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.