Chelation
01 Jan 2009, 9:52 pm
ImMelody wrote:
I wouldn't do it to myself, let alone my kids!
I would do it if I were in my mom's shoes. I have seen success in her case and I think I would choose chelation over heart surgery. My mom started putting butter on everything a few years ago (real butter, not margarine) and then her arteries get clogged. I think butter might have been a culprit. It looks like rectangular lard. If I don't eat butter I may never have anything to worry about. I try to eat healthy, as a rule.
I haven't seen any proof that autism is caused by impurities in the blood so I wouldn't recommend chelation as a treatment for autism, just for the removal of calcium, mercury, or lead if it is known to be in the blood and causing problems.
01 Jan 2009, 9:56 pm
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
ImMelody wrote:
I wouldn't do it to myself, let alone my kids!
I would do it if I were in my mom's shoes. I have seen success in her case and I think I would choose chelation over heart surgery. My mom started putting butter on everything a few years ago (real butter, not margarine) and then her arteries get clogged. I think butter might have been a culprit. It looks like rectangular lard. If I don't eat butter I may never have anything to worry about. I try to eat healthy, as a rule.
I haven't seen any proof that autism is caused by impurities in the blood so I wouldn't recommend chelation as a treatment for autism, just for the removal of calcium, mercury, or lead if it is known to be in the blood and causing problems.
Butter is currently healthier than margerine.
01 Jan 2009, 9:59 pm
Well, I wouldn't, personally, trust butter and that's because my mom was fine, had no heart problems until she and her sister decided to go back to how it was when they were kids and had "real butter" on their food. Then, mysteriously, she started having heart problems. She is not allowed by her physician to eat butter now, it's off limits. She eats Promise instead.
01 Jan 2009, 10:08 pm
Callista wrote:
Apparently there've been about 30 deaths so far...
re. mercury amalgam fillings... as far as we can tell the mercury's chemically bound and doesn't leach out in any form that can be absorbed by the human body... If you want to play it safe, just brush your teeth so you don't need any fillings. (And no guarantee that the plastic fillings are safe either.)
chelation is likely to cause further brain damage... at the very least it upsets the balance of the body and creates physical stress... Some of the most aggressively treated kids are probably turning out lower functioning than they could be, because so much time is spent on cure and not enough on education.
re. mercury amalgam fillings... as far as we can tell the mercury's chemically bound and doesn't leach out in any form that can be absorbed by the human body... If you want to play it safe, just brush your teeth so you don't need any fillings. (And no guarantee that the plastic fillings are safe either.)
chelation is likely to cause further brain damage... at the very least it upsets the balance of the body and creates physical stress... Some of the most aggressively treated kids are probably turning out lower functioning than they could be, because so much time is spent on cure and not enough on education.
Actually, some of the most DAMNING evidence that amalgam is NOT stable, disregarding various studies and anecdotes that ALSO agree with me, is the ADA(AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION)s statements about how amalgam should be handled by dentists. They would NOT do that with REAL silver, gold, tin, etc... HECK, they don't even do that with LEAD! Actually, I didn't believe I had cavities. It is interesting that it took DECADES before I got any others. I brush my teeth WELL! As for plastic, you're right. Still, I trust them better than mercury.
01 Jan 2009, 10:12 pm
gbollard wrote:
2ukenkerl wrote:
BTW as much I hate mercury, I bet THESE are the areas I got the most in:
1. "amalgam" fillings. I was LIED to and told they were silver! I asked what they were MADE of! GRANTED, even when young, I suspected the melting point was too high, and should have known, but I thought they were SUPPOSED to be HELPFUL.
1. "amalgam" fillings. I was LIED to and told they were silver! I asked what they were MADE of! GRANTED, even when young, I suspected the melting point was too high, and should have known, but I thought they were SUPPOSED to be HELPFUL.
You don't really expect a dentist to know this do you. They don't even seem to know the correct answer when you ask "will this hurt".
BTW: There was someone on WP not long ago claiming to have been "cured" by Chelation but I'm not sure if they were for real or just trolling.
Well, they have special handling requirements for amalgam. It should be OBVIOUS to them that it is TOXIC, and NOT silver. People have used silver for CENTURIES, and even INGESTED IT! The ONLY known bad side effect is an odd skin coloration if you go WAY overboard with it.
01 Jan 2009, 10:23 pm
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I'm not sure if that's the kind of calcium this is, 2u. This is the stuff that can clog an artery and impact it. Not a good scene. It's a deposit. Bank deposits are welcome, calcium deposits are not. That crusty stuff that collects on the water faucets in the bathroom and hangs from the ceilings in caves.
I don't think it's 100% chelation of calcium. It's enough to keep the blood flowing.
Anyway, she's so much healthier in all ways because of this. Even psychologically. What a difference. It's kind of like she's a new person and I wish this would have happened years ago. Who knows, maybe she had lead poisoning and this chelation therapy is removing that too. I am not sure why, exactly, just that it's good in her case.
I don't think it's 100% chelation of calcium. It's enough to keep the blood flowing.
Anyway, she's so much healthier in all ways because of this. Even psychologically. What a difference. It's kind of like she's a new person and I wish this would have happened years ago. Who knows, maybe she had lead poisoning and this chelation therapy is removing that too. I am not sure why, exactly, just that it's good in her case.
Calcium is an ELEMENT! Chelation doesn't directly work on molecules, the idea is to present something that won't KILL, but has a STRONG affiliation for the atoms that you want to remove. So you find something that has a strong affinity for calcium, and it will destroy any molecules that have calcium that doesn't have as strong a bond. It destroys them by removing calcium.
As I said, 100% chelation would be LETHAL. But you really have little control over which calcium atoms the chelation would affect. AND, BTW, they DO have drugs that will clean out plaque if there is ANY blood flow. They have products that can help if there isn't much blood flow. They have methods to clean out short runs of blockage in some arteries. If all else fails, they go to BYPASS. I don't know what quack would use chelation to get rid of calcium in arteries. Mercury, to the best of my knowledge has NO place in the body. LEAD has NO place! Aluminum has NO place. To the best of my knowledge, SILVER has no place. Calcium is VITAL!! !! !! !! Lead poisoning destroys nerves. I don't think it would correct existing damage, especially in someone so old.
01 Jan 2009, 10:32 pm
ImMelody wrote:
2 and Ana, it is the same chelation. The American Heart Association says that there is no proven link, but the theory is that it will trap and let the body excrete the calcium leaving the plaque diminished enough to finish breaking the plaque down.
As for chelation for treatment for Autism, I get into the debate a lot with parents I know (and some I don't). It's not proven to work. If you decide for whatever reason to get into an argument over it with curebies, remember citing the cardiac death will fall on deaf ears. They will say it's one case of malpractice and that chelation is "safe."
As Padium said, there are some really GOOD uses for chelation. They will save the lives of people who have true metal poisoning. But I cringe each time I hear someone talk about using it on their children. I wouldn't do it to myself, let alone my kids!
As for chelation for treatment for Autism, I get into the debate a lot with parents I know (and some I don't). It's not proven to work. If you decide for whatever reason to get into an argument over it with curebies, remember citing the cardiac death will fall on deaf ears. They will say it's one case of malpractice and that chelation is "safe."
Quote:
Can chelation therapy be dangerous?
EDTA isn’t totally safe as a drug. There’s a real danger of kidney failure. (renal tubular necrosis). EDTA can also cause bone marrow depression, shock, low blood pressure (hypotension), convulsions, disturbances of regular heart rhythm (cardiac arrhythmias), allergic-type reactions and respiratory arrest.
In fact, a number of deaths in the United States have been linked with chelation therapy. Also, some people are on dialysis because of kidney failure caused, at least in part, by chelation therapy.
The American Heart Association is concerned that some people who rely on this therapy may delay undergoing proven therapies like drugs or surgery until it’s too late. This is the added danger of relying on an unproven "miracle cure."
Clearly, people who choose chelation therapy are risking more than money.
EDTA isn’t totally safe as a drug. There’s a real danger of kidney failure. (renal tubular necrosis). EDTA can also cause bone marrow depression, shock, low blood pressure (hypotension), convulsions, disturbances of regular heart rhythm (cardiac arrhythmias), allergic-type reactions and respiratory arrest.
In fact, a number of deaths in the United States have been linked with chelation therapy. Also, some people are on dialysis because of kidney failure caused, at least in part, by chelation therapy.
The American Heart Association is concerned that some people who rely on this therapy may delay undergoing proven therapies like drugs or surgery until it’s too late. This is the added danger of relying on an unproven "miracle cure."
Clearly, people who choose chelation therapy are risking more than money.
As Padium said, there are some really GOOD uses for chelation. They will save the lives of people who have true metal poisoning. But I cringe each time I hear someone talk about using it on their children. I wouldn't do it to myself, let alone my kids!
If the child will die otherwise, or has been exposed to a lot of lead and/or mercury, etc... RECENTLY, I agree that chelation is fine. It is like removing a piece of the liver. It can be HARMLESS, etc... but is bad if done when there is little hope or need.
BTW for those that don't know, the liver can actually be damaged and regrow, so a person with a totally damaged liver can get a transplant using part of anothers liver with both people leaving the hospital with no real ill effects. BOTH pieces will regrow into a full liver again.
01 Jan 2009, 10:35 pm
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Well, I wouldn't, personally, trust butter and that's because my mom was fine, had no heart problems until she and her sister decided to go back to how it was when they were kids and had "real butter" on their food. Then, mysteriously, she started having heart problems. She is not allowed by her physician to eat butter now, it's off limits. She eats Promise instead.
Margarine has gotten better. Butter CAN be bad, but that is if you take LOTS over time. I doubt it had to do with your mothers heart problems. BTW such people usually have LOTS of other things with cholesterol and carbohydrates. THAT is probably more responsible.
01 Jan 2009, 10:53 pm
[quote="2ukenkerlIf the child will die otherwise, or has been exposed to a lot of lead and/or mercury, etc... RECENTLY, I agree that chelation is fine. It is like removing a piece of the liver. It can be HARMLESS, etc... but is bad if done when there is little hope or need.
BTW for those that don't know, the liver can actually be damaged and regrow, so a person with a totally damaged liver can get a transplant using part of anothers liver with both people leaving the hospital with no real ill effects. BOTH pieces will regrow into a full liver again.[/quote]
This isn't lead or mercury they are removing from his body, it is iron, which he gets excess of due to the transfusions.
01 Jan 2009, 11:03 pm
Padium wrote:
[quote="2ukenkerlIf the child will die otherwise, or has been exposed to a lot of lead and/or mercury, etc... RECENTLY, I agree that chelation is fine. It is like removing a piece of the liver. It can be HARMLESS, etc... but is bad if done when there is little hope or need.
BTW for those that don't know, the liver can actually be damaged and regrow, so a person with a totally damaged liver can get a transplant using part of anothers liver with both people leaving the hospital with no real ill effects. BOTH pieces will regrow into a full liver again.
BTW for those that don't know, the liver can actually be damaged and regrow, so a person with a totally damaged liver can get a transplant using part of anothers liver with both people leaving the hospital with no real ill effects. BOTH pieces will regrow into a full liver again.
This isn't lead or mercury they are removing from his body, it is iron, which he gets excess of due to the transfusions.[/quote]
Can't they reduce that going in? That DOES seem odd though. If they need to increase RBC, they can do THAT! If they want to increase plasma, they can do that. If they want to keep it static, they have machines to handle it. Any of those shouldn't raise the iron too high. After all, all three are done ALL THE TIME! Of course, I imagine whole blood transfusions might raise the iron too much if done a LOT.
01 Jan 2009, 11:18 pm
2ukenkerl wrote:
Padium wrote:
[quote="2ukenkerlIf the child will die otherwise, or has been exposed to a lot of lead and/or mercury, etc... RECENTLY, I agree that chelation is fine. It is like removing a piece of the liver. It can be HARMLESS, etc... but is bad if done when there is little hope or need.
BTW for those that don't know, the liver can actually be damaged and regrow, so a person with a totally damaged liver can get a transplant using part of anothers liver with both people leaving the hospital with no real ill effects. BOTH pieces will regrow into a full liver again.
BTW for those that don't know, the liver can actually be damaged and regrow, so a person with a totally damaged liver can get a transplant using part of anothers liver with both people leaving the hospital with no real ill effects. BOTH pieces will regrow into a full liver again.
This isn't lead or mercury they are removing from his body, it is iron, which he gets excess of due to the transfusions.
Can't they reduce that going in? That DOES seem odd though. If they need to increase RBC, they can do THAT! If they want to increase plasma, they can do that. If they want to keep it static, they have machines to handle it. Any of those shouldn't raise the iron too high. After all, all three are done ALL THE TIME! Of course, I imagine whole blood transfusions might raise the iron too much if done a LOT.[/quote]
The iron he gets is from the red blood cells themselves, as iron is a key factor in making them. He consumes as much iron as someone who produces red blood cells, and that iron is going nowhere, plus on top of that he gets more added through the red blood he gets from the transfusions. His body can;t get rid of that naturally, and anyone on regular tranfusions like that either has to go on chelation, or will die from iron poisoning. Iron poisoning is a brutally painful way to die. Anyways, if they could remove the iron from the blood, he probably wouldn't need as high a dose, which his dosage isn;t that high anyways, but he would still need it, as he is consuming more iron than his body can use up naturally. The only answer to fix that would be to be on a very dangerous no iron diet, but he would be reduced to eating sugar if that were the case. His doctor that deals with his chelation is a specialist at HSC in Toronto, so, with that bbeing one of the top children's hospitals in the world, I would assume they know what they are doing.
01 Jan 2009, 11:30 pm
Padium wrote:
2ukenkerl wrote:
Padium wrote:
[quote="2ukenkerlIf the child will die otherwise, or has been exposed to a lot of lead and/or mercury, etc... RECENTLY, I agree that chelation is fine. It is like removing a piece of the liver. It can be HARMLESS, etc... but is bad if done when there is little hope or need.
BTW for those that don't know, the liver can actually be damaged and regrow, so a person with a totally damaged liver can get a transplant using part of anothers liver with both people leaving the hospital with no real ill effects. BOTH pieces will regrow into a full liver again.
BTW for those that don't know, the liver can actually be damaged and regrow, so a person with a totally damaged liver can get a transplant using part of anothers liver with both people leaving the hospital with no real ill effects. BOTH pieces will regrow into a full liver again.
This isn't lead or mercury they are removing from his body, it is iron, which he gets excess of due to the transfusions.
Can't they reduce that going in? That DOES seem odd though. If they need to increase RBC, they can do THAT! If they want to increase plasma, they can do that. If they want to keep it static, they have machines to handle it. Any of those shouldn't raise the iron too high. After all, all three are done ALL THE TIME! Of course, I imagine whole blood transfusions might raise the iron too much if done a LOT.
The iron he gets is from the red blood cells themselves, as iron is a key factor in making them. He consumes as much iron as someone who produces red blood cells, and that iron is going nowhere, plus on top of that he gets more added through the red blood he gets from the transfusions. His body can;t get rid of that naturally, and anyone on regular tranfusions like that either has to go on chelation, or will die from iron poisoning. Iron poisoning is a brutally painful way to die. Anyways, if they could remove the iron from the blood, he probably wouldn't need as high a dose, which his dosage isn;t that high anyways, but he would still need it, as he is consuming more iron than his body can use up naturally. The only answer to fix that would be to be on a very dangerous no iron diet, but he would be reduced to eating sugar if that were the case. His doctor that deals with his chelation is a specialist at HSC in Toronto, so, with that bbeing one of the top children's hospitals in the world, I would assume they know what they are doing.[/quote]
I wouldn't figure that the RBC would count. They are only absorbed when they die, etc... and then excreted. If they were absorbed all the time, he would be tethered to an IV ALL THE TIME for the RBC! The iron is a VERY important part of hemoglobin, is required for RBC to work, and the reason why they are red, heck, you can smell it. All that is true of everyone. OH well, I'll defer to the doctors, and assume you researched it.
Yeah, Iron overdoses can be dangerous. That is supposedly one of the most common problems with children ingesting vitamins. Heck, it was even a house episode! They found a kid was in trouble because he had an iron overdose because, having a weak immune system, his brother gave him more vitamins. The brother felt more was better, but the extra vitamins caused an iron overdose.
02 Jan 2009, 1:36 am
I will have to look up the binding constants for mercury to EDTA, but I think that EDTA is no good for treating autism / AS becuase
1. Autism / AS are very unlikely to be caused by heavy metals (lead and mercury)
2. EDTA is not a good method of removing mercury or lead from the brain
What about BAL and DMSA, have those in favour of chelation used these drugs. I would be interested to know if the chelation doctors have published the details of their clinical methods (drug name and doses) so that we can have a look.
_________________
Health is a state of physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity
I am not a jigsaw, I am a free man ! Diagnosed under the DSM5 rules with autism spectrum disorder, under DSM4 psychologist said would have been AS (299.80) but I suspect that I am somewhere between 299.80 and 299.00 (Autism) under DSM4.
02 Jan 2009, 9:57 am
2ukenkerl wrote:
Padium wrote:
2ukenkerl wrote:
Padium wrote:
[quote="2ukenkerlIf the child will die otherwise, or has been exposed to a lot of lead and/or mercury, etc... RECENTLY, I agree that chelation is fine. It is like removing a piece of the liver. It can be HARMLESS, etc... but is bad if done when there is little hope or need.
BTW for those that don't know, the liver can actually be damaged and regrow, so a person with a totally damaged liver can get a transplant using part of anothers liver with both people leaving the hospital with no real ill effects. BOTH pieces will regrow into a full liver again.
BTW for those that don't know, the liver can actually be damaged and regrow, so a person with a totally damaged liver can get a transplant using part of anothers liver with both people leaving the hospital with no real ill effects. BOTH pieces will regrow into a full liver again.
This isn't lead or mercury they are removing from his body, it is iron, which he gets excess of due to the transfusions.
Can't they reduce that going in? That DOES seem odd though. If they need to increase RBC, they can do THAT! If they want to increase plasma, they can do that. If they want to keep it static, they have machines to handle it. Any of those shouldn't raise the iron too high. After all, all three are done ALL THE TIME! Of course, I imagine whole blood transfusions might raise the iron too much if done a LOT.
The iron he gets is from the red blood cells themselves, as iron is a key factor in making them. He consumes as much iron as someone who produces red blood cells, and that iron is going nowhere, plus on top of that he gets more added through the red blood he gets from the transfusions. His body can;t get rid of that naturally, and anyone on regular tranfusions like that either has to go on chelation, or will die from iron poisoning. Iron poisoning is a brutally painful way to die. Anyways, if they could remove the iron from the blood, he probably wouldn't need as high a dose, which his dosage isn;t that high anyways, but he would still need it, as he is consuming more iron than his body can use up naturally. The only answer to fix that would be to be on a very dangerous no iron diet, but he would be reduced to eating sugar if that were the case. His doctor that deals with his chelation is a specialist at HSC in Toronto, so, with that bbeing one of the top children's hospitals in the world, I would assume they know what they are doing.
I wouldn't figure that the RBC would count. They are only absorbed when they die, etc... and then excreted. If they were absorbed all the time, he would be tethered to an IV ALL THE TIME for the RBC! The iron is a VERY important part of hemoglobin, is required for RBC to work, and the reason why they are red, heck, you can smell it. All that is true of everyone. OH well, I'll defer to the doctors, and assume you researched it.
Yeah, Iron overdoses can be dangerous. That is supposedly one of the most common problems with children ingesting vitamins. Heck, it was even a house episode! They found a kid was in trouble because he had an iron overdose because, having a weak immune system, his brother gave him more vitamins. The brother felt more was better, but the extra vitamins caused an iron overdose.[/quote]
They also do liver biopsies every 6 monthes to check his iron levels and adjust the dosage appropriatly. Most adjustments happen when his growth has affected the amount of blood he needs.
02 Jan 2009, 12:33 pm
Padium,
Does he have kidney damage, or what? I didn't really read the first message you had until now, or think in these terms, but the kidneys produce a product called erythropoietin. It's purpose is to trigger the creation of RBC. They DO have a product called epogen:
Quote:
What is Epogen? Epogen is a man-made form of the protein human erythropoietin that is given to patients to lessen the need for red blood cell transfusions. Epogen stimulates your bone marrow to make more red blood cells. Having more red blood cells raises your hemoglobin level. If your hemoglobin level stays too high or if your hemoglobin goes up too quickly, this may lead to serious health problems which may result in death. These serious health problems may
happen even if you take Epogen and do not have an increase in your hemoglobin level.
Epogen may be used to treat a lower than normal number of red blood cells (anemia) if it is caused by: • Chronic kidney failure (you may or may not be on dialysis)
• Chemotherapy that is used for at least two months to treat some types of cancer • A medicine called zidovudine (AZT) used to treat HIV infection Epogen may also be used if you are scheduled for certain surgeries with a lot of blood loss to reduce the chance you will need red blood cell transfusions.
Who should not take Epogen? Do not take Epogen if you: • Have high blood pressure that is not controlled (uncontrolled hypertension).
• Have allergies to any of the ingredients in Epogen. See the end of this Medication Guide for a complete list
of ingredients in Epogen.
happen even if you take Epogen and do not have an increase in your hemoglobin level.
Epogen may be used to treat a lower than normal number of red blood cells (anemia) if it is caused by: • Chronic kidney failure (you may or may not be on dialysis)
• Chemotherapy that is used for at least two months to treat some types of cancer • A medicine called zidovudine (AZT) used to treat HIV infection Epogen may also be used if you are scheduled for certain surgeries with a lot of blood loss to reduce the chance you will need red blood cell transfusions.
Who should not take Epogen? Do not take Epogen if you: • Have high blood pressure that is not controlled (uncontrolled hypertension).
• Have allergies to any of the ingredients in Epogen. See the end of this Medication Guide for a complete list
of ingredients in Epogen.
There is also aranesp.
If the problem is bone marrow, they OUGHT to be able to find a donor. The idea of endless transfusions and/or endless chelation is like playing russian roulette(An english or american description of removing most(usually all but one) of the bullets in a revolver, spinning the barrel, and then trying to shoot yourself, or be shot by another, in such a manner).
