Standard Podcast [37:29m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Heart of Health – do you have one?

Is the TACT Trial ‘Lost in Space’? The first NIH-sponsored research trial on intravenous EDTA chelation therapy for the treatment of cardiovascular disease – the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT trial) – is under attack by the notorious, so-called ‘quackbusters’ and their unofficial, but official sounding National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF). And the attack is being used to threaten our access to EDTA chelation therapy once again. It’s not about science. It’s about politics and medical economics.

‘Quackbusters’ Use Medscape to Publish their Biased, Inaccurate Article Against EDTA Chelation and the TACT Trial. This most recent attack by the so-called quackbusters comes in the form of an article they published on Medscape, an online resource for physicians that is supposed to be unbiased and objective. Title of article: Why the NIH Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) Should Be Abandoned.  Link to the original and summary articles. The authors concluded, using their supposed ‘expertise’ that the TACT trial is unethical, dangerous, pointless, and wasteful and that it should be abandoned. This conclusion is unwarranted, unsubstantiated and offensive to many physicians – and undoubtedly to many scientists at the NIH – who have invested significant time and money to make this important research possible.

Is the Medscape Article Evidence that the TACT Trial is Very Important? Some integrative medicine doctors think it is evidence that the pharmaceutical industry and the medical-industrial complex see chelation as a major threat economically. If the safe, inexpensive intravenous EDTA chelation therapy really is effective for treating cardiovascular disease then it is a huge threat to conventional medicine.

Dubious Authors and Referenced ‘Authorities’ of the Medscape Article: The article’s conclusions, and the opinion that the TACT trial should be abandoned, are from what appear to be grossly biased NCAHF doctors who hold themselves out to be ‘experts.’ Some of them have been discredited in court, even branded as being unfit as medical experts. A few of the NCAHF cronies include Wallace Sampson, Robert Baratz, Kimball Atwood (authors); and Stephen Barrett, Victor Herbert (referenced in the article); other ‘quackbusters’ of the NCAHF: William Jarvis, John Renner.

What Do the Federal Reserve and the National Council Against Health Fraud Have in Common? Both are private organizations, but use ‘National’ and ‘Federal’ in their names so they sound like official government entities. The NCAHF is anything but a legitimate council, with governmental oversight. Yet because of misleading names, people are fooled into believing they are official, sanctioned.

Are the NCAHF ‘Experts’ the Real Frauds? Court Discredits NCAHF and Medscape Authors:
1. See the article on attorney Carlos Negrete’s website: ‘Barrett Put in His Place Again.’ In Dr. Barrett’s own hometown the court commented on his de-licensed status. The NCAHF ‘quackbusters’ tried to convince the court that “…existing law should be changed” to allow them to bring lawsuits against doctors and companies, even if they have “little or no evidence against the targeted entity.” Essentially the NCAHF  told the court that the companies they target should be forced to defend themselves on the basis of accusation alone. The court concluded that it “was not persuaded that such a change in law was appropriate or logical.”

2. In a California Superior Court case, Medscape article author Dr. Wallace Sampson and Dr. Stephen Barrett were the so-called ‘experts’ representing the NCAHF in a case in which the NCAHF was accusing a homeopathic company of wrong doing. Judge Haley Fromholz concluded:

A. Dr. Sampson has “thin credentials to opine on the proper standards for…clinical or scientific research…for obtaining valid evidence about…the efficacy of drugs.”
B. Both Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett are “biased.” And the weight of their testimony was “slight in any event.” The two doctors “can be described as zealous advocates of the [NCAHF's] position.” They “therefore [cannot be considered] neutral or dispassionate experts.”
C. “In light of their affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said [of] Dr. Barrett and Dr. Sampson [that] their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility….”

Yet these are some of the so-called experts on Medscape that the medical world is relying on to opine that an NIH drug trial on EDTA chelation is ‘unethical and pointless’ and that it should be abandoned.

ACAM Response: The American College for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM), has publicly reaffirmed its commitment to the TACT trial. ACAM President, Dr. Jeanne Drisko said, “Ultimately, the TACT trial results will assess chelation therapy’s place in health care.” The TACT trial’’s principal investigator, Dr. Tony Lamas, is a Cardiologist who teaches at the University of Miami School of Medicine. He said he believes the allegations made by the ‘quackbusters’ are “without merit” and that “we’ll sufficiently answer their unfounded allegations of impropriety,” and that federal officials “will find that the allegations are of a political nature.”

EDTA Chelation Therapy Would Rock the Medical World. If EDTA chelation therapy is effective, which it appears to be empirically and in many published clinical reports, then something this safe and inexpensive – implemented on a large scale to treat heart and peripheral vascular disease – would rock the medical world as we know it.

To learn more and get involved in protecting your health freedoms:
Visit www.acam.org and find an ACAM doctor in your area. Also visit the Health Freedom Foundation and the foundation Dr. Julian Whitaker started: the Whitaker Health Freedom Foundation.

Good Medicine Word Of The Week: The ‘not-so-good’ NCAHF – stands for the non-official ‘National Council Against Health Fraud’ – a private organization we on TGM think is fraudulent and comprised largely of physician zealots who are on a quixotic global crusade to stamp out what they judge to be medical quackery.

Next Week: Rapid-fire review of recent published research on various other promising integrative medicine approaches that may help you have a Heart of Health.

 

 Standard Podcast [25:30m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

…The Real History of Medicine.

Show title, as an analogy: Bio-identical hormones are to medicine today as Homeopathic remedies were to medicine in the 1800s, in the Historic Struggle Between Empiricism and Rationalism.

Bias and Error in MSNBC Story, Mainstream Doctors Join Anti-Aging Bandwagon. We discuss flaws in the story that are of importance to our listeners

Contemporary Doctors Moving Toward Empiricism on the E-to-R Spectrum: The current shift in thinking from rationalism to empiricism is exemplified by the growing numbers of ‘anti-aging’ doctors, and the growth of other integrative medicine professional organizations – such as the American College for the Advancement of Medicine (ACAM) – embracing many healing approaches (not just ‘anti-aging’).

The Growing Use of Bio-identical Hormones: They’re among the most potent and powerful therapies in the modern-day empiricist’s medicine bag. The natural, normal hormone-receptor electromagnetic interactions are specific and delicate. Why should we be predominately using the foreign, ‘space alien,’ ‘designer drug’ hormones provided by the pharmaceutical industry, instead of the natural, bio-identical hormones?

Anti-Aging Medicine = Modern-Day Empiricism, and Big Pharma Not Happy About It. Wyeth pharmaceuticals petitioned the FDA to regulate compounding pharmacies – our only source of the bioidentical hormones prescribed by integrative medicine doctors. Wyeth’s was successful: In January the FDA ordered a number of compounding pharmacies to stop using one of the three, normal, natural, bio-identical female hormones, estriol, in their compounded products. This is unprecedented in the history of medicine. It’s an obvious attack by a pharmaceutical giant colluding with the FDA. This latest assault on ‘natural medicine’ is part of the ongoing empiricist versus rationalist tensions throughout medical history.

Big Pharma Via FDA Violating our Constitutional Rights? The FDA also ordered the compounding pharmacies to stop using the term “bio-identical” in their hormone replacement formulas. Now, like never before in the history of medicine, we need the new media of podcasting – and probably the likes of Congressman Ron Paul – to protect our medical freedoms, significantly limit government corruption by the pharmaceutical industry and allow for the advancement of good medicine. We need to continually remind ourselves and our government officials: They work for us.

Take Action through the American Association for Health Freedom (AAHF): The FDA has banned the importation of the bio-identical, female hormone estriol into the United States, but a U.S. House resolution deemed FDA’s ban on estriol to be “not in the public interest.” CLICK HERE to: tell your members of Congress to protect your access to natural, bio-identical hormone replacement therapy and to sponsor H. Con. Res. 342.

Good Medicine Word of the Week: Bio-identical hormones. They’re chemical messengers that have the same exact, unique structure that our bodies make naturally, and for which we have perfectly matching receptors on each of our cells. This is in contrast with pharmaceutical hormones: designer drugs with molecular structures similar enough to result in a similar effects on our cell receptors, but still without the same ‘perfect fit’ that the natural hormones have with our receptors. From earlier show: ’space alien’ molecules have ’space alien effects.’

Next Week’s Show: Historical importance of medical serendipity, adaptogens (natural anti-stress medicines), and much more.

Send TGM #7 to a friend: click here.