Letter writer: Oops, actually chelation therapy really does work….

Graphic by Lori Deaton

I thank Dr. Stephen Ely for his letter [“Research Doesn’t Support Chelation Therapy’s Effectiveness,” March 25, Xpress], as it provides insight into the forces keeping our conventional medical care focused exclusively upon expensive procedures and pharmaceuticals, without proper risk/benefit consideration given to nonprescription options.

The first force is “cognitive dissonance,” the mental discomfort we experience when confronted with new information that conflicts with existing beliefs or ideas. The discomfort increases relative to the investment [people have] in their current belief systems. So, after 14-15 years in higher education to become a cardiologist, it is almost impossible to accept that there may actually be a very useful therapy that they were originally taught was useless.

Indeed, their cognitive dissonance may blind them to the more recent $31 million National Institute of Health study known as TACT (Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy), which did show positive results, especially for diabetic patients. In fact, one recent analyses of this study (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014 7: 15-24) reports: “Post-myocardial infarction patients with diabetes mellitus aged >50 showed a marked reduction in cardiovascular events with EDTA chelation,” with “a 41 percent relative reduction in risk of a combined cardiovascular end point; … a 52 percent reduction in recurrent MI; and a reduction in death from any cause of 43 percent.”

Forbes magazine on Nov. 19, 2013, pointed out that the NNT (number needed to treat) with chelation therapy to prevent an event is about the same as with statin drugs (6.5 patients would need to be treated for five years to prevent one event). However, while statins carry significant risk for adverse events, the TACT study showed chelation therapy had zero significant risk.

The second force at play is “conflict of interest,” which we all understand. While Dr. Ely is correct that an entire series of EDTA runs about $4,000 and is not covered by insurance, that chelation client is seen 40 times over 20-40 weeks for that cost, at about $100 per IV. Dr. Ely neglects to compare that to the price of bypass surgery (which the Healthcare Bluebook puts at $39,572) or a coronary artery stent (ranging from $11,000-$30,000). The math is compelling.

In integrative medicine, we integrate whatever works and make decisions in partnership with fully informed clients. That is why I sent Bill Sites for his bypass surgery, because together he and I decided that it was finally time for it. I am so glad that it is available as an option and that he got a great result. However, while Dr. Ely asserts that “the medical consumer does need to be well-informed,” I doubt cardiologists are educating their patients about all of their true options, including chelation therapy and its enviable risk/benefit ratio, especially for their diabetic patients.

— James Biddle, MD
Asheville Integrative Medicine 

 

SHARE
About Letters
We want to hear from you! Send your letters and commentary to letters@mountainx.com

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

2 thoughts on “Letter writer: Oops, actually chelation therapy really does work….

  1. Fact Checker

    The letter writer does not report the conclusions of the study he cited: “These findings support efforts to replicate these findings and define the mechanisms of benefit. However, they do not constitute sufficient evidence to indicate the routine use of chelation therapy for all post-myocardial infarction patients with diabetes mellitus.”

    American Heart Association: “Additional research is needed to confirm these findings and to understand the
    mechanisms of action for the benefits seen in this trial. This is not ready for implementation into clinical practice”

    Journal of the AMA: “the study has generated controversy since its inception, with concerns that have included ethical issues involving an investigation by the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) regarding allegations of noncompliance with federal regulations for the protection of research participants2; study conduct issues involving allegations about the research capabilities and professional credentials of some study sites and site investigators,2 as well as temporary suspension of trial enrollment; and fundamental scientific issues, involving concerns ranging from the safety of the chelating agent being studied to modification of the prespecified sample size and alteration of the prespecified statistical significance levels because of multiple interim analyses.”

    Apparently the jury is still out.

  2. Kern

    The Jury is NOT still out. Chelation Therapy does work, new research is in.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.