Comments on: Chelation Therapy–Or Bypass Surgery? http://pjvs.wordpress.com/2006/12/16/chelation-therapy-or-bypass-surgery/ My thoughts and reminiscences on various issues Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:40:00 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: pjvs http://pjvs.wordpress.com/2006/12/16/chelation-therapy-or-bypass-surgery/#comment-291 pjvs Sun, 04 Mar 2007 15:55:11 +0000 http://pjvs.wordpress.com/2006/12/16/chelation-therapy-or-bypass-surgery/#comment-291 You are right that the study referred to in the post was not "double blind" and " peer reviewed." The problem is that such studies are expensive, and no organization has enough of a potential financial gain from such a study to want to fund it. So we are left with anecdotal evidence of chelation's efficacy. However, chelation therapy has not changed in the last 20 or 30 years, so an older study should be just as good as a similar newer study. I'm sure that many mainstream medical people think Whitaker is a quack. I happen to have a different opinion. You are right that the study referred to in the post was not “double blind” and ” peer reviewed.” The problem is that such studies are expensive, and no organization has enough of a potential financial gain from such a study to want to fund it. So we are left with anecdotal evidence of chelation’s efficacy.

However, chelation therapy has not changed in the last 20 or 30 years, so an older study should be just as good as a similar newer study.

I’m sure that many mainstream medical people think Whitaker is a quack. I happen to have a different opinion.

]]> By: Michael Tam http://pjvs.wordpress.com/2006/12/16/chelation-therapy-or-bypass-surgery/#comment-264 Michael Tam Fri, 02 Mar 2007 08:19:05 +0000 http://pjvs.wordpress.com/2006/12/16/chelation-therapy-or-bypass-surgery/#comment-264 With regards to that "study" where was it published? Whas it subjected to peer review? I do not think so. Furthermore, it was published 20 years ago; this was a time in cardiology before even the use of thrombolytics (clot busters) and routine aspirin in heart attacks. I certainly would not be citing 20 year old research to justfy therapeutics on a field of medicine that has changed so drastically. Between 1987 and 2000, the death rate from heart attacks has <a href="http://vitualis.wordpress.com/2006/10/08/how-to-give-thrombolysis-in-acute-myocardial-infarction/" rel="nofollow">fallen by half</a>, mostly attributed to aspirin and therapies like thrombolytics and stents. With regards "improvement of symptoms", can you actually provide a link to the trial? My feeling is that this trial was NOT placebo controlled. Without a placebo control, it is impossible to know how much "benefit" is provided simply by wishful thinking or by the "therapeutic relationship" that the patients have with their doctor. Also, if chelation therapy actually reduces the narrowing of arteries, then it should be easily demonstratable with modern imaging techniques like doppler ultrasound. Needless to say, these studies do not exist. One final point, Dr Whitaker is widely viewed as a quack. Regards. With regards to that “study” where was it published? Whas it subjected to peer review? I do not think so. Furthermore, it was published 20 years ago; this was a time in cardiology before even the use of thrombolytics (clot busters) and routine aspirin in heart attacks. I certainly would not be citing 20 year old research to justfy therapeutics on a field of medicine that has changed so drastically.

Between 1987 and 2000, the death rate from heart attacks has fallen by half, mostly attributed to aspirin and therapies like thrombolytics and stents.

With regards “improvement of symptoms”, can you actually provide a link to the trial? My feeling is that this trial was NOT placebo controlled. Without a placebo control, it is impossible to know how much “benefit” is provided simply by wishful thinking or by the “therapeutic relationship” that the patients have with their doctor. Also, if chelation therapy actually reduces the narrowing of arteries, then it should be easily demonstratable with modern imaging techniques like doppler ultrasound. Needless to say, these studies do not exist.

One final point, Dr Whitaker is widely viewed as a quack.

Regards.

]]>