Re: Chelation Studies

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.chelationforlife.com/Studies/Default.htm

Jan, never permit someone elses ego to drive you. Anyone who wishes to gain
understanding will search and read
these things for themselves. The rest, aren't even trying to be sincere.
There are 3 people using many aliases to hide and sneak around. Their lack
of credibility is very obvious to any intelligent person.

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Chelation Studies
From: "Dave Wickware" [email hidden]
Date: 6/11/2004 11:45 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.chelationforlife.com/Studies/Default.htm

Jan, never permit someone elses ego to drive you. Anyone who wishes to gain
understanding will search and read
these things for themselves. The rest, aren't even trying to be sincere.
There are 3 people using many aliases to hide and sneak around. Their lack
of credibility is very obvious to any intelligent person.

Indeed, the denial is disgusting.

Jan

(Jan) said:

Indeed, the denial is disgusting.

Jan

Indeed. *Anyone* who disagrees with Jan Drew is in denial. Narcissism
at its finest.

Aloha,

Rich

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.chelationforlife.com/Studies/Default.htm

I looked at the first two studies, assuming they would be the ones thought
best. The first was a retrospective study. About ten retrospective
studies like this once made it look as though glomectomy was a cure for
asthma, but sham operations subsequently performed just as well in no less
than eleven properly controlled trials, even when performed by those who
formerly were enthusiasts for the treatment. Such retrospective studies
are almost worthless.

The second was a pilot study where ten, yes ten, patients were randomized to
two groups. Two few patients to mean anything.

This is what a Cochrane review of controlled trials said about chelation in
2002,

"Main Results
A total of five studies was included in the review. Mortality, non-fatal
events, and cerebrovascular events were not reported in any of the studies.
Four of the studies, with a total recruitment rate of 250 participants,
showed no significant difference in the following outcomes: direct or
indirect measurement of disease severity and subjective measures of
improvement. One of the studies, which included only 10 patients, was
interrupted prematurely, because of an apparent treatment effect. However,
relevant data were not available in the report and have been requested from
the authors. "

Note this even includes the second study ( the Olszewer one on ten patients
referred to above) quoted on the site Jan gave, whereas I will bet (without
actually looking) that that site does not include any of the negative ones..

Peter Moran

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 06:45:32 +1000, "Peter Moran" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.chelationforlife.com/Studies/Default.htm

I looked at the first two studies, assuming they would be the ones thought
best. The first was a retrospective study. About ten retrospective
studies like this once made it look as though glomectomy was a cure for
asthma, but sham operations subsequently performed just as well in no less
than eleven properly controlled trials, even when performed by those who
formerly were enthusiasts for the treatment. Such retrospective studies
are almost worthless.

The second was a pilot study where ten, yes ten, patients were randomized to
two groups. Two few patients to mean anything.

This is what a Cochrane review of controlled trials said about chelation in
2002,

"Main Results
A total of five studies was included in the review. Mortality, non-fatal
events, and cerebrovascular events were not reported in any of the studies.
Four of the studies, with a total recruitment rate of 250 participants,
showed no significant difference in the following outcomes: direct or
indirect measurement of disease severity and subjective measures of
improvement. One of the studies, which included only 10 patients, was
interrupted prematurely, because of an apparent treatment effect. However,
relevant data were not available in the report and have been requested from
the authors. "

Note this even includes the second study ( the Olszewer one on ten patients
referred to above) quoted on the site Jan gave, whereas I will bet (without
actually looking) that that site does not include any of the negative ones..

Peter Moran

Cue Jan to say that Peter is in denial and part of evil organized
medicine. Cue Jan NOT to offer ANY substantive rebuttal of Peter's
assertions. Just watch.

Aloha,

Rich

Quoted message said:

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.chelationforlife.com/Studies/Default.htm

Many of these studies concern chelation for heavy metal toxicity which is
not in issue. Others are by those selling it.

There are some VERY old studies which were never followed-up on.

However, there is not one scintilla of proof that chelation opens clogged
areties in any of these studies, and, that is THE issue at hand.

"Dave Wickware" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.chelationforlife.com/Studies/Default.htm

Jan, never permit someone elses ego to drive you. Anyone who wishes to

gain

Quoted message said:

understanding will search and read
these things for themselves. The rest, aren't even trying to be sincere.
There are 3 people using many aliases to hide and sneak around. Their lack
of credibility is very obvious to any intelligent person.

These studies do not demonstrate opening of narrowed arteries. The current
proponents of CHEATlation claim that it can be used instead of CABG and
stenting. These studies DO NOT provide a scintilla of proof to support those
claims.

Jan is promoting death.

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.chelationforlife.com/Studies/Default.htm

I looked at the first two studies, assuming they would be the ones thought
best. The first was a retrospective study. About ten retrospective
studies like this once made it look as though glomectomy was a cure for
asthma, but sham operations subsequently performed just as well in no less
than eleven properly controlled trials, even when performed by those who
formerly were enthusiasts for the treatment. Such retrospective studies
are almost worthless.

The second was a pilot study where ten, yes ten, patients were randomized

to

Quoted message said:

two groups. Two few patients to mean anything.

This is what a Cochrane review of controlled trials said about chelation

in

Quoted message said:

2002,

You should explain what a Cochrane review is.

Quoted message said:

"Main Results
A total of five studies was included in the review. Mortality, non-fatal
events, and cerebrovascular events were not reported in any of the

studies.

Quoted message said:

Four of the studies, with a total recruitment rate of 250 participants,
showed no significant difference in the following outcomes: direct or
indirect measurement of disease severity and subjective measures of
improvement. One of the studies, which included only 10 patients, was
interrupted prematurely, because of an apparent treatment effect. However,
relevant data were not available in the report and have been requested

from

Quoted message said:

the authors. "

Note this even includes the second study ( the Olszewer one on ten

patients

Quoted message said:

referred to above) quoted on the site Jan gave, whereas I will bet

(without

Quoted message said:

actually looking) that that site does not include any of the negative

ones..

I looked at everyone of them. You are quite correct.

Quoted message said:

From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 6/11/2004 12:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

http://www.chelationforlife.com/Studies/Default.htm

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Such retrospective studies
are almost worthless.

ZZzz.
Only 10 out of 470 needed surgery.

That's worthless.

To *organized medicine liars*

Quoted message said:

The second was a pilot study where ten, yes ten, patients were randomized to
two groups. Two few patients to mean anything.

The scond was peripheral vascular disease, with improvements and charts of
before and after.

Quoted message said:

This is what a Cochrane review

Of course Cochrane would be a part of *organized medicine*. You know the ones
who are liars.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Note this even includes the second study ( the Olszewer one on ten patients
referred to above) quoted on the site Jan gave, whereas I will bet (without
actually looking) that that site does not include any of the negative ones..

Peter Moran

This comes from a team of doctors who actually get results with chelation, and
of course you aren't interested enough to look. Yet you claim them to be
worthless.Thanks for once again making my point.

When you say there are no studies, YOU ARE LYING.

Jan

In article <[email hidden]>, Rich.@.

Quoted message said:

(Jan) said:

Indeed, the denial is disgusting.

Jan

Indeed. *Anyone* who disagrees with Jan Drew is in denial. Narcissism
at its finest.

Quite, but the same applies to "Dave" as well. Unlike you or I, who
could be persuaded by convincing data that specific altie remedies
actually have efficacy, neither of them ever seem to entertain even the
remotest possibility that they could be wrong.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 6/11/2004 12:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

http://www.chelationforlife.com/Studies/Default.htm

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Such retrospective studies
are almost worthless.

ZZzz.
Only 10 out of 470 needed surgery.

That's worthless.

To *organized medicine liars*

Retrospective studies are subject to many biases and problems in
evaluating the results. That is why evidence from such studies is
considered one of the weakest forms of medical evidence, just one notch
above case reports (anecdotes, to you).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The second was a pilot study where ten, yes ten, patients were randomized to
two groups. Two few patients to mean anything.

The scond was peripheral vascular disease, with improvements and charts of
before and after.

In a number of patients that was inadequate to make such sweeping
conclusions as they did.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is what a Cochrane review

Of course Cochrane would be a part of *organized medicine*. You know the ones
who are liars.

No, Cochrane reviews are an organized, systematic attempt to evaluate
the quality of data for various treatments and make recommendations
based on that. They will review all the available studies on a topic for
quality of design and quantity of patients, summarize the results, and
give a recommendation, along with the strength of the evidence for that
recommendation. When the evidence for a treatment is weak or
unconvincing, the Cochrane review will come right out and say so.

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Note this even includes the second study ( the Olszewer one on ten patients
referred to above) quoted on the site Jan gave, whereas I will bet (without
actually looking) that that site does not include any of the negative ones..

Peter Moran

This comes from a team of doctors who actually get results with chelation, and
of course you aren't interested enough to look. Yet you claim them to be
worthless.Thanks for once again making my point.

When you say there are no studies, YOU ARE LYING.

Jan, why do you always assume that anyone who says something you
disagree with must be lying?

There were no well-designed studies or adequately powered studies
showing a benefit from chelation in treating atherosclerotic coronary
artery disease. That is a true statement. (It's also true for
atherosclerotic peripheral vascular disease.)

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 11, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.chelationforlife.com/Studies/Default.htm

I looked at the first two studies, assuming they would be the ones

thought

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

best. The first was a retrospective study. About ten retrospective
studies like this once made it look as though glomectomy was a cure for
asthma, but sham operations subsequently performed just as well in no

less

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

than eleven properly controlled trials, even when performed by those

who

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

formerly were enthusiasts for the treatment. Such retrospective

studies

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are almost worthless.

The second was a pilot study where ten, yes ten, patients were

randomized

Quoted message said:

to

Quoted message said:

two groups. Two few patients to mean anything.

This is what a Cochrane review of controlled trials said about

chelation

Quoted message said:

in

Quoted message said:

2002,

You should explain what a Cochrane review is.

Yes. Orac has done so. They are generally regarded as being state of the
art reviews of the evidence available for any question. They seem
unbiased, even to the extent of annoying healthfraud activists by not taking
plausibility into account when making judgments as to the worth of unlikely
treatments, and recommending further research when to most minds the money
and effort might be far better applied elsewhere. They look strictly at the
trial data, especially taking into account its quality.
Peter Moran

Orac said:

Quoted message said:

When you say there are no studies, YOU ARE LYING.

Jan, why do you always assume that anyone who says something you
disagree with must be lying?

Cue Jan to now call you a liar for making that assertion. But it is an
interesting question.

Jan Drew clearly is a pathologic narcissist resulting in her believing
that what she believes to be true *is* true. Jan needs no objective
evidence for truth other than her *own* belief.

But this narcissism does not explain why she persists in calling
people "liars" when they disagree with her. I am of the opinion that
the reason that she calls people "liars" is to discredit their
opinions hoping that others won't believe what they say. After all
would you believe a liar??

This indicates that in addition to being a pathologic narcissist, that
Jan is also a psychopath. She has absolutely no compunction in bearing
false witness against others by repeatedly and falsely calling others
liars which is quite ironic considering that she considers herself a
God fearing Christian.

Quoted message said:

There were no well-designed studies or adequately powered studies
showing a benefit from chelation in treating atherosclerotic coronary
artery disease. That is a true statement. (It's also true for
atherosclerotic peripheral vascular disease.)

Since perception creates its own reality not only will Jan say that it
is a false statement she will also call you a liar and member of evil
organized medicine. Sorry for belaboring the obvious.

Aloha,

Rich

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 6/11/2004 12:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

<[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

http://www.chelationforlife.com/Studies/Default.htm

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Such retrospective studies
are almost worthless.

ZZzz.
Only 10 out of 470 needed surgery.

That's worthless.

To *organized medicine liars*

Quoted message said:

The second was a pilot study where ten, yes ten, patients were randomized

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

two groups. Two few patients to mean anything.

The scond was peripheral vascular disease, with improvements and charts of
before and after.

Quoted message said:

This is what a Cochrane review

Of course Cochrane would be a part of *organized medicine*. You know the

ones

Quoted message said:

who are liars.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Note this even includes the second study ( the Olszewer one on ten

patients

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

referred to above) quoted on the site Jan gave, whereas I will bet

(without

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

actually looking) that that site does not include any of the negative

ones..

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran

This comes from a team of doctors who actually get results with chelation,

and

Quoted message said:

of course you aren't interested enough to look. Yet you claim them to be
worthless.Thanks for once again making my point.

When you say there are no studies, YOU ARE LYING.

Wrong, bigot breath.

I said there were no studies, and I reviewed every one of them that is
posted on this site. I wil lsay it again:

There are NO studies on this website that show decrease in arterial plaque
and/or increase in arterial blood flow that is directly attributable to
CHEATlation.