Cheatlation. Yes, that is how it should be spelled

LadyLollipop wrote:
"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...

From this week's update to The Millenium Project


snip spam + proven lying websites


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

HCN wrote:
"PeterB" wrote in message
ups.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.

See he
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...&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.

Jeff wrote:
"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...

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?

"Jeff" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
.. .
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


Perhaps you missed my point.
--
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

Peter Bowditch wrote in
:

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.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Jeff wrote:
"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...

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

Jeff wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...

Jeff wrote:

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...

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.

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.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Jeff wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...

Jeff wrote:

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
m...

From this week's update to The Millenium Project

snip

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/storypage...-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.

LadyLollipop wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...

Jeff wrote:

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...


Jeff wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
om...

From this week's update to The Millenium Project


snip

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/storypage...-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 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.

"LadyLollipop" wrote in message
news:0WKQe.289606$x96.209865@attbi_s72...

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Jeff wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...

Jeff wrote:

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
om...

From this week's update to The Millenium Project

snip

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.


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/