General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Re: Why EDTA Chelation is Not More Widely Accepted

Started by Orac · · Last activity · 6 posts · 423 views

← Back to General fitness, health and nutrition

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postRe: Why EDTA Chelation is Not More Widely AcceptedOrac · 10 May 2004 02 / This pagePosts 1–6Page 1 of 1 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #6David Wright · 11 May 2004

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
10 May 2004
Last activity
11 May 2004
Original author
Orac
Posts
6
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
423
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–6 of 6
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Original post
    Orac
    Archived post
    #1

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    (Jan) said:
    Quoted message said:

    http://drcranton.com/chelation/carter.htm

    A tell it like it is REAL doctor. This most likely will bring a flood of
    denial
    and 101 excuses from the *gang*.

    Who are guilty of just what this article states.

    Actually, I can't help but notice the date on the article you cited:
    1989. 15 years ago, in 1989, the major double-blind placebo-controlled
    studies for chelation therapy for atherosclerotic heart disease and
    peripheral vascular disease had not been done yet. The evidence that
    existed at that time supporting chelation for such diseases consisted
    mainly of case reports, uncontrolled small trials, etc. All of the
    studies save one (which was so small that it couldn't really tell us
    anything) had major methodological flaws. Consequently, at that time,
    the answer to the question of whether there is any real benefit from
    chelation therapy was not as clear as it is now. Since 1989, there have
    been randomized, double-blind, placebo trials, none of which has shown
    any benefit from chelation therapy. Granted, they were relatively small,
    but they were big enough to have detected the near miraculous effects
    claimed for chelation by its proponents. The *most* generous reading of
    the data would say that, if chelation therapy is good for
    atherosclerotic heart disease, its benefit is far less dramatic than
    what is claimed. The least generous reading of the data is that
    chelation therapy for atherosclerosis is quackery.

    NCCAM is doing a large double-blind trial right now for chelation
    therapy. Hopefully that will answer the question once and for all.
    However, I predict that, if the study shows no benefit of chelation
    therapy, that chelation proponents will attack it or ignore it and keep
    on giving chelation.

    Finally, one thing that strikes me about Dr. Carter's article is the
    number of red herrings he raises. He can't produce convincing data; so
    he resorts to attacking conventional medicine. Sorry, Dr. Carter, but
    even if every word you said about conventional medicine were true, if
    doctors were every bit as arrogant as you claim, even if conventional
    medicine were actually trying to "suppress" chelation, that would still
    not prove that chelation therapy does what you claim it does. Never mind
    that he cites uncontrolled studies and case reports.

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

    Report
  2. David Wright
    Archived post
    #2

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Orac said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    (Jan) said:
    Quoted message said:

    http://drcranton.com/chelation/carter.htm

    A tell it like it is REAL doctor. This most likely will bring a flood of
    denial
    and 101 excuses from the *gang*.

    Who are guilty of just what this article states.

    Actually, I can't help but notice the date on the article you cited:
    1989. 15 years ago, in 1989, the major double-blind placebo-controlled
    studies for chelation therapy for atherosclerotic heart disease and
    peripheral vascular disease had not been done yet. The evidence that
    existed at that time supporting chelation for such diseases consisted
    mainly of case reports, uncontrolled small trials, etc. All of the
    studies save one (which was so small that it couldn't really tell us
    anything) had major methodological flaws. Consequently, at that time,
    the answer to the question of whether there is any real benefit from
    chelation therapy was not as clear as it is now. Since 1989, there have
    been randomized, double-blind, placebo trials, none of which has shown
    any benefit from chelation therapy.

    This sort of thing is symptomatic of many alties, who feel that the
    older a source is, the more reliable it is, and newer data be damned.

    Scudamore is one of the most visible proponents of that point of view,
    but "Dr" Cee is giving him a run for his money, Cee being wedded to a
    bunch of century-old experiments that he feels are the last word in
    medical investigation.

    Quoted message said:

    NCCAM is doing a large double-blind trial right now for chelation
    therapy. Hopefully that will answer the question once and for all.
    However, I predict that, if the study shows no benefit of chelation
    therapy, that chelation proponents will attack it or ignore it and keep
    on giving chelation.

    I think you could bet the rent on that one.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

    Report
  3. Orac
    Archived post
    #3

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    (David Wright) said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Orac said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    (Jan) said:

    >http://drcranton.com/chelation/carter.htm

    A tell it like it is REAL doctor. This most likely will bring a flood of
    denial
    and 101 excuses from the *gang*.

    Who are guilty of just what this article states.

    Actually, I can't help but notice the date on the article you cited:
    1989. 15 years ago, in 1989, the major double-blind placebo-controlled
    studies for chelation therapy for atherosclerotic heart disease and
    peripheral vascular disease had not been done yet. The evidence that
    existed at that time supporting chelation for such diseases consisted
    mainly of case reports, uncontrolled small trials, etc. All of the
    studies save one (which was so small that it couldn't really tell us
    anything) had major methodological flaws. Consequently, at that time,
    the answer to the question of whether there is any real benefit from
    chelation therapy was not as clear as it is now. Since 1989, there have
    been randomized, double-blind, placebo trials, none of which has shown
    any benefit from chelation therapy.

    This sort of thing is symptomatic of many alties, who feel that the
    older a source is, the more reliable it is, and newer data be damned.

    Scudamore is one of the most visible proponents of that point of view,
    but "Dr" Cee is giving him a run for his money, Cee being wedded to a
    bunch of century-old experiments that he feels are the last word in
    medical investigation.

    Indeed. The experiments he's wedded to were done in the late 1800's and
    the early 1900's. He conveniently ignores or misrepresents all the data
    and experiments that have come since then.

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

    Report
  4. Orac
    Archived post
    #4

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    (Jan) said:
    Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: Why EDTA Chelation is Not More Widely Accepted
    From: [email hidden] (David Wright)
    Date: 5/9/2004 7:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Orac said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    [email hidden] (Jan) wrote:

    > >http://drcranton.com/chelation/carter.htm
    >
    > A tell it like it is REAL doctor. This most likely will bring a flood of
    > denial
    > and 101 excuses from the *gang*.
    >
    > Who are guilty of just what this article states.

    Actually, I can't help but notice the date on the article you cited:
    1989.

    Point made!!

    As predicted.

    Orac is proof of exactly what Dr. James Carter said.The facts stated and
    history hasn't changed.

    History may not have changed, but the data has changed in the 15 years
    since Dr. Carter wrote that. It's been updated. We know more now than we
    did then, and none of what we have discovered has really supported the
    use of chelation therapy for atherosclerosis. Since 1989, there have
    been several studies that show that chelation therapy is no better than
    placebo in relieving symptoms or improving exercise tolerance in
    atherosclerotic coronary artery and peripheral vascular disease. The
    CURRENT state of the art (not the state of the art, circa 1989) does NOT
    support the use of chelation therapy to treat atherosclerotic coronary
    artery or 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?"

    Report
  5. M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-May 10, 2004
    Archived post
    #5

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

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: Why EDTA Chelation is Not More Widely Accepted
    From: [email hidden] (David Wright)
    Date: 5/9/2004 7:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Orac said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    [email hidden] (Jan) wrote:

    > >http://drcranton.com/chelation/carter.htm
    >
    > A tell it like it is REAL doctor. This most likely will bring a flood


    of

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > denial
    > and 101 excuses from the *gang*.
    >
    > Who are guilty of just what this article states.

    Actually, I can't help but notice the date on the article you cited:
    1989.

    Point made!!

    As predicted.

    You dishonest [censored]. You snipped orac's ideas and reinstered the fifteen
    year old [censored].

    Report
  6. David Wright
    Archived post
    #6

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Orac said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    (David Wright) said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Orac said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    [email hidden] (Jan) wrote:

    > >http://drcranton.com/chelation/carter.htm
    >
    > A tell it like it is REAL doctor. This most likely will bring a flood of
    > denial
    > and 101 excuses from the *gang*.
    >
    > Who are guilty of just what this article states.

    Actually, I can't help but notice the date on the article you cited:
    1989. 15 years ago, in 1989, the major double-blind placebo-controlled
    studies for chelation therapy for atherosclerotic heart disease and
    peripheral vascular disease had not been done yet. The evidence that
    existed at that time supporting chelation for such diseases consisted
    mainly of case reports, uncontrolled small trials, etc. All of the
    studies save one (which was so small that it couldn't really tell us
    anything) had major methodological flaws. Consequently, at that time,
    the answer to the question of whether there is any real benefit from
    chelation therapy was not as clear as it is now. Since 1989, there have
    been randomized, double-blind, placebo trials, none of which has shown
    any benefit from chelation therapy.

    This sort of thing is symptomatic of many alties, who feel that the
    older a source is, the more reliable it is, and newer data be damned.

    Scudamore is one of the most visible proponents of that point of view,
    but "Dr" Cee is giving him a run for his money, Cee being wedded to a
    bunch of century-old experiments that he feels are the last word in
    medical investigation.

    Indeed. The experiments he's wedded to were done in the late 1800's and
    the early 1900's. He conveniently ignores or misrepresents all the data
    and experiments that have come since then.

    "Dr" Cee is a particularly obstinate specimen. His whole world view
    is so riddled with holes it must be like living inside a swiss
    cheese. You can tell from his reaction when he starts to look
    cornered.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

    Report

Keep exploring

Browse the sectionGeneral fitness, health and nutrition Return to CyclingForumsStart at the home page Search discussionsFind another thread

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.