Fits the traditional pattern of woo, though. Plenty of scammers willing to charge for it and make money off people desperate for solutions.

Of course, you are free to completely ignore the results of the study. That is your choice.

Ten thousand studies against what you want to believe: They're all biased and wrong - I get to ignore all of them!
One study that almost looks like it might support what you want to believe: It's completely accurate and true - you're stupid to ignore it!

Here's a question: why didn't chelation eliminate further heart issues? Why ONLY a reduction in incidence of 4%? Why isn't this woo-favorite treatment for pretty much everything under the sun more effective?

And regardless of the fact that the study results are still open to interpretation, Yancy applauds the NHLBI for studying chelation in a rigorous, scientific way. “We are intrigued the NHLBI has taken the initiative to support research in these provacative and controversial areas,” says Yancy. “If we are to be an evidence-based healthcare system, then we should seek evidence for all the different therapies being utilized, particularly those for which there are major unanswered questions, and chelation therapy was one of those.” Only by studying such controversial therapies can they be either validated or discredited and thus help patients to receive the latest and highest quality care.
Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2012/11/05/chelation-for-heart-disease-study-shows-promise-but-experts-are-divided/#ixzz2BaHYTIZS

"Only by studying such controversial therapies can they be either validated or discredited and thus help patients to receive the latest and highest quality care."

However, the people who cling to "controversial" "therapies" won't be dissuaded when a study doesn't go their way.

And this study - one of the "best" put forward to date - is pathetically flawed, and didn't even correct for giving *diabetics* a sugar placebo. Good freaking grief! If this same study had been used to promote an "evil western medicine" treatment, the alt-medders would be (rightly, that time!) screaming their heads off.

I'd like to put you on the spot right here, right now: if a follow up study to this one shows NO statistically significant difference in outcome, will you stop promoting chelation as treatment for heart disease? Yes or no. Answer, and we'll wait for the next study.

As to your attempt to change the subject because you can't address the points I brought up:
http://www.allaboutdiabetes.net/chelation-therapy-good-for-diabetics/

The investigator had said it was insignificant, and here it says the placebo was a saline solution--

The chelation therapy used in the TACT trial included infusions of a 500 mL chelation solution containing 3 g of disodium EDTA; 7 g ascorbic acid; 2 mg magnesium chloride; 100 mg procaine hydrochloride; 2,500 U unfractionated heparin; 2 mEq potassium chloride; 840 mg sodium bicarbonate; 250 mg pantothenic acid and 100 mg thiamine; 100 mg pyridoxine; and sterile water to make up 500 mL of solution. The placebo infusion was 500 mL of normal saline. Patients received 40 infusions, each lasting at least 3 hours.

It's your job to back up your claim that chelation is a recommended procedure for heart patients!

that there is sugar in the placebo group.

I listed the ingredients. If you claim that there is some sugar in the placebo group, you need to find out how much!

You need to prove them wrong - when you do, they'll publish a correction!

Also noted:

these things could be sorted out in future large scale controlled studies, testing the ingredients separately vs. together, etc.

But until proven otherwise, I truly doubt that trace amounts of glucose in an IV would affected the results. Again, it was a SALINE solution.

A better argument is that this is just one study and it hasn't been replicated, etc., etc.

And talking about how dangerous chelation is really doesn't cut in unless you can cite statistics that you may have on that, vs. statistics on the dangers of surgical procedures.

I still can't figure out why I am being attacked personally for posting this information. I never said there weren't problems with the study and I never recommended the procedure. I do disagree with you about glucose affecting the result, though. There is no evidence that there was enough glucose to affect the result. There are enough other issues that detractors don't have to grasp for that issue.

About the only thing I would like to see is more study of the issue. If that is controversial here well, so be it.

"And talking about how dangerous chelation is really doesn't cut in unless you can cite statistics that you may have on that, vs. statistics on the dangers of surgical procedures."

This is a valid comparison ONLY if one is recommending chelation as a replacement for surgery. Are you doing that?

Studying chelation for anything other than that which it has been shown to do is always going to be questionable ethically, because of the significant risks of the treatment. Particularly when dealing with individuals weakened by an existing medical condition! This is irresponsible, crazy stuff!

Therapy work? Drugs that bind toxins and flush them out?

It's a very risky, potentially toxic treatment in itself, but in cases of true heavy metal poisoning (which is pretty much guaranteed to be fatal or very harmful), the risks are worth it.

The problem has come recently when certain non-evidence-based medicine practioners are just convinced that despite the total lack of evidence, certain maladies are caused by heavy metal poisoning (generally mercury in particular). So they promote chelation therapy to "cure" those conditions. Autism has been a big one in recent years, subjecting innocent kids to a dangerous procedure in order to "cure" them. It's never worked, of course. But as I noted above, it's big bucks for quacks, so they continue to promote it.

the adverse events were the same in both groups.

Keep in mind that the effects of various heart surgeries are also not studied or poorly studied for efficacy and risk.

I doubt if chelation causes as many adverse effects as surgery, but of course we don't know that because there aren't any studies on that.

are you saying you'd settle for chelation to fix the problem? Is your argument that they are comparable therapies for serious heart disease?

or are you putting words in my mouth???

In this case the results show the tendency for fewer surgical interventions in the form of angioplasty. There would most likely be a much larger trial needed to see if bypass surgery need was diminished. All surgery has risks. So, it is pretty lopsided to argue that there are risks involved in EDTA chelation without mentioning that there are also risks in surgery. If these results hold up in future testing, then the relative risks of the procedures could be weighed.

It is interesting to note that diabetics in particular had benefits from this, and generally diabetics seem to need bypass surgery more.

Chelation is an emergency procedure, as bypass surgery often is, but as a preventative. Again, this would involve a huge study to see if it panned out that chelation lowered the need for later bypass surgery.

http://news.consumerreports.org/health/2012/11/bypass-surgery-beats-angioplasty-for-people-with-diabetes.html

The alleged improvements were almost completely ONLY seen in the diabetic patients who received chelation - meaning, the diabetics who DIDN'T get the placebo (sugar) put into them did better than the ones who did! I know, it's ridiculous to think diabetics do better when they aren't given as much sugar. Crazy evidence-based medicine!

I noticed you completely ignored my challenge. It's obvious to me why - if another study, or another 100 studies, come out and show absolutely no improvement in heart conditions from chelation therapy, it won't matter. You'll still believe.

the placebo was not "sugar". If there were trace amounts of glucose there is no indication that it would be enough to affect the study.

What challenge? You are challenging me about some fictional results of some future unplanned studies???? Are you KIDDING me?



PS-- You are acting as if I am recommending this treatment. I am not. I just find the results interesting and think it should be studied more, and put into context along with risks of surgery, and you have kind of some bizarre knee jerk reaction that is just completely bizarre.

Yeah, I'm challenging you to see if you will change your mind based on evidence presented. I don't think you will. Care to prove me wrong, or will you stand by this treatment you are promoting to heart patients?

But here the ingredients are listed--

(again)

http://www.healio.com/cardiology/vascular-medicine/news/online/%7B7965dbc8-03cf-4385-9d8b-981e905cf996%7D/tact-chelation-therapy-reduced-adverse-events-in-post-mi-patients

No glucose listed in the placebo.

Umm, I am not going to comment on any mythical future studies that you have conjured up out of your imagination.

And please point me to where I am promoted this treatment? Are you reading posts of mine in another dimension? An alternate universe?

It is clear from this thread that you are in favor of this treatment. Do you think people in that condition should try chelation, or should they stick with existing known medical procedures and drugs?

you know, the ones you conjured up in your head from an alternate universe. If you can copy and paste from that alternate universe, please feel free to do so, because I would like to know what I said. Or just make shit up and tell me what you *think* I said.

Do you want to know my *position* on this? Here it is

Posts seeking or providing specific medical advice about health conditions are beyond the purview of this group's statement of purpose. Please see your health care provider for health advice.

One would hope that would be your advice as well.

I'm not going to let you put lives at risk. You can attack me all you want for that, and I won't back down.

You make the accusations, can't back them up, and then say I am attacking you. I am truly sorry for you.

Typical. I'll continue to defend lives against woo no matter what you do to me.

putting words in my mouth. Whatever is being done, you are doing it to yourself.

YOU stop. I refuse to be intimidated by your tactics.

You accused me of promoting this procedure and cannot point to a single statement where I did so. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying you were in lala land. It sounds like you willfully lied. So, I'll take it back. You are a liar, and not in lala land.

as have many others, you have learned how to be very careful to skirt actual recommendations. But it's still there and readily evident, with every sentence you have written defending this lone problematic study and attacking proven, evidence-based treatments for heart disease.

But feel free to throw whatever names you want at me. I won't alert, because I want your behavior on display.

There's one question you could answer that would PROVE whether I was a liar or not - but you won't answer it. I think that in itself IS an answer, one that is obvious given your documented agenda. And it also indicates that your charge against me is completely false.

FALSELY!! You can NOT back up this claim because it is NOT TRUE. You claim that you are not in lala land. Your claim is false and it was made willfully. A willful falsehood is a lie.

I just proved it. Now stop accusing me of things I haven't done, WILLFULLY.

You are claiming I'm lying, but there is only one way to prove it.

okay, are you just *pretending* you can't comprehend English???????

Oh, I see. You are trying to trick me into making some sort of medical recommendation here, thus breaking the agreement of the group, so I will be kicked out. I do not nor have I ever made a medical recommendation here. Probably the closest I have ever come is to recommend that people read about COQ10 if they are on statin drugs. Even then I don't make a recommendation that they take it, only recommend that they read some studies about the issue.

I have never made a medical recommendation here and won't now. I suggest that you don't either, no matter how pro or con you feel about something, unless you want to be kicked out.

Do you fancy yourself to be some sort of mind reader or something? Did you pick up that ability in lala land?

All I did was post something about an interesting study, and I got attacked immediately. You can attack the study, that is fine. I don't care. BUT DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH! I can speak for myself. All I was doing was minding my own business and following the guidelines of the group. Now you want me to break them. You know what? I am not qualified to give medical advice. Are you?

I'm asking for your opinion.

Your history and demonstrated agenda are clear to anyone who has read this group for a while. Your increasing hostility and incessant personal attacks are upsetting but also predictable.

My opinion, as I have stated many times previously, is that this is an interesting study and there should be more like it. My so called history is filled with stuff like that, but you insist on saying things that are not true about me. You proved that by not backing up what you said after trying to put words in my mouth. I am becoming increasingly intolerant of the whole BS! Why not just apologize and say you were wrong and made a mistake? No, you have to bring up history BS that is also not true--it is false. If you keep stating falsehoods about me, I am going to keep calling you a liar. Naturally I am hostile towards people that lie about me.

Everyone reading this KNOWS that you lied, you haven't apologized, and have compounded the issue by bringing up more accusations about some sort of imagined history, which wasn't even part of the original lie.

And perhaps you've changed. But I see you are still engaging in the same hostility and attacks when your cherry-picked "interesting studies" are merely questioned, so pardon me if I don't think you've changed much if at all.

Everyone reading this KNOWS you won't answer a simple question that doesn't require you to "recommend" a treatment in order to conclusively prove your incendiary claim about me.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Stop lying about me. You made a claim about me, putting words in my mouth, attributing thoughts to me that you have no idea about, can't prove it, won't apologize, and now I am on the hook for proving you wrong? That is rich, really rich.

Absurdity added to lala land

But I understand why you did.

I don't suffer fools gladly, nor liars at all, particularly when they won't admit a mistake.

Only I'll leave the name-calling and personal attacks out of it.

I am sorry for suggesting that you would recommend this treatment for heart disease.

I am relieved to learn that you and I are in complete agreement that anyone in that condition should consult with their doctor, who holds a degree from an accredited medical institution.

And I'm especially glad to know that you and I totally support the course of action said doctor would recommend to their patient, whatever combination of diet, exercise, surgery, and proven pharmaceutical drugs that might be.

On top of that, it's a great pleasure to realize that you absolutely share my position that chelation treatment for heart disaese is risky, unproven, and not to be recommended to ANYONE.

Thank you for convincing me I was wrong about your position!

I accept it.

I have no credentials to recommend anything to anyone, even if it is aspirin for a headache!

and the need to pursue proven, evidence-based, scientific treatments for conditions like heart disease!

LOL, there you go again, trying to put words in my mouth. Everyone here, please ignore everything that trotsky says I believe, and if you are interested at all, which I doubt, look at what I actually wrote.

This I will say, and trotsky, I would appreciate your not trying to reinterpret this to fit your world view, this is what I feel about this in MY voice, not trotsky's.

Certainly chelation carries some risks, although I know of no studies that compare the relative risk of chelation vs. the risk of various surgical heart procedures. Most of the information about the dangers of chelation are simply anecdotes and not based on statistical studies. It seems that there should be some standards set for chelation, such as the rate at which it is administered. Appropriately administered, I am unaware of major risks. If there some studies on this then I would like to see them. I strongly support research in this area.

I also strongly feel that patients should consult with MDs that they trust to help with the very personal decision making that should be done when choosing among health care options.

I also strongly believe in scientific research.

Everyone should choose their own health care options based on research, consultations with health care providers of their choosing, and their own desires, based on their own rational criteria.

Most importantly, everyone should be allowed their own voice, without someone else filtering it. I respectfully ask that no one try to read anything more into what I say than I actually say, and I am done saying it. Thank you.

Because you accused me of being a liar when I claimed you believed otherwise.

So what you're saying now is that your accusation was false, and slanderous?

Oh my.

I can speak for myself and absolutely refuse to have you mischaracterize my statements.

I make no recommendations on any type of medical treatment here, pro or con anything. Got it? I follow the rules. You accused me of recommending chelation and could point to nothing I said that indicated that. That was a lie. After I accepted your apology you then tried to put words in my mouth again.

I retract my acceptance of your apology. Done with this thread. Have fun.

It is good to retract your acceptance, because my apology was clearly not needed. I was correct in my assessment, and you were wrong to accuse me of lying. I do not expect anything resembling an apology from you, however.

Thank you for clarifying your position, and proving me vindicated. That is enough.

And I applaud your patience.

On edit: $31 million dollars to study something with zero plausibility, and the results are crap, as expected. This is despicable.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/11/chelation-trial-results-come-under-fire.html

"...

Around 100,000 Americans receive chelation therapy for heart disease each year, paying thousands of dollars for the unproven treatment. Proponents say that the treatments reduce the build-up of calcium in atherosclerotic plaques or, alternatively, that they sop up heavy metals that create inflammation-causing free radicals. But Kimball says there is no data to back up either mechanism.

TACT enrolled 1708 patients who had previously suffered a heart attack, short of the nearly 2400 the trial hoped to enroll. About half the patients received an infusion of disodium ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid (disodium EDTA), once a week for 30 weeks, followed by at least ten more infusions every two to eight weeks. The other half received a placebo that also contained sugar. 26% of patients who received chelation therapy went on to suffer cardiac events, including heart attacks, strokes, and death, compared to 30% of the patients on placebo infusions, a difference that was statistically significant.

In a blog post and an interview with Nature, Kimball raised questions about those findings. The beneficial effect of chelation occurred only among patients with diabetes and was more likely to be a statistical fluke because of the low numbers of these patients. He also notes that 79 patients dropped out of the trial, also potentially skewing the validity of the results.

Steve Nissen, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, told that New York Times that the study was “fatally flawed,” and that many of the doctors involved in the trial were on the fringes of medicine.

..."

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

the more ridiculous it gets. How irresponsible to promote it as something that's "interesting" and needs more investigation!