Elimination of mercury

"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...

You consistently state the same bull**** --that autism couldn't be caused
by more than one thing


Well, which is it? In each case, Mercola says that it is THE cause. Is
he lying? What else does he lie about?

And I have never said that autism can't be caused by more than one
thing. It could be caused by more than one gene, for example. It's
just not caused by one of or any combination of fluoridation,
vaccination or pasteurisation.
--

So, as long as it's not caused by your favourites--fluoride, mercury,
vaccines or heated milk.

Vernon wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote in message
news
john wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
john wrote:
LOL. Get the facts
http://www.crazyperson.to/IDon'tUnderstandScience.html
If by fact you mean the crazy rambling of people who don't understand
science, can't form a cogent argument, and address studies that prove
them wrong.... then yes there are lots of facts there.

Eric

LOL. Dr. Boyd Haley, Professor and Chair, Dept. of Chemistry, University
of Kentucky and one of the world's leading authorities on mercury
toxicity.

I think that the biological case against Thimerosal is so dramatically
overwhelming anymore that only a very foolish or a very dishonest person
with the credentials to understand this research would say that
Thimerosal wasn't most likely the cause of autism.---Interview of Dr.
Boyd E. Haley by Teri Small: http://www.whale.to/v/haley_q.html
It is truly sad when a person of Haley's education and experience tries to
support his theories by claiming that the fact that the one mercury atom
in thimerosal comprising 49% of the molecular weight actually has some
form of meaning.

Further, Haley was recently toss on his tushy by a district court judge
who found that his opinions do not meet the Daubert standard.



While we are considering that level of mercury, we must consider that much
more than that is released every time a single fluorescent bulb is replaced
in a room. Everyone should rush to their office manager and complain.

Yeeegads! I am going to die....we just replaced...counting....64 bulbs.....

john wrote:
"Vernon" there@atthere wrote in message
While we are considering that level of mercury, we must consider that much
more than that is released every time a single fluorescent bulb is
replaced in a room. Everyone should rush to their office manager and
complain.



Lets see the reserach to back that up


BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!

this should be interesting.

Please go to www.usenetloonfighttickets.com and purchase yours.

Max C. wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1280342

Abstract
Thimerosal is a preservative that has been used in manufacturing
vaccines since the 1930s. Reports have indicated that infants can
receive ethylmercury (in the form of thimerosal) at or above the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for methylmercury exposure,
depending on the exact vaccinations, schedule, and size of the infant.
In this study we compared the systemic disposition and brain
distribution of total and inorganic mercury in infant monkeys after
thimerosal exposure with those exposed to MeHg. Monkeys were exposed to
MeHg (via oral gavage) or vaccines containing thimerosal (via
intramuscular injection) at birth and 1, 2, and 3 weeks of age. Total
blood Hg levels were determined 2, 4, and 7 days after each exposure.
Total and inorganic brain Hg levels were assessed 2, 4, 7, or 28 days
after the last exposure. The initial and terminal half-life of Hg in
blood after thimerosal exposure was 2.1 and 8.6 days, respectively,
which are significantly shorter than the elimination half-life of Hg
after MeHg exposure at 21.5 days. Brain concentrations of total Hg were
significantly lower by approximately 3-fold for the thimerosal-exposed
monkeys when compared with the MeHg infants, whereas the average
brain-to-blood concentration ratio was slightly higher for the
thimerosal-exposed monkeys (3.5 ± 0.5 vs. 2.5 ± 0.3). A higher
percentage of the total Hg in the brain was in the form of inorganic Hg
for the thimerosal-exposed monkeys (34% vs. 7%). The results indicate
that MeHg is not a suitable reference for risk assessment from exposure
to thimerosal-derived Hg. Knowledge of the toxicokinetics and
developmental toxicity of thimerosal is needed to afford a meaningful
assessment of the developmental effects of thimerosal-containing vaccines.

It gives me a sense of stability to know that I can go away for a few
months and come back to the same old junk that was being posted when I
left.

Hi Maxie....still clueless after months at the rest home? How sad. Do
get your money back.

It's unclear to me how the pro-vaccine group could use this
information to their advantage. Here's what I see when I read the
above info.

Since you possess a homeopathic intellect, let me explain.

The study demonstrates:

1. The use of MeHg to determine toxicity of EHg is inappropriate.
2. Primates, the order that is above you in evolution, do not store EHg,
but rapidly dispose of it, so that by the time the next monthly
injection is administered, the remaining thimerosal is at homeopathic
levels. In fact, most of it was gone in a flash.

Brain concentrations of total Hg were
significantly lower by approximately 3-fold for the thimerosal-exposed
monkeys when compared with the MeHg infants, whereas the average
brain-to-blood concentration ratio was slightly higher for the
thimerosal-exposed monkeys (3.5 ± 0.5 vs. 2.5 ± 0.3).

OK, so they were lower. How would those infants otherwise be exposed
to MeHg in the real world?

Breathing. Breast milk. etc. Infants are a bit young to want to eat a
salmon.

The point is that this comparison is
ridiculous.

No, silly, it is very valid.

The fact that brain concentrations were lower in the
thimerosal group means nothing.

You would like to have it that way, but, not everyone gets what they like.

They're STILL HIGHER if you compare
them to a group that received no mercury at all. Why in the world
would this stuy compare a thimerosal group with a MeHg group when their
shouldn't be any MeHg groups in the real world?

Because current toxicological standards are based on MeHg, and knowing
what the toxicology of other compounds is important. It is called
knowledge. You can look that up in the dictionary. It is an English word.


Shouldn't the point of
the study be to compare real world scenarios?

Since both EHg and MeHg exist in the real world, that is what was done.

A higher
percentage of the total Hg in the brain was in the form of inorganic Hg
for the thimerosal-exposed monkeys (34% vs. 7%).

hhhmmmm... there's that mercury in the brain again. Funny how that
paragraph mentions the half life of mercury in the blood but neglects
to mention it in the brain.

It is not funny if you stop to think about it for a few minutes. I would
suggest that you call the researchers and ask to borrow some of the
primate brains that were homogenized.

Could that be because the brain has a much
harder time getting rid of the mercury than the blood? Also, shouldn't
the fact that the mercury in the brains of the thimerosal group was
mostly inorganic be a concern? I thought you pro-vaccine guys were
constantly saying that the end Hg product from thimerosal was all
organic.

I do not recall that.

However, you are missing a fundamental idea. Try reading the entire
study at the link I posted. You may even be able to figure it out for
yourself.


The results indicate
that MeHg is not a suitable reference for risk assessment from exposure
to thimerosal-derived Hg. Knowledge of the toxicokinetics and
developmental toxicity of thimerosal is needed to afford a meaningful
assessment of the developmental effects of thimerosal-containing vaccines.

So, basically, this last piece is saying exactly what it *should*
say... this study is meaningless, since more study is needed for "a
meaningful assessment." Leave it to the pro-vaccine side to disagree
with that and try to use it to prove some sort of point.

Incorrect. You did not take that remedial reading comprehension course
at the rest home while you were gone.

You should pick apart your studies a little better before posting them.

I know what the study says and fully understand it.

Sad that you don't.

"john" wrote in message
...

"Vernon" there@atthere wrote in message

While we are considering that level of mercury, we must consider that
much more than that is released every time a single fluorescent bulb is
replaced in a room. Everyone should rush to their office manager and
complain.



Lets see the reserach to back that up


Research?

No "research"
Posted warnings by the manufacturers and practically every health
organization.

Your word "research" would imply that they say "danger or effects"

Which, if you are capable, is also there but in a different context by going
to your local store and reading the warning label on the package.

It isn't expected in an alternative medical group or even a conventional
medical group that people know one of the PRIMARY ingredient in a florescent
bulb.

I made the comment as a "relative" one, knowing the process the
manufacturers use and the glib nature of any cleaning of the surfaces before
shipping.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Vernon wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote in message
news
john wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
john wrote:
LOL. Get the facts
http://www.crazyperson.to/IDon'tUnderstandScience.html
If by fact you mean the crazy rambling of people who don't understand
science, can't form a cogent argument, and address studies that prove
them wrong.... then yes there are lots of facts there.

Eric

LOL. Dr. Boyd Haley, Professor and Chair, Dept. of Chemistry,
University of Kentucky and one of the world's leading authorities on
mercury toxicity.

I think that the biological case against Thimerosal is so dramatically
overwhelming anymore that only a very foolish or a very dishonest
person with the credentials to understand this research would say that
Thimerosal wasn't most likely the cause of autism.---Interview of Dr.
Boyd E. Haley by Teri Small: http://www.whale.to/v/haley_q.html
It is truly sad when a person of Haley's education and experience tries
to support his theories by claiming that the fact that the one mercury
atom in thimerosal comprising 49% of the molecular weight actually has
some form of meaning.

Further, Haley was recently toss on his tushy by a district court judge
who found that his opinions do not meet the Daubert standard.



While we are considering that level of mercury, we must consider that
much more than that is released every time a single fluorescent bulb is
replaced in a room. Everyone should rush to their office manager and
complain.

Yeeegads! I am going to die....we just replaced...counting....64
bulbs.....



Are you sure you aren't dying of some mercury caused disease from the last
time.
I sort of joke, but if humans are as sensitive to mercury as some preach,
this "could" be a problem. The manufacturers don't think so. Of course we
could say the manufacturers don't think.


After opening the subject, it does make me wonder about the "possible",
"proven" effects on the people who work in the factories (most of which are
not in the "controlled" USA.) They are subjected to pretty high level every
day.

Oh, yes, I predict, without a doubt, you are going to die, someday.
Frustration is worse than small quantities of mercury.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Vernon wrote:
"Jason Johnson" wrote in message
...
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Mark Probert
wrote:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1280342


How was this study funded?
Is that the best you can do? Whine about funding. Obviously, you did not
bother to even attempt to read it. You answer is at the link I posted.
Do your own homework. Read the study and try to find fault with
methodology, etc.


Funding is more than 50% of the results.

Nope. In alt med, pricing is 100% of the results.



I try to keep my science / math hat on a little bit.

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


wrote in message
roups.com...

john wrote:
LOL. Get the facts
http://www.crazyperson.to/IDon'tUnderstandScience.html

If by fact you mean the crazy rambling of people who don't understand
science, can't form a cogent argument, and address studies that prove
them wrong.... then yes there are lots of facts there.

Eric


LOL. Dr. Boyd Haley, Professor and Chair, Dept. of Chemistry, University
of
Kentucky and one of the world's leading authorities on mercury toxicity.

That would be the Boyd Haley that told me that ethylmercury could be
considered to be the same chemical as methylmercury. It would also be
the Boyd Haley that told me that the proportion of the molecular
weight of a compound made up by one of the elements had something to
do with transferring the properties of the element to the compound. In
other words, that would be the Boyd Haley who probably knew something
about chemistry once (he did get an academic job in the area) but has
either forgotten it all or is prepared to lie.


This would be lying Peter Bowditch...AGAIN. Plus *deceivingly* changing
his own words.

Dr. Haley wrote:


Ethylmercury is extremely neurotoxic, killing neurons at 10-25 nanomolar
levels. For your information the vaccine is 125,000 nanomolar in thimerosal
and injecting one vaccine (12.5 micrograms) into one 4-6lbs infant would
represent a very toxic exposure. Furhter, unlike many elements (N,O,C, etc.)
Hg has no known usefulness in biological systems, being toxic to them all.
Also, all occurring forms of Hg (methylmercury, ethylmercury, thimerosal
dental amalgams, Hg vapor, Hg2+, etc.) have been reported to be extremely
toxic.

Here is what Peter Said:

A professor of chemistry deliberately talks about two different chemical
compounds (ethylmercury and methylmercury) as if they are interchangeable
and have identical properties.

That is a LIE.

Dr Haley said NO such thing.

He said:

(methylmercury, ethylmercury, thimerosal dental amalgams, Hg vapor, Hg2+,
etc.) have been reported to be extremely toxic.

He is absolutely correct.

Ethylmercury has also been shown, like methylmercury, to accumulate in the
brain and causes tissue damage methylmercury, to accumulate in the brain and
causes tissue damage

Like methylmercury, ethylmercury is toxic to the brain and crosses the
blood-brain barrier. (9) "Higher-dose exposure to ethylmercury from
Thimerosal results in toxicity comparable to that observed after high-dose

And let's not forget that that would be the Boyd Haley who called
autism "mad child disease".

Let's not forget this repeated lie.

The subject of Professor Boyd Haley's disgraceful use of the term "Mad Child
Disease" to refer to autism has come up again, because fans of the man have
claimed that he has apologised when all he has done is to say that he didn't
invent the expression.

You never did show proof of these *fans* !





I think that the biological case against Thimerosal is so dramatically
overwhelming anymore that only a very foolish or a very dishonest person
with the credentials to understand this research would say that Thimerosal
wasn't most likely the cause of autism.---Interview of Dr. Boyd E. Haley
by
Teri Small: http://www.whale.to/v/haley_q.html


Joe Mercola disagrees with him.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium LIES

Three dead Children


http://tinyurl.com/9hkaj


http://tinyurl.com/bgqou

===

SPAM SPAM SPAM

As proven............................................ ..........

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
news
john wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
john wrote:
LOL. Get the facts
http://www.crazyperson.to/IDon'tUnderstandScience.html
If by fact you mean the crazy rambling of people who don't understand
science, can't form a cogent argument, and address studies that prove
them wrong.... then yes there are lots of facts there.

Eric


LOL. Dr. Boyd Haley, Professor and Chair, Dept. of Chemistry, University
of Kentucky and one of the world's leading authorities on mercury
toxicity.

I think that the biological case against Thimerosal is so dramatically
overwhelming anymore that only a very foolish or a very dishonest person
with the credentials to understand this research would say that
Thimerosal wasn't most likely the cause of autism.---Interview of Dr.
Boyd E. Haley by Teri Small: http://www.whale.to/v/haley_q.html

It is truly sad when a person of Haley's education and experience tries to
support his theories by claiming that the fact that the one mercury atom
in thimerosal comprising 49% of the molecular weight actually has some
form of meaning.

Further, Haley was recently toss on his tushy by a district court judge
who found that his opinions do not meet the Daubert standard.

Poor Mark S. Probert. Tossed......................DISBARRED............

In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a
Suspended Attorney, Respondent.
Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.

92-02731

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT

183 A.D.2d 282; 590 N.Y.S.2d 747

November 9, 1992, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: [***1]

Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Grievance Committee for the
Tenth Judicial District. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on
February 15, 1978, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court in the Second Judicial Department, under the name Mark S.
Probert.

DISPOSITION: Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline
upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is
granted; and it is further,

HEADNOTES: Attorney and Client - Disciplinary Proceedings

Respondent attorney, who is charged with 22 counts of failing to
cooperate with investigations of alleged misconduct by the Grievance
Committee, and who has failed to answer or appear, is disbarred.

COUNSEL:

Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Westbury (Muriel L. Gennosa of counsel), for
petitioner.

JUDGES: Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ.,
concur.

Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the
respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and
it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately,
the respondent, Mark Probert, is disbarred and his name is stricken
from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent shall continue to comply with this Court's
rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned
attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary [***2] Law § 90, the respondent,
Mark Probert, is commanded to continue to desist and refrain (1) from
practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or
employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or
counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission
or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to
the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4)
from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and
counselor-at-law.

OPINIONBY: Per Curiam.

OPINION: [*282]

[**747] By decision and order of this Court dated September 29,
1989, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law until the
further order of this Court based upon his failure to cooperate with
the Grievance Committee. By further order of this Court dated June 4,
1992, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and
prosecute a disciplinary proceeding [*283] against the respondent
and the Honorable Moses M. Weinstein was appointed as Special Referee.

[**748] A notice of petition and petition was personally served upon
the respondent on July 2, 1992. No answer was forthcoming. The
petitioner now moves to hold the [***3] respondent in default. The
motion was personally served upon the respondent on August 14, 1992.
The respondent has failed to submit any papers in response to the
default motion.

The charges involve 22 counts of the respondent's failure to cooperate
with the Grievance Committee in its investigations into complaints of
professional misconduct.

The charges, if established, would require the imposition of a
disciplinary sanction against the respondent. Since the respondent has
chosen not to appear or answer in these proceedings, the charges must
be deemed established. The petitioner's motion to hold the respondent
in default and impose discipline is, therefore, granted. Accordingly,
the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of
attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately

Source:

NY UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, ATTORNEY REGIST. UNIT

Currency Status:

ARCHIVE RECORD

NAME & PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION

Name:

MARK PROBERT

Date Of Birth:

11/XX/1946

Gender:

MALE

Address:

1698 WEBSTER AVE

MERRICK, NY 11566

County:

NASSAU

Phone:

516-968-5572

EMPLOYER INFORMATION

Employer:

MARK S PROBERT ESQ

Organization:

PERSON

LICENSING INFORMATION

Licensing Agency:

NY STATE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION

License/Certification Type:

ATTORNEY

License Number:

1253889

Issue Date:

00/00/1978

License Status:

DISBARRED

License State:

NY

"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
Mark Probert wrote:
Since the mercury has been eliminated by natural means, just what are
those CHEATlators chelating?

Calcium mostly. It's killed a few people through hypocalcenemia...

Bryan

Lies. Lies. and more Lies.

[these links may not work. I am not taking the time to see].

Nevertheless they are true.

http://www.integrative-med.com*/TOPI..._Th*erapy.html


http://www.integrative-med.com*/TOPI..._Th*erapy.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/ca*rter.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.chelationtherapyonl*ine.c...182.htm#quac*k

Here is the photo of the man behind the web
sitehttp://www.quackwatch.com/inde*x.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/artic*le_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/or*al-ch...chelati*on.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.

http://www.lef.org/newsarchive*/vita...-*0983-KEYWORD.
missing. html

Back to mercury. For those who care NOT about the environment
nor the future generation.


http://www.maineenvironment.org/merc_red_act.htm

http://www.mercurypolicy.org


http://www.mercurypolicy.org/exposur..._state_leg.pdf