than 100 chelations and am convinced that is why I have lived so long after starting to have cardiac symptoms. Eventually we all die and so there IS a place for the allopathic end game. Personally, I would like to put off that time as long as possible.

Walt

Follow Ups:


Re: Dr Stoll and others on chelation IV - heres a skeptic

Posted by lmd [4332.1399] on December 30, 2007 at 12:37:18:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll and others on chelation IV - heres a skeptic posted by Jayne [10093.4381] on December 29, 2007 at 14:33:21:

Why don`t you continue with some actual chelation? If you were on the actual protocol, you will help yourself even more. If you were on the dummy list, then the extra chelation will be a great idea. I have had about 200 chelation IV treatments. It`s a life long, life preserving habit with me.

Follow Ups:


Re: Dr Stoll and others on chelation IV - heres a skeptic

Posted by
Towzer [590.2424] on January 01, 2008 at 18:29:51:

In Reply to: Re: Dr Stoll and others on chelation IV - heres a skeptic posted by PhillyLady [3423.2761] on December 28, 2007 at 23:21:56:

Here is the web I saw this on
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/

And that is why I am taking chelation because I really dont believe all the medical theories on chelations ineffectiveness ( but I saw this one and it was a beaut)

I have 29 more treatments to go and I will report back with my results

Follow Ups:


[ Chelation Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!