Orac is the nom de blog of a (not so) humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued 
After the last couple of weeks of Your Friday Dose of Woo, I was in a bind. You see, people were telling me that they really enjoyed the last couple of weeks, particularly last week. For some reason, they were amused by my discussion of various liver cleansing regimens, hot on the heals of having discussed colon cleansing regimens. (Must be the bathroom humor; it gets 'em every time.) Some of you were surprised at the real obsession that alties have with "purifying" their insides from various "poisons" or "toxins." As I discussed, some of these folks seem to believe that their insides are vile, disgusting places, teeming with all manner of sewage, filth, and toxins that must be cleansed. That just isn't true (unless, maybe of course, you're Keith Richards, in which case it's nothing that a little dialysis and plasma exchange wouldn't cure). Heck, even Richards doesn't seem to need any help--as long as he doesn't climb coconut trees, that is). Yes, occasionally, a colon perforation or necrotic bowel will indeed fill your insides with truly disgusting things ("big brown on the loose," as we surgeons call it), but when that happens the patient becomes incredibly sick and in danger of imminent death.
So, having covered how to cleanse one's intestines and liver, what's left? Is it enough just to root out all the "rotting" material in your intestines and colon, plus flush out all those liver and gallstones that you supposedly have?
I think you know the answer to that one. Think about it. Your colon's clean as a whistle; your liver's completely flushed out. What's left?
There's still your blood. Or hadn't you noticed? It's in dire need of a cleansing.
Yes, I thought I'd continue the whole "purging" and "cleansing" theme for at least one more Friday Woo. But what, pray tell, does your blood need to be "cleansed" of? Well, if you've been reading this blog for very long, you know exactly what horrific substances need to be removed, pronto, if you don't want to suffer from heart disease, autism, Alzheimer's disease, and a wide variety of other unrelated diseases. Can you guess?
Of course you can; it's heavy metals, of course, particularly mercury. (No, not that kind of heavy metal.)
Yes, indeedy, it's chelation time!
Now, before we look at chelation therapy, the responsible doc in me demands that I point out that heavy metal poisoning is indeed a known clinical entity. It is indeed possible to have toxic levels of lead, mercury, iron, or other metals in your blood if you've been exposed to high enough amounts of them. When that happens, chelation therapy is indeed the correct treatment in order to get rid of those metals. The problem is, real metal poisoning is almost never what we're talking about when the woos go blood purifying, as evidenced by the contents of a flier that somehow got mailed to my office many months ago:
Chelation Therapy: The Secret for a Healthier, More Energized Life!
GHL, MD - Guest Speaker
XXX Nursing/Rehab Center
Chelation therapy may be the most successful method to extend maximum life span. It is a safe, effective therapy utilizing EDTA (natural preservative), which is administered intravenously in a doctor's office. Often, angina pain goes away, an increase in energy is experienced, along with clarity of thought, and a reduction in pain.To register for this free community program, call the XXX Education Foundation at (XXX) XXX-XXXX Limited to the first 35 callers.Chelation therapy has helped with:
Aches and pains
Hardened or blocked arteries
Alzheimer's
Elevated blood cholesterol
Leg cramp pain (claudication)
Diabetes
Angina pain
Osteoporosis
Poor circulation
Cold extremities
Elevated blood pressure
Skin ulcers
Kidney stones
Impaired memory or concentration
Egads! Is there nothing chelation therapy isn't good for? Osteoporosis and even kidney stones? (Never mind that chelation therapy would be expected, if anything to make osteoporosis worse. Never mind that chelation therapy can actually damage the kidneys, rather than cure stones.)
So, what is this wondrous thing called chelation therapy? Chelating agents (like EDTA) are ring-shaped, water-soluble molecules that can bind a variety of metal ions like calcium, magnesium, manganese, mercury, aluminum, nickel, zinc, and iron. Their structure allows them to form a structure around these positively-charged ions like a ring or a sphere, preventing them from exercising their toxic effects and allowing them to be more easily excreted by the kidneys. The calcium salt of EDTA, for example, exchanges its calcium ion for ions for which EDTA has more affinity, like lead, and is used for lead poisoning; the sodium salt exchanges its sodium ions for calcium and is used to treat elevated calcium levels (which can be a complication of and advanced malignancy, for example). One particular purpose for which a chelation agent (deferoxamine) is very effective is for the treatment of iron overload from multiple transfusions.
Since there was a story on NPR just yesterday about a study on the effectiveness of chelation therapy in cardiovascular disease and because cardiovascular disease is where chelation woo first got its start, before spreading and metastasizing to the treatment of practically every disease known, I thought it would be good to start there first. The vast majority of cardiovascular disease results from atherosclerotic plaques that result in the narrowing of the lumen of blood vessels, causing low blood flow to the heart when in the coronary vasculature and claudication or limb loss when in the peripheral vasculature of the leg. These deposits, after they've been around a while, often develop calcium deposits in them. Indeed, some atherosclerotic blood vessels can feel hard as a rock because of all the calcium. Back in the 1950's some scientists postulated that that "hardened" arteries might be "softened" if the calcium were removed with a chelation agent. Sounds nice, neat, and logical, right?
Too bad it's just plain wrong.
Over the years, there have been at least four mechanisms postulated to explain the supposed "efficacy" of chelation therapy. The very earliest one was the "roto-rooter" hypothesis, in which the removal of calcium from the plaques is said to cause the plaques to disintegrate. The problem is that plaque is made up of way more than just calcium. There are cells, debris, lipids, and a variety of other nastiness in there. Calcium is usually not deposited until fairly late in the process, and it is quite possible to suffer a fatal heart attack or a stroke from a calcium-free plaque. Worse, EDTA and most chelators can't even penetrate the lipid-rich cell membranes and fatty deposits anyway, and the stoichiometry is impossible, with the maximum possible amount of calcium bound by the usual dose of EDTA being negligible, about 0.02% of total body calcium removed per dose, or 0.3% of by a full course. Big surprise, there has never been a study that shows a decrease in the amount of calcium in atherosclerotic plaques as a result of chelation therapy, nor has there ever been a study that has documented an objectively-measurable regression of atherosclerotic plaques. Consequently, even die-hard chelationists rarely mention this concept anymore.
But alties are resourceful; they soon came up with another idea, which was that lowering calcium in the blood, as chelation undeniably does, caused calcium to be removed from the bone, causing parathyroid hormone to be secreted and promote the remineralization of bone from calcium leeched from the atherosclerotic plaques. The problem is, the physiology doesn't work that way, as is explained here. A third hypothetical mechanism proposed (and still used today) was that EDTA blocks production of free radicals by binding heavy metal ions, particularly iron. (Woos love to invoke free radicals as one purpose causes of disease almost as much as they love to invoke heavy metals.) Unfortunately, most iron is bound to proteins and unavailable to catalyze the generation of free radicals anyway. In the case of iron at least, EDTA does not decrease its oxidative capability and may actually increase it. The final hypothesis" I have recently heard of is that is winding its way through altieland; that is, that chelation somehow increases the generation of nitric oxide, a natural vasodilator. There is one study that suggests it might improve blood flow by this mechanism. This is the study all the chelationists tout. What the chelationists won't tell you is that it was a small study with only 8 patients and that a more recent, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study failed to show any benefit in terms of increased blood flow.
There have been several clinical studies that are described in detail here, here, here, and here. To this day, no properly randomized, double-blind study has ever shown any benefit from chelation therapy for symptoms of cardiac disease or peripheral vascular disease. For nearly any "conventional" medical therapy, the combined weight of the presently existing studies would have almost certainly been enough to put a final stake through its heart and then shine sunlight on it so that it explodes in flame. Not so for chelation therapy. So great is the clamor for chelation therapy by alties that the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine decided to sponsor yet another clinical trial to test the efficacy of chelation therapy in cardiovascular disease. As Dr. R. W. recounts, the study is not particularly well-designed. For one thing, only 12 of the 110 study sites are in academic medical centers with the infrastructure, expertise, and experience necessary to carry out such a large trial. Many of the nonacademic sites have names like Integrated Healing Arts, Hyperbaric Medicine, Inc., M.T.O. Holistic Center, and the Magaziner Center for Wellness. Dr. R. W. promises to profile some of these centers in a little piece he plans on calling a Magical Mystery Tour of NCCAM Chelation Study Sites, but let me just mention one: The Chelation Centers of Texas. CCT offers chelation therapy for a variety of illnesses; IV hydrogen peroxide therapy for asthma, emphysema, and other diseases; and touts N-acetyl-cysteine as "reducing cancer by 90%. (That ought to tell you all you need to know about CCT.) Worse, as Dr. R.W. reports, the double-blinding of the study may not be adequate, allowing investigators to be able to figure out fairly easily who's getting EDTA and who's getting placebo, possibly without even trying to, thus potentially introducing observer bias into the study.
Even so, my guess is still that the NCCAM trial will be negative too. Even in the unlikely event that it is not entirely negative, given the previous trials, I consider it unlikely that the this trial will show a large effect. Indeed, the NPR story seems to suggest that the results so far are disappointing (in other words, consistent with previous studies. Finding only a small effect would, in essence, disprove the extraordinary claims of chelationists, because the large effects claimed by chelationists should be mind-numbingly easy to spot in even small clinical trials. ) My further guess is that it won't matter even if it is a negative trial that finds no effect due to chelation beyond that of a placebo. The NPR story confirms my suspicion in this. For example, check out the attitude of this particular "alternative medicine" practitioner:
Dr. Allan Magaziner, a former president of ACAM, is less certain. He's treating patients in the NIH study at his clinic in New Jersey. But he says he'll be skeptical if the results are negative."Sometimes statistics can be manipulated in certain ways in certain studies," he says. "So we'd have to make sure that wasn't the case here."
Magaziner says it's possible that a negative result might change the way he uses chelation. But he adds, "I don't know if I'd stop completely because we're seeing great results with it."
Big surprise, eh? If the study is negative, chelationists won't stop using chelation therapy to "treat" cardiovascular disease, and--oh, by the way--the statistics must have been cooked by big pharma to prevent the valiant chelationists from bringing their brand of woo to the clamoring masses--all for around $200 a treatment. (And, of course, most patients "require" around 30-40 treatments.) One also has to wonder what Dr. Magaziner considers "statistical manipulation" and what he might be doing to "make sure this concern isn't the case."
Of course, if you peruse altie websites, you will find chelation therapy touted for far more than just vascular disease, with mercury and other heavy metals blamed for autism, Alzheimer's disease, cancer, heart disease, and a list of diseases so numerous that it is easier to list major diseases that alties haven't blamed on mercury or other heavy metals.
So, where does all this mercury and metal come from? Well, if you answered "the environment," "fish," or (more specifically) "tuna," you would be giving a fairly reasonable, evidence-based answer. (The government doesn't recommend that pregnant women abstain from tuna and large fish for nothing.) It's not woo to be concerned about environmental pollution finding its way into our food supply and to look for health effects from pollution. However, an evidence-based answer would also point out that for the vast majority of people living in this country, mercury "poisoning" is not a problem. And the chelators and anti-amalgam activists take it way beyond "reasonable" concerns into a realm of fear that is difficult for most reality-based people to comprehend and into the realm of woo.
In woo world, the two most dire threats to your health as far as "poisoning" you with mercury are vaccines (of course!) and dental amalgams. I've blogged extensively about how the evidence does not indicate that vaccines cause autism or many of the other disases blamed on them; so I won't rehash all that, other than pointing out that the scientific evidence suggesting that vaccines don't cause autism is becoming so strong that, as Kevin Leitch has pointed out, even the die-hard mercury militia is starting to move on to other causes to blame autism on, while others are descending into Hutton Gibson-worthy conspiracy-mongering.
Sadly, the whole topic of amalgam mania could easily make up an entire Friday Woo all by itself. (Heck, it could provide material for an entire series of Friday Woos until you, dear reader, became sick to death of the topic.) So, I'll give you the ultra-brief version. The concept is that the mercury in your dental fillings is leeching into your body and slowly poisoning you. Naturally, the evil American Dental Association (and presumably the manufacturers of amalgams) are in a vast conspiracy to keep using amalgams for reasons that are clear only to woos. Of course, in actuality, it is the anti-amalgam dentists who are benefiting the most financially from this scare:
Anti-amalgam dentists typically use a mercury vapor analyzer to convince patients that "detoxification," is needed. To use the device, the dentist asks the patient to chew vigorously for ten minutes, which may generate tiny amounts of mercury from the fillings. Although this exposure lasts for just a few seconds and most of the mercury will be exhaled rather than absorbed by the body, the machines give a falsely high readout, which the anti-amalgamists interpret as dangerous.The most commonly used analyzer is the Jerome mercury detector, an industrial device which multiplies the amount of mercury it detects in a small sample of air by a factor of 8,000. This gives a reading for a cubic meter, a volume far larger than the human mouth. The proper way to determine mercury exposure is to measure urine levels, which indicate how much the body has absorbed and then excreted. Scientific testing has shown that the amount of mercury absorbed from fillings is too small to be significant.
Some antiamalgamists administer a "patch test" with a dilute solution of mercuric chloride. Redness of the skin or any of a large number of other symptoms are then misinterpreted as signs of "mercury poisoning," and the patient is advised to have all amalgam fillings removed.
Never mind that there is no evidence that the minuscule amount of mercury released from amalgams causes any harm and that two large recent studies have shown that amalgams are safe in children. They must be poisoning you. You have...Toxic Teeth! (Roll scary music.) And don't forget, amalgams are "medical genocide"! And never mind that the removal of these amalgams involves invasive dental procedures that can on occasion lead to tooth loss. Whatever the cost, those nasty amalgams must go!
But enough heavy metal. (Sorry Mr. Nugent.) It's not just metals that are poisoning you. Oh, no, it's much worse than that:
Toxicity can be caused by chemical irritants, those that are ingested, inhaled, or absorbed through the skin; it can also become elevated by die off of the tumor and/or other morbid cells. The primary symptoms of toxicity are itchiness and irritability. We might say that toxicity is red. When the normal eliminatory organs are overburdened by toxicity, the skin becomes a major organ of elimination. It will then tend to exhibit patches of red and sometimes "appearances" that may be either flat or elevated. These may also blister, ulcerate, and exude various substances.
Of course, conveniently the exact identities of these "toxins" is rarely, if ever, specified. It doesn't matter anyway. The cure is the same:
There are stages of toxicity. When the heat is repressed, people are usually gray. They feel the blahs and their skins are dull or decidedly ashen (as happens to many who have chemotherapy.) Not everyone goes from gray to red and a few people start with the red and never experience the gray. Interestingly, the treatment is essentially the same for both types. They need detoxifying herbal bitters. The difference is that those with redness need to be more careful of foods that aggravate what is called in Ayurveda the pitta dosha. As many people know, both Ayurveda and traditional Oriental systems of medicine use a system of three main pulses. In Ayurvedic and Tibetan medicine, these translate to wind, bile, and phlegm. Bile is a "derangement" of the fire energy. It is not healthy. It means that the body is not properly pH balanced and that it favors acidity that in turn will lead to tissue breakdown.
And, of course, there are many herbal "detoxifying" blood cleansers to help you with this "purification" (although exactly how these concoctions "cleanse the blood" is usually unexplained or left quite vague).
Once again, I remain mystified by this altie obsession with the "filth" in their bodies and with "cleansing," "purging," and "purifying." Some of these guys seem more obsessed with their "purity of essence" than General Jack T. Ripper. It goes way beyond a reasonable concern about one's diet and environment and how they can affect one's health. To combat these "toxins" in their blood and liver, to purge the "sewage" from their bowels, they'll flush out their colons, try to flush their livers by fasting and drinking combinations of fruit juice and olive oil, and flush out their blood with chelation therapy and herbs, even at the risk of death. It's more religious than rational.
Why?
And, I have to ask, once you've cleansed your colon, your liver, and your blood, what organ system is there left to purge?
I would say the brain, but for all too many of the the "toxin"-obsessed, it's too late. It's already been purged.
[Note added in proof: Dr. R.W. has discussed the first of the NCCAM chelation study centers in his series, Tequesta Family Practice, which promotes "heavy metal analysis for chronic fatigue, intravenous infusion of vitamins and minerals for chronic fatigue, evaluation and treatment of "dysbiosis", evaluation of colonic 'ecology' by various culturing techniques, intravenous colchicine infusion for spinal disk herniation and, of course, chelation therapy." I also note that it promotes "liver detoxification," as well.]
Comments
These people all clearly have too much blood. I prescribe a course of leeches. ;)
Posted by: Dunc | August 4, 2006 9:20 AM
"And, I have to ask, once you've cleansed your colon, your liver, and your blood, what organ system is there left to purge?"
Well, there is always the lymph system. :) Any cleansers for that yet, or is it an unexploited niche?
Posted by: MJ Memphis | August 4, 2006 9:24 AM
Check out this video of another bizarre "blood cleanser" posted recently by one of the many marketers who pop on to cancer support boards
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2095786730805958061&q=bob+beck
Posted by: anjou | August 4, 2006 9:35 AM
Great blog! I look in several times a week. But to really achieve maximum health, you need to balance the humors. And IIRC, in chelation the metal ions form part of the ring structure, rather than surrounding the ion. Also aluminum ion and ferric ion (the iron ion in blood) are not divalent. Cheers!
Posted by: Bob C | August 4, 2006 9:38 AM
Noted and corrected, although most chelators that I've checked out bind such that the ion is usually at the center of the ring or sphere-like structure.
Posted by: Orac | August 4, 2006 9:52 AM
"In the past we would have believed that this condition had been caused by demonic possesion. Now we know that it is the result of a large toad or gnome that has taken up residence in the stomach." - Steve Martin as Yorick, Medieval Barber of Canterbury.
Posted by: CaptainMike | August 4, 2006 9:59 AM
Great work Orac,
Interesting that the Chelation Center of Texas uses IV hydrogen peroxide therapy. As I recall there have been a few deaths as a result of this practice but I've often marveled over the altie obsession with free radicals even as they introduce more of the same.
http://www.nationalmssociety.org/Clinup-Hydrogenperoxide.asp
Posted by: clone3g | August 4, 2006 10:53 AM
A chelating molecule is defined by having (at least) two sites that can bind simultaneously to one "ligand" (e.g., metal ion). Therefore, a bound ligand always makes a ring with the chelator. Some chelators are already in organized rings that accomodate a ligand.
The idea is that it costs energy to constrain a chelator into a ring; but, if you build the ring into the chelator you can get stronger bonding since you have already paid the price of making the ring.
Bob C, you are right; but, the term "ferric" has gone out of fashion, today we say "iron(III)." The explicit statement of the oxidation state is much more convenient than trying to associate suffixes ("ous" "ic") with said states. My compliments that you can remember a term that went out with my slide-rule.
There is a good review of "chelation therapy" by Saul Green and Wallace Sampson in "The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine" 6:1 Winter 2002 pp. 17-22.
By the way, some time ago I saw a TV show on cooking and the cook ascribed beneficial properties to foods. One herb was said to "purify the blood." I was annoyed, and looked up what that meant. In the olden days, folk remedies for syphillis were said to "purify the blood."
Posted by: Joe | August 4, 2006 11:11 AM
When I was a kid, I had a GP who I really liked and sadly he moved away. The practice was taken over by a doc who I didn't have a problem with at first, but as years went on I started seeing rather unusual posters in the exam room. The one that stuck in my mind most was a poster that described the "roto-rooter" version of chelation. I figured at that time (early 1970's, IIRC) he was turning quack, and sure enough I see him on TV now and then peddling various quack treatments. Yup, Dr. Garry Gordon used to be my GP when I was a kid. I wonder what causes a person who went through medical school so you would think intelligent would get on board with this nonsense.
Posted by: mndean | August 4, 2006 11:36 AM
As usual, a thorough and informative Oracian post. When this stuff isn't just annoying, amusing, or depressing, it's actually pretty interesting.
Posted by: Sid Schwab | August 4, 2006 12:27 PM
Hi Orac,
Fascinating post.
Once again, I remain mystified by this altie obsession with the "filth" in their bodies and with "cleansing," "purging," and "purifying."
With blood, perhaps vampires are influencing this movement.
If brain cleansing is next, I'm sure the zombies won't complain.
Can't explain the colon though.
Posted by: Do'C | August 4, 2006 12:57 PM
Am I right in recollecting that chelation (by EDTA and most of the other methods) is a fairly harsh treatment, that needs to be used with caution and monitored for adverse effects? If so, it's highly ironic that the same people who do their darndest to scare people away from cancer chemotherapy promote repeated chelation.
Posted by: Vasha | August 4, 2006 1:13 PM
Yeah Vasha. Chelates, like the hexadentate EDTA, bind a wide variety of metal ions and not just the ion(s) causing the problem. In the case of EDTA, binding affinity increases for the following ions: CaII, MgII, MnII, CdII, ZnII, FeII, CoII, PbII, NiII, CuII, HgII, FeIII. An EDTA with a ion of lesser affinity in this series will exchange for one that is greater.
Posted by: Dave S. | August 4, 2006 3:11 PM
I hadn't realized my cells were making minute amounts of hydrogen peroxide to kill bacteria and viruses in my body. Did I miss that lecture in physiology?
We use peroxide to clean patients up after vascular surgery (they tend to get a little bloody) After seeing it power through dried crusted on blood leaving behind nice clean skin I would never let anybody give it to me IV.
Posted by: Michele | August 4, 2006 3:41 PM
Orac, thank you you clairfying this in a manner that a non-expert can understand. I have a friend who is going on and on about "killer mercury fillings", I'll send him this to read.
But, Dunc might be right.
Leeches!
Pop a few in your mouth until they disolve, (rip-off from Blackadder).
Posted by: Rocky | August 4, 2006 4:09 PM
Doesn't the human body already have endogenous "cleaning" enzymes to remove "filth" anyways? MAO comes to mind for simple amines, which are obviously different from heavy metals, but do alties not consider the possibility that at some point during the ~600 million years of animal life on this planet, animals might just possibly have evolved systems for removing toxins?
But that would obviate the need to buy snake oil, I guess.
Posted by: Hyperion | August 4, 2006 4:10 PM
Is there nothing chelation therapy isn't good for?
Interestingly, this time they are not claiming it'll cure cancer. Is cancer falling off the list of things that basically healthy but worried people obsess about?
Posted by: Dianne | August 4, 2006 4:43 PM
Oh, trust me, chelationists use chelation therapy for cancer as well.
Posted by: Orac | August 4, 2006 5:55 PM
There is no evidence that thimerosal does not cause autism. Thimerosal was never tested for safety. The children who have been cured of autism via chelation are all proof that thimerosal caused the autism epidemic.
Next time, get your facts straight about chelation. It was invented by the Navy in the 1940's and used to treat a liver condition.
I can't help but notice that you don't mention DMSA or ALA in talking about chelation. WE know of the problems with EDTA. Since no problems have ever been encountered in chelating with DMSA and ALA, I suppose you think by not mentioning them that unenlightened readers will buy your condemnation of a therapy proven to cure autism. Do you remember telling me that chelation was the proper treatment for mercury poisoning? Now all we need is for you to admit that all of this autism is just a misdiagnosis for mercury poisoning.
Can you show me some 75 year old autistics to disprove the fact that autism was invented by Eli Lilly in 1931?
Posted by: John Best | August 4, 2006 6:56 PM
I heard the NPR segment while driving to work. I was amazed at Magaziner's comment (quoted in your post). Another thing that struck me is that these patients are getting usual medical care. The chelation is not instead of standard tx. Wonder who is making sure that the pt's at these altie centers get appropriate standard medical care for CAD? Sub-group analysis based on study site might be interesting.
And...
wonder if I am reducing cancer by 90% in my patients when I premedicate them with Mucomyst prior to their caths?
Posted by: CardioNP | August 4, 2006 9:17 PM
Great piece, Doc. Say, did you ever see The Road to Wellville? All this talk of colon cleansing and toxins and such reminded me of that film. Wellville is a flawed movie, but Anthony Hopkins is effin' brilliant as Dr. John Harvey Kellogg. (The book is vastly superior, natch.)
Posted by: Teh L0raX | August 4, 2006 10:45 PM
John best said: Next time, get your facts straight about chelation. It was invented by the Navy in the 1940's and used to treat a liver condition.
Get your facts straight? You first my friend.
btw, ever hear of British Anti-Lewisite?
http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/bal/development.html
Posted by: clone3g | August 4, 2006 11:06 PM
Well, one organ that does sometimes get 'cleansed' is the bladder. Cranberry juice for bladder infections. But that is evidence-based, unless the articles on it are really messed up.
How ignorant does someone have to be to let someone put hydrogen peroxide in their blood! It's nice for abrasions and maybe a mouth rinse, but the way it foams up in contact with blood should make it obvious that it isn't for internal use. Ugh!
Posted by: Samantha Vimes | August 5, 2006 1:22 AM
Well Simon Baron-Cohen believes Einstein to have been Autistic, as do a lot of other credible researchers who actually study Autism as opposed to the quackery that surrounds it. My late grandfather was certainly Autistic too and there have been a few seniors posting on Autistic messageboards(because they aren't allowed on Autism messageboards unless they agree with absolutely everything the parents say).
There is no proof that Thimerosal because such a feat is impossible, like proving God or gods don't exist. So science must go with the reasoning that something must be proved before it is to be believed. Thimerosal and Mercury causing Autism is an unproven claim. Ancedotal testimonials do not amount to proof(which is why I always chuckle when the skin cream ads pretend they're doing science when they ask 200 women to report on their own results). Ancedotal testimonies said there was smoke coming from the grassy knoll and there weren't a few, but more doesn't make it more likely to be true.
I believe Thimerosal was certainly not tested for safety, but why should it? Do you send everything you put in your body off to a lab to test for it's safety? Food is full of lots of stuff which portrayed in a certain light can make it seem like your body is full of deadly crap yet somehow people thrive off that deadly crap.
How the hell does chelation cure Autism? If it is damage caused by Mercury, it's irreversible; removing Mercury doesn't change a lot. Mercury doesn't explain Savant abilities and ability peaks that are not rare in Autistics, nor why it is so selective in the the functions it supposedly eradicates.
It seems Mercury groups do their research on Thimerosal but fill in blanks where they have not done their research on Autism, jumping to the conclusions they do because of it.
Posted by: Lucas McCarty | August 5, 2006 6:07 AM
Lucas;
You should read the work of Richard Deth and Andy Cutler so you will know the answers to your questions.
All doctors rely on anecdotal evidence to see if the pills they give their patients make them feel better. A few people who have a vested interest in preventing parents from curing their children have tried to give the word "anecdotal" a bad connotation. Evidence is evidence. Nobody seems to figure out exactly how to measure brain levels of mercury acurately so we must rely on improvements in behavior to tell if chelation is working. Denying the fact that chelation is curing autism simply supports the drug companies who have a lot to lose when our kids are recovered.
Posted by: John Best | August 5, 2006 9:34 AM
That the chelaters now claim nitric oxide doesn't surprise, its just the new kid on the block. Its nothing more than "Gee, didn't we tell you all along?" Or what quantum-whatever is for homoeopaths. Everyone was very surprised some years ago when it was shown that NO had such a significant role in the human body, since it has some unpleasant properties, like causing cancer. I bet, as soon as something new will be discovered by scientists, THAT will be how chelating works. Boring.
BTW, does that means chelating helps with your lovelife? Nudge, nudge...
Posted by: bcpmoon | August 5, 2006 2:40 PM
http://autismdiva.blogspot.com/2006/01/its-fun-to-play-with-edta.html
The Diva blog has dancing models of the di-calcium EDTA molecule and a letter from Dr. Gary Gordon. (both!) and a song parody, "It's fun to play with the EDTA" not written by Autism Diva. :-)
http://bartholomewcubbins.blogspot.com/2006/02/bartholomew-cubbins-on-autism-episode_12.html
This is a video explanation, it discusses kOn and kOff. It's not tooo difficult even for lay people without much chemistry background.
http://autismdiva.blogspot.com/2005/11/you-wanna-go-where.html Discusses an example of "rational chelator," none of the current chelators used today are all that effective in grabbing heavy metals and escorting them out of the body. This blog entry has an animated thimerosal molecule. He's really cute.
Posted by: Autism Diva | August 5, 2006 3:50 PM
John,
A). DMSA is known not to cross the blood brain barrier. Being safe doesn't make it efficacious.
B). While ALA may cross the blood brain barrier, a search at pubmed for "alpha-lipoic acid autism" turns up zero results. Got anything better than recovery claims?
C). What do you make of the CDDS data for the 3-5 yr. cohort consitently increasing for the last 16 quarters, despite the fact that (with the exception of some flu vaccines), childhood vaccinations contain no or only trace [less than 1mcg.] of mercury? What's going on in California?
Posted by: Do'C | August 5, 2006 4:32 PM
Best, you must be confusing Adele Cutler of Utah State with Andy. Your boy Andy has published nothing about the subject in anything that comes up on Pubmed.
Actually, I'm really giving you the benefit of the doubt. I assumed that you know what Pubmed is and that you actually searched it.
On second thought, published, a la Best, probably means a gramatically challenged email from the EoH listserve (not that that narrows it down or anything).
Posted by: Bazooka Joe | August 5, 2006 6:20 PM
Doc;
What could possibly be better than recovery claims. The Geier'ssaid the data was decreasing. Where'd you get your info.? I'm well aware DMSA doesn't cross the BBB. I think it's best to rid the whole body of mercury, don't you? BTW, it's almost all flu vaccines that have the full compliment of HG.
Bazooka Joe;
Pubmed is not the sole basis of scientific knowledge.
Posted by: John Best | August 5, 2006 6:39 PM
Thanks, mndean, for mentioning chelation back in the 70s. I remember it all too well back then as well, even though I was a kid. It was all the rage in certain groups and that's when there were all those little mom&pop health food stores. As I recall, Adele Davis really ruled back then, even after she had passed on. How interesting that it was Gordon who was your GP!
Posted by: hollywoodjaded | August 5, 2006 7:15 PM
There is no evidence that thimerosal does not cause autism.
There's significant evidence on a huge sample of children that is very easy for anyone to interpret, even for you. It's called the CDDS.
The children who have been cured of autism via chelation are all proof that thimerosal caused the autism epidemic.
Name one.
Can you show me some 75 year old autistics to disprove the fact that autism was invented by Eli Lilly in 1931?
There are autistics that old. There are even older autistics, now dead. But it's useless to discuss this evidence, because you always claim they are not "real autistics" or something to that effect.
Posted by: Joseph | August 5, 2006 8:28 PM
This book has already been pointed out to John Best multiple times: _Not Even Wrong_ by Paul Collins.
Then there is also this blog entry:
http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2006/04/in-praise-of-wainwright.html
It has also been pointed out to him by several people that Andrew Cutler is a chemical ENGINEER, who is in no way qualified to pontificate on biochemistry in relationship to dental fillings nor vaccines.
But he ignores all of that.
I guess we should at least be glad he has finally learned that his "there were no autistic kids in China" claim was a bold-faced lie. But that was only until the articles indexed in Pubmed showing that autistic children did exist in China several decades ago were pointed out to him SEVERAL TIMES.
Posted by: HCN | August 5, 2006 8:59 PM
John, I have no interest in buying books to find information that I should be getting for free from reading published peer-reviewed studies.
There seems to be some slippery semantics there when you say "All doctors rely on ancedotal evidence" because medical science is progressed by scientists who are often doctors, but rarely doctors that are not scientists. Scientists know ancedotal evidence to be misleading.
Using behaviour as an indicator that chelation is 'working' is extremely unreliable. First it assumes that any percieved improvement in the behaviour of an Autistic child indicates Autism itself is affected. You cannot measure this without testing for significant changes in documented and known Autistic strengths and weaknesses such as enhanced perceptual functioning(strength) and lack of pragmatic langauge skills(weakness). They are only behaviours when viewed through the tunnel-vision of behaviourism.
Secondly it commits the ABC fallacy, just because A equals B and B equals C does not mean A equals C. C may in fact have more than one cause which can either be a singular or part of many required causes to prequisite C.
As an Autistic I have a vested interest in no one claiming to have cured Autism: first it harms Autistics by claiming we are broken and need fixing, yet no evidence is ever produced that Autism is a pathology that is a root cause of debilitating difficulties. Whilst many Autistics do have difficulties with many things, to blame Autism without regard to the immediate situation is to repeat the ABC fallacy. Also, the belief that a person has been cured of Autism where they have not has the same effect as denying it was there to begin with and cases of mental illness developing among Autistic adults is extremely high, with different forms of denial often indocterined by the parents being a very strong factor in that.
I certainly don't understand why truthfully denying there is a cure for Autism(and many Autistic adults rejecting the concept entirely) helps drug companies in any way at all: they do not make any profits from Autism. Autism has no reccomended drug treatments because in many cases none is required. Attempts to impose co-morbid diagnoses of ADHD on Autistic children to get them on Ritalin fail when Autistic children demonstrate the extended periods of time they can concentrate. One drug company was pulled through Hell over Secretin as a supposed 'miracle-cure' a while back and no other company is going to try anything similiar anytime soon(just some quacks selling 'homeopathic secretin').
Science begins with Decartian wisdom: 'I do not know' and has to work from there. Ancedotes are useless in services to science because people simply do not know more just because they are a group of people instead of just one person. Science discovered the world was round centuries before Columbus allegedly proved it. Only sailors and educated classes knew of it, but the fact that most people made it flat did not make it the accepted scientific truth at the time.
Posted by: Lucas McCarty | August 5, 2006 9:27 PM
"The Geier's said the data was decreasing. Where'd you get your info.?"
John, the data (from CDDS) is available to the public, even you.
Source
Did you have trouble with the link to the graph of the 3-5 yr. cohort caseload over the last 16 quarters?
Posted by: Do'C | August 6, 2006 1:09 AM
Joe;
If you did genetic testing on your dead, old autistics and they did not have fragile X, then you might have a point.
CDDS does not address the cause. It's only your prejudiced interpretation that claims the cause is not mercury.
I can name lots of cured kids. I won't do it in a public forum because that information is up to their parents to publicize. However, your moles on the EOHarm list are well aware of these cured kids, as are you which makes you a flat out liar.
Posted by: John Best | August 6, 2006 8:21 AM
HCN;
Andy Cutler gives parents information that helps them cure their kids. I only have a Master's in a non-science discipline but I can give parents much of that same information because I can read and comprehend. If you could do that, perhaps you could also help your child.
Some of you dug up a few autistics in China before 1999. They probably had fragile X or Rett's. A few rare cases does not deny the epidemic that was caused in 1999 when the US started selling China mercury laced vaccines and autism went from VIRTUALLY nothing to 1.8 million cases in 6 years.
Posted by: John Best | August 6, 2006 8:28 AM
Lucas;
Autistics are broken and do need fixing. If it were not severely problematic to have autism, there would never have been a need to categorize the condition and name it. People with Asperger's might not require fixing but those with autism who can not function on any level need help. If you don't think my kid needs a cure, why don't you take care of his every need, watch him 24 hours a day and change his diapers for the next 80 years?
Denying a cure exists helps drug companies since curing all these kids of mercury poisoning is evidence that can and will be used in courts to put them out of business. Secretin has nothing to do with chelation. Secretin was used to try to treat a symptom. Chelation addresses the cause. Why don't you try ALA for awhile and see if it alleviates any of your autistic symptoms? If it does and you don't like it, just get some flu shots and replace the mercury that was chelated. Check with Paul Offitt. I think he said 1,000 shots would be safe. I'm sure he'd be happy to give you a fix of thimerosal if you begin to feel normal.
Posted by: John Best | August 6, 2006 8:42 AM
"CDDS does not address the cause. It's only your prejudiced interpretation that claims the cause is not mercury."
What is your interpretation John? What's going on in California with the 3-5 yr. caseload cohort?
Posted by: Do'C | August 6, 2006 11:37 AM
I can name lots of cured kids.
No, you cannot. If there was one child inequivocally *cured* of autism by chelation therapy, that would be all over the internet. All you have is anecdotal reports of parents who think chelation might have been what caused some "improvement" in their children. These reports are in the GR site, I've seen them.
BTW, you don't really understand what it is the Geiers claimed about CDDS, do you? Admit it.
Posted by: Joseph | August 6, 2006 11:42 AM
Doc;
Are you aware that the drug companies were never required by law to remove thimerosal? They didn't do it. It's still being found in vaccines with expiration dates of 2008. It's still in the flu shot and rhogam. We also can not discount the effect the MMR vaccine may have had on these rates.
Joe;
I proved you lied about kids who have been cured so now, you call me a liar. I don't know what the testimony says at GR; I've never looked at it. That's why I told you to check with your moles who read EOHarm. You can also look at Autism-Mercury to find other cured kids.
As for CDDS, you and the Geier's present two different perspectives. You want to draw some far-fetched correlation involving epilepsy, MR and left-handed jockeys for all I know while the Geier's simply told us the numbers were going down. Do you get paid by Eli Lilly to scramble simple statistics?
Posted by: John Best | August 6, 2006 1:06 PM
As for CDDS, you and the Geier's present two different perspectives.
Again, you don't even understand what it is the Geiers claimed, right? What DoC is talking about is the 3-5 prevalence. Prevalence in the 3-5 cohort is the highest it's been ever in California, and it's going up. What exactly do the Geiers claim? Do they claim something about prevalence? Incidence? What?
Posted by: Joseph | August 6, 2006 3:59 PM
Where there any autistics prior to 1931? Yes according to health statistics from the UK. 8 people aged 75 or more have been diagnosed with an ASD since their 75th birthday between 2000 and 2005 according to Hospital Episode Statistics compiled by the National Health Service.
http://www.hesonline.nhs.uk/Ease/servlet/ContentServer?siteID=1937&categoryID=214
These were people whose latest possible date of birth was between 1925 and 1930. Moreover these are the survivors. They survived the Depression. They survived the Second World War. They survived most of their contemporaries. And two thirds of the over 75s in the UK are women while men are most at risk from autism. So i think that those are significant numbers.
The breakdown using ICD-10 criteria is Asperger 3, Atypical Autism 2, Rett's 1, PDD unspecified 1 and Childhood Autism 1.
Posted by: mike stanton | August 6, 2006 4:35 PM
John, if you claim that Autistics are broken and in need of fixing, the burden of proof is on you to prove this to be the case. So far the evidence does not support the frequent claims that Autism is a debilitating pathology. Autism finds itself in a similiar position to ADHD which also has it's pathology status disputed because there is little evidence supporting the idea that those fitting the criteria for diagnosis actually have direct trouble with attention. The term 'attention deficit' may be misleading because the evidence says it is more a difference in time perception which isn't being accounted for and appropriately addressed, leading to challenging and difficult behaviour. Autism too has non-pathological changes on cognition and perception which are not adequately addressed, which leads to the problems, but it isn't Autism itself as the cause.
Historically, many conditions have been defined and catagorised as pathologies which have been discovered to have been inappropriately recognised from simple left-handedness to homosexuality. Pathologies must be looked at in the context of the kind of society they originate in because that society can have a vested interest making a value judgement justifiable.
You still haven't explained how chelation, if it did treat and cure Autism, would put drug companies out of business. Drug companies to my knowledge make no profit from Autism because Autism has no drug treatments.
When you use the term 'autistic symptoms' what exactly do you mean? This is why I often find those who swot up on chelation and all kinds of treatments don't put as much enquiry into Autism itself. I stim and I know why I stim, I meet barriers in communication and I know why that is too in each situation. But part of the problems I have is my ability to communicate the difficulty I'm having and the reason why. Because of this it is assumed that the cause of the difficulty is myself or on my side of the communication divide, namely it is Autism getting the blame because it is assumed Autism is a seperate entity from myself. It should be noted that Autistic children often do not get on well with their peers but prefer socialising with adults for what are often obvious reasons though these are ignored in preference of the assumption that all communication difficulties stem from the Autistic individual themselves. It is often easier to type things that we can't say so details of the experiences of Autistics can be found on the internet.
Chelation will not ease my 'autistic symptoms' because I don't see how it will stop people using ambigious and emotive langauge that only means what they want it to with no objective sum of meaning in the sentence. My mother once told me when she was heading out to work that the washing was out on the line and I was to 'not let it rain'. I of course had no means of preventing it from raining, so the washing became soaked as did I. This could be interpreted as a typically Autistic misunderstanding rooted in taking things literally, but that is dismissive and completely ignores the fact that I saw the request for what it was and not for what it wasn't. It was not a request to not let the washing get wet by bringing it in, even though my mother would have thought so. This was a mutual communication breakdown and the only difficulty was caused by it not being recognised, not by Autism.
Posted by: Lucas McCarty | August 6, 2006 4:37 PM
John,
I've seen enough of EOHarm to know that there is not a single "cure" story - just a bunch of parents who say their kids have gotten better and improved, often for short periods of time before either noting regression and/or disappearing from the board before their kid is actually cured.
And your other claim - that nearly all flu vaccines given to kids contain mercury, is bogus. Any child under the age of two that receives a flu vaccine through the VFC program HAS to receive a thimerosal-free shot. That's the only kind the program buys, and that program alone accounts for a fair chunk (I believe around half) of all vaccines purchased for use in children. And also, John, only about half of all kids actually get flu shots, even with the CDC's recommendation.
Posted by: anonimouse | August 6, 2006 6:47 PM
The term 'attention deficit' may be misleading because the evidence says it is more a difference in time perception which isn't being accounted for and appropriately addressed, leading to challenging and difficult behaviour.
Even if ADHD is truly an "attention deficit", that does not justify pathologizing it. There's nothing in ADHD that justifies pathologizing it, any more than it would make sense to pathologize a gender or any given race.
Posted by: Joseph | August 6, 2006 7:43 PM
Mike;
Wow, 8 people diagnosed since 2001. They've had a lot of years to accumulate mercury before it gave them autism. Where are the rest of the 1 in 166 who should have had autism for all of their 75 years not just the last 5 if mercury was not the cause? I've heard some dumb replies from your associates but this one takes the cake.
Posted by: John Best | August 6, 2006 7:55 PM
And to expand on anonimouse's comment, the thimerosal dose per child in California is considerably below what it was in the 1970s and 80s, when the prevalence of autism was 4 in 10,000. Even considering the Flu shot. So why hasn't the prevalence of autism in the 3-5 cohort gone back to 4 in 10,000 by now, John? Please explain.
Posted by: Joseph | August 6, 2006 7:56 PM
Anonimouse;
You should read more of EOHarm. What's the VFC? Has that been the rule for at least 3 years to fit in with the 3 to 5 age group? Where is this a rule?
Posted by: John Best | August 6, 2006 7:58 PM
Joe;
The mercury was still in shots 3 to 5 years ago.
Comparing genders and races to affects of mercury poisoning is a poor analogy. ADHD is easily cured by chelation. No child should suffer from this.
Playing games with the statistics won't make the Geier's wrong, Joe.
Posted by: John Best | August 6, 2006 8:05 PM
Lucas;
For the third time, lawsuits from cured kids will bankrupt the drug companies. It has nothing to do with selling drugs. The fact you can't understand this is proof you need to be cured. Go buy a bottle of ALA and sign up for the Yahoo group Autism Mercury to learn proper chelation protocol.
Posted by: John Best | August 6, 2006 8:09 PM
How long should it take John? You've been chelating for at least 5 years now. If the stuff does what you say, how long could it possibly take to remove a few micrograms of mercury and make it so your son is no longer autistic?
How many list members on the autism-mercury group? Even if 10% were "cured" that would be big news, wouldn't it?
Face it, the mercury is gone and autism rates aren't falling. Parents have been chelating for years and years and there aren't many reports of miraculous recoveries.
Posted by: clone3g | August 6, 2006 10:05 PM
The mercury was still in shots 3 to 5 years ago
John, you're not off the hook so easily. I did not say thimerosal has disappeared altogether. I'll repeat. The thimerosal dose per child in California has been lower than in the 1970s and 80s within the last 3-5 years. Do you dispute this? If not, why hasn't the prevalence of autism gone back to 4 in 10,000 for 3-5 year olds?
Playing games with the statistics won't make the Geier's wrong, Joe.
Again, you don't even seem to know what it is the Geiers claim. You're content enough with the idea that they claim the "numbers" are down. You don't question or try to go deeper than that.
Posted by: Joseph | August 6, 2006 10:55 PM
Clone;
I just finished round