Re: Cardiovascular, Coronary Heart Disease
- From: "LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 22:51:55 GMT
"Mark Probert" <markprobert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:sF75f.14491$vV4.886@xxxxxxxxxxx
> healthgreedpower@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Cardiovascular, Coronary Heart Disease
>> And You
>> Who is Watching Out for Your Health?
>>
>> [64 million people have some form of cardiovascular or coronary heart
>> disease.]
>>
>> Nearly one million die each year from some form of cardiovascular
>> disease. Seven hundred thousand people will experience their first
>> heart attack this year, 45% of those will die and most of those that do
>> not die will experience and live a diminished quality of life. After
>> 40 years of age, you have about a 50% lifetime chance of developing
>> some form of coronary disease. If you would like to avoid being a part
>> of these frightening statistics, read on.
>> [Can the incidence of heart disease and the deaths from cardiovascular
>> disease be reduced by at least 50%, through the use of alternative
>> health practices?]
>> Conventional health care chooses to treat cardiovascular diseases with
>> surgery and drugs. About 575,000 Bypass surgeries will be performed
>> this year at a cost of $40,000 plus each, one half million
>> Angioplasties this year at $20,000 plus each and 1.5 million Angiogram
>> diagnostic procedures at $10,000 plus each. Nearly 30 million
>> prescriptions will be written for Statin (cholesterol lowering) type
>> drugs this year at a cost of $150.00 and more, per month. Many
>> individuals will use their prescribed medications/chemicals daily for
>> the rest of their life. The nations cardiovascular disease treatment
>> industry is thriving and healthy. Its clients are not doing nearly as
>> well. Adding alternative therapies to existing treatment modalities is
>> logical; however, alternatives to accepted treatments for
>> cardiovascular diseases are actively discouraged and it is easy to see
>> why. If your income for services rendered and goods sold was in the
>> neighborhood of $50 plus billion per year, you may tend to be
>> protective of it.
>> If you don't want to be a part of this frightening and large
>> statistical grouping, you should consider learning about alternatives,
>> because they work. I am suggesting that you learn of alternatives to
>> conventional, promoted medical practices. A good place to start, is to
>> learn of EDTA and Policosanol good and proven alternatives, find out
>> more about them and how they work. (Many more alternatives are
>> available, learn of them.)
>
> Could you post a few references showing that CHEATlation for CAD actually
> opens the narrowed coronary lumina. Please ensure that appropriate before
> and after testing showing a significant change in the coronary lumina is
> included. This would require that there be coronary angiography or
> appropriate imaging.
Ummm, YOU do NOT tell others WHAT a few references would require!!!!!
Repost:
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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Also find out if taking Statin drugs can
>> lead to an increased risk of suffering from other diseases.
>> [An FDA administrator stated the following: "We can't put these
>> chelation doctors out of business without your help." EDTA is a
>> Chelator. This administrator included this as a part of a speech
>> delivered to the American Medical Association House of Delegates]
>> Conventional treatments for cardiovascular disease are aggressively
>> promoted through advertising, media programming, by our government and
>> by health care professionals. Conventional medical care will not tell
>> you of alternatives to it. To find out more about alternatives read
>> the following: "Health, Greed, Power," found at Lulu.com, and
>> "Lipitor: Thief of Memory, Statin Drugs and the Misguided war on
>> cholesterol" and "Racketeering in Medicine" found at Amazon or
>> your favorite bookstore. Your health is your responsibility. Are you
>> watching out for it? bbrown
>>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cardiovascular, Coronary Heart Disease
- From: Mark Probert
- Re: Cardiovascular, Coronary Heart Disease
- From: bbrown
- Re: Cardiovascular, Coronary Heart Disease
- Prev by Date: Poor Richard H Jacobson
- Next by Date: Obesity surgery deadlier than thought: study
- Previous by thread: Re: Cardiovascular, Coronary Heart Disease
- Next by thread: Re: Cardiovascular, Coronary Heart Disease
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
