Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
8. I totally agree with this part:
Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:20 PM
Nov 2012

"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 conclusion of the position paper is that there is no scientific evidence to demonstrate that chelation therapy is beneficial in treating atherosclerotic heart disease and peripheral vascular disease. Furthermore, using this form of unproven treatment may deprive patients from receiving well established treatment modalities of proven efficacy. It is also expensive and is not devoid of side effects. Based on numerous reviews of the world’s medical literature, these same conclusions have been reached by numerous medical organizations worldwide.

In the United States alone, the following agencies have issued similar positions: the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health, National Research Council, American Medical Association, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Heart Association, American College of Physicians, American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Cardiology.

So to answer the question that has been posted, NO there is no benefit to its use for people with diabetes or for any patient with blockage of the blood vessels to the heart, legs or the brain. It is NOT EFFECTIVE as a non-surgical declogging of arteries which have been blocked by fat deposits. It is also an unsafe treatment with the potential for serious side effects and may even lead to death. And finally, always seek your doctor’s advice when contemplating new treatments for your diabetes and its complications, whether these are standard or alternative therapies.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Dangerous and expensive and totally unwarranted. trotsky Nov 2012 #1
sounds like you are ignoring the study that came out Celebration Nov 2012 #2
Sorry, I forgot the rule of woo. trotsky Nov 2012 #3
Mayo Clinic trotsky Nov 2012 #4
TIME magazine writeup trotsky Nov 2012 #5
NY Times writeup trotsky Nov 2012 #6
I can also selectively quote Celebration Nov 2012 #7
I totally agree with this part: trotsky Nov 2012 #8
How much sugar was there? Celebration Nov 2012 #11
It's your claim, your preferred study. YOU get the info. trotsky Nov 2012 #15
actually it is YOUR claim Celebration Nov 2012 #17
Nope, that's the claim of the NY Times. trotsky Nov 2012 #20
well it could be Celebration Nov 2012 #21
Write to the New York Times and correct them, then! trotsky Nov 2012 #23
How exactly does Chelation Dorian Gray Nov 2012 #9
Binds to heavy metals in particular. trotsky Nov 2012 #10
except in this case Celebration Nov 2012 #12
If you needed a triple bypass heart surgery Dorian Gray Nov 2012 #13
Did I say that Celebration Nov 2012 #14
Wrong. trotsky Nov 2012 #16
for the last time Celebration Nov 2012 #18
I never said the placebo WAS sugar. I said it contained sugar. trotsky Nov 2012 #19
I guess we'll have to wait until the study is published Celebration Nov 2012 #22
Write to the New York Times and correct them, then! trotsky Nov 2012 #24
those recommendations are the ones I referred to Celebration Nov 2012 #25
Oh, I am quite familiar enough with your history and agenda. trotsky Nov 2012 #27
you are truly in lala land Celebration Nov 2012 #28
Nice insult. trotsky Nov 2012 #29
just STOP Celebration Nov 2012 #30
"Lala land"? trotsky Nov 2012 #31
you are a complete liar, then Celebration Nov 2012 #32
Because you personally have been burned in the past on DU2 for promoting treatments... trotsky Nov 2012 #33
you are the one that made the claim that I am recommending this treatment Celebration Nov 2012 #34
Answer the question and prove me wrong. trotsky Nov 2012 #35
LOL Celebration Nov 2012 #36
I'm not asking you to make a recommendation. trotsky Nov 2012 #37
no, no Celebration Nov 2012 #39
You can deny your past behavior all you want. trotsky Nov 2012 #42
As usual Celebration Nov 2012 #44
I'm sorry you chose this path. trotsky Nov 2012 #45
Never put words in my mouth Celebration Nov 2012 #46
I would give you the same advice. trotsky Nov 2012 #47
You know, I've thought about this, and decided I need to apologize. trotsky Nov 2012 #48
thanks for the apology Celebration Nov 2012 #49
Nonetheless, I am relieved to know you agree with me about the dangers of chelation... trotsky Nov 2012 #50
did I say all that? Celebration Nov 2012 #51
Why yes, yes you did. trotsky Nov 2012 #52
Absurd Celebration Nov 2012 #53
You have just finished promoting chelation, and yet you say you didn't? trotsky Nov 2012 #54
Yet more information: trotsky Nov 2012 #26
+1,000,000 ... 000 HuckleB Nov 2012 #41
Nature: Chelation trial results come under fire HuckleB Nov 2012 #38
The Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy: Equivocal as Predicted (Not To Mention Unethical) HuckleB Nov 2012 #40
Goodness, the more information that comes out about this study... trotsky Nov 2012 #43
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Health»Chelation may help some h...»Reply #8