Chelation newspaper article

[Professor Yaffle]

I did a google scolarsearch on chelation. There were plenty of studies on using it for confirmed heavy metal poisoing and for clearing iron in beta thalassemia. But in the area the article was covering, I got things like this in heart disease:

Chelation therapy for coronary heart disease: An overview of all clinical investigations.
Clinical Investigations
American Heart Journal. 140(1):139-141, July 2000.
Ernst, E. MD, PhD, FRCP (Edin)

Abstract:
Background: Chelation therapy is popular in the United States. The question of whether it does more good than harm remains controversial.
Aim: The aim of this systematic review was to summarize all the clinical evidence for or against the effectiveness and efficacy of chelation therapy for coronary heart disease.
Methods: A thorough search strategy was implemented to retrieve all clinical investigations regardless of whether they were controlled or uncontrolled.
Results: The most striking finding is the almost total lack of convincing evidence for efficacy. Numerous case reports and case series were found. The majority of these publications seem to indicate that chelation therapy is effective. Only 2 controlled clinical trials were located. They provide no evidence that chelation therapy is efficacious beyond a powerful placebo effect. Conclusion: Given the potential of chelation therapy to cause severe adverse effects, this treatment should now be considered obsolete. (Am Heart J 2000;140:139-41.)

http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/amhj/a...Jn1Lhnk0pTq57jK9!1873265815!181195628!8091!-1

And this RCT:

Conclusion Based on exercise time to ischemia, exercise capacity, and quality of life measurements, there is no evidence to support a beneficial effect of chelation therapy in patients with ischemic heart disease, stable angina, and a positive treadmill test for ischemia.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/4/481

And for autism:

Chelation therapy neither safe nor effective as autism treatment

http://aapnews.aappublications.org/cgi/content/citation/19/2/63

...there is no compelling evidence to suggest that chelation therapy is an effective treatment for autism. A review of Medline (1966 to April 2006) and Premedline did not yield any relevant reviews or randomised controlled trials of chelation therapy for autism spectrum disorder.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7571/756

 

[krazyKemist]

I'm more interested in knowing the truth than I am in being right. A quick search on chelation (15 minutes) turned up enough documents to dismiss anyone who claims "Chelation is woo". And that was without going to any "pro chelation" or alternative sites.

I've seen nobody say "chelation is woo". I've seen people say "chelation is woo, when used for [application]". A chelating agent, as defined in chemistry, is an organic molecule (of any type) which can bind a metal by coordination using more than one bond. You could say that it "grabs" a metal. Different chelating agents have different specificities. EDTA, for example, has a high specificity for calcium, and none to speak of for mercury. Which makes it totally inadequate to treat mercury poisioning, and thus autism if you view it with the (not even wrong) antivaxer's rationale. And a high risk (cardiac arrest, kidney damage, ect.) when injected intravenously by somebody who does not take adequate precautions.

I have a dozen documents in front of me right now that show without a doubt, that Chelation is a very promising and useful medical treatment, for things ranging from Wilson's Disease to Heart disease, to minimize retinal inflammation secondary to laser photocoagulation, inhibition of tumor growth, and more. Agents like alpha-lipoic acid, dihydrolipoic acid and trientine are showing amazing results in both animal and human studies. Some of the studies are 12 years old. It isn't all new stuff.

Chelation is useful for diseases or conditions which are caused by accumulation of metals (whether external poisoning or defective enzymes). Wilson's, for example, is caused by an accumulation of copper due to a defective enzyme. If you are using a chelating agent against a condition which does not depend directly or indirectly on metal overload, then we're not talking about chelation, even if the same substance is sometimes used as a chelating agent. Many compounds have multiple biological effects. I'd even say most of them.

As for heart disease (or rather atherosclerosis), the rationale for the use of chelation has been quite completely debunked. Because the plaque that clogs artheries contained high concentration of calcium, it was thought that EDTA, by removing calcium, would soften the artheries and solve the problem. However, we now know that atherosclerosis involves damaged artheries, not just plaque. It is actually an autoimmune destruction which starts 15 to 20 years before any symptoms (if there are symptoms) appear. The plaque is a failed attempt of the body at repairing the damage. A little like what happens when a liver becomes cirrhotic. Removing plaque, even if you succeeded in doing it, would not solve it in the slightest.

 

[robinson]

As for heart disease (or rather atherosclerosis), the rationale for the use of chelation has been quite completely debunked. Because the plaque that clogs arteries contained high concentration of calcium, it was thought that EDTA, by removing calcium, would soften the arteries and solve the problem.

Doing a modest amount of reading, that doesn't match the historical record.

Doctors noticed, while doing chelation therapy for heavy metal poisoning, that it also reduced or relieved patients symptoms of atherosclerosis. Which led to it's use in that regard.

After a patient died (they didn't know about the calcium/potassium balance problem back then), it was pretty much stopped until more research was done.

Animal and human studies showed benefits, and Doctors started using it again, but with safer methods, especially in regards to calcium and potassium levels. Human studies that showed a benefit were rejected by the AMA, and they tried to stop all Doctors from using it.

Non-American Doctors never stopped, but in America it became a topic of considerable controversy. Still is it seems.

Currently a large human trial is underway, to settle the issue once and for all. For AMA Doctors.

 

[petra10]

I was just gonna say what you have said Krazykemist, although you put it so much better.

My son has Sideroblastic anemia, which causes an iron overload in his body. He has been on chelation treatment for 13 years.The treatment has worked wonderfully for him as it has estracted loads of excess iron from him.

As to whether it would be successfull for heart problems or autism I just cant see how it would work.

 

[robinson]

You never know what new scientific discoveries are going to be discovered. Deferoxamine (DF), a chelating agent used to treat iron overload (he leading cause of death in beta-thalassemia major), turns out to have other uses.

New Treatment Boosts Bone Healing And Regrowth

ScienceDaily (Jan. 12, 2008) — A drug originally used to treat iron poisoning can significantly boost the body’s own ability to heal and re-grow injured bones, according to researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB).

The researchers injected the drug deferoxamine (DF), which is designed to reduce iron overload, into injured mouse bones. They found DF triggered the growth of new blood vessels, which in turn kicked off bone re-growth and healing.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080110085148.htm

 

[JJM]

Doing a modest amount of reading, that doesn't match the historical record. {snip}

Why don't you share what you are reading with us? I cited an article that describes, in detail, why most of the stuff you are reading is wrong. The ability to read is not the same as the ability to understand.

Try this: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=132

 

[robinson]

However, their evidence consists of anecdotes, testimonials, and poorly designed experiments.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chelation.html

Atherosclerosis
Proponents of EDTA chelation therapy for heart disease believe that this process may help people with atherosclerosis or peripheral vascular disease (namely, decreased blood flow to the legs) by clearing clogged arteries and improving blood flow. However, this proposed mechanism has not been proven. For example, in a study of 30 people with atherosclerosis of the carotid arteries (vessels that supply blood to the brain), 10 months of EDTA chelation treatments significantly improved blood flow to the brain. The problem with the information from this study, however, is that these patients were not compared to any other group. Therefore, it is not clear if they got better simply by chance or because the EDTA intervention really made a difference.

http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/ethylenediaminetetraacetic-acid-000302.htm

It is most odd, that study mentioned, the one with 30 people, I can not find. It isn't mentioned on the pro chelation sites either. (Yes, I went there at last. Horrible)

But I did learn some interesting stuff. And that old bugaboo showed up again. Actually, the double headed bugaboo showed up. Several times. Fascinating.

 

[robinson]

However, their evidence consists of anecdotes, testimonials, and poorly designed experiments.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chelation.html

Atherosclerosis
Proponents of EDTA chelation therapy for heart disease believe that this process may help people with atherosclerosis or peripheral vascular disease (namely, decreased blood flow to the legs) by clearing clogged arteries and improving blood flow. However, this proposed mechanism has not been proven. For example, in a study of 30 people with atherosclerosis of the carotid arteries (vessels that supply blood to the brain), 10 months of EDTA chelation treatments significantly improved blood flow to the brain. The problem with the information from this study, however, is that these patients were not compared to any other group. Therefore, it is not clear if they got better simply by chance or because the EDTA intervention really made a difference.

http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/ethylenediaminetetraacetic-acid-000302.htm

It is most odd, that study mentioned, the one with 30 people, I can not find. It isn't mentioned on the pro chelation sites either. (Yes, I went there at last. Horrible)

But I did learn some interesting stuff. And that old bugaboo showed up again. Actually, the double headed bugaboo showed up. Several times. Fascinating.

 

[krazyKemist]

You never know what new scientific discoveries are going to be discovered. Deferoxamine (DF), a chelating agent used to treat iron overload (he leading cause of death in beta-thalassemia major), turns out to have other uses.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080110085148.htm

But that's probably not due to a chelating effect (you would have to look at the mechanism to prove/disprove it), but rather to another effect of the same drug (a so-called side-effect). It might be that this compound is, in addition to its ability to bind iron, an agonist of the VEGF receptor, for example. So it's not justified to talk about chelation in that case, not without a known mechanism of action.

 

[krazyKemist]

Actually, the problem we have when discussing chelation is the same problem we have with every, shall we say, more science-based treatment alternative medicine has co-opted. The problem of excessive oversimplification and whoolly definitions.

Take antioxidants, for example. A broad category of molecules which may have many other effects than inhibitor of superoxide dismutase (SOD; that's what a classic antioxidant does), some of which can be way more important than their power to inhibit SOD. Now that alt. med., the supplement industry and its close friend nutraceutics has gotten hold of this, all sorts of things are peddled (and charged a premium for) as containing wonderful "antioxidants", some of which may have numerous other effects. In fact, as a medicinal chemist, if you tell me "antioxidant", the term is very close to meaningless now.

For chelation, it's about the same thing, except that it still has a proper definition. For the chelationist, every health problem under the sun, from autism and heart disease to cancer, is caused by "heavy metal poisoning" and removing toxic metals the only "natural" way to treat the "real underlying problem". Some even go as far as pretending that chelating agents can remove fat or cholesterol, which is total BS (and if such tendencies continue, the alt. med. definition of "chelation" will become as meaningless as "antioxidant" or "toxin"). Now both of these things are false. Heavy metal poisoning is pretty rare and is mostly linked to occupation or environment. Iron, copper, zinc or other oligoelements overload is also generally rare and part of genetic disorders, which generally have pretty striking symptoms. Removal of existing metals using chelation is a legitimate treatment.

However, even if EDTA were proven active against atherosclerosis, it would still be false to announce to the world "chelation works against coronary disease", when the actual result would be "IV EDTA has a positive effect on coronary disease". Without the biochemistry of EDTA's action, you cannot say for sure that it acted as a chelating agent. What does it change ? Well, it means that another chelating agent, even one that has the same metal specificities as EDTA, will probably not have the same effect, even though you're technically still doing chelation.

 

[Ixion]

Looks like chelation therapy might be federally funded by the US National Institute of Mental Health. Check out this article on MSN:
Fringe autism treatment could get federal study