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 [31:15m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Heart of Health – do you have one?

Helen Keller: “The heresy of one age becomes the orthodoxy of the next.”

Is it time to quit viewing EDTA chelation therapy for heart disease as medical heresy, and start using on a more wide spread basis in this new age of medicine?

This is Part 2 of Effective Alternatives for Treating Cardiovascular Disease – EDTA Chelation as Front-Runner.

Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy, TACT trial: We discuss this placebo-controlled trial sponsored by the National Institute of Health. This research is worthwhile, but in our opinion we already have enough empirical and research-based evidence to be offering intravenous EDTA chelation therapy to cardiovascular disease patients now. Regardless, and unfortunately, it appears that the so-called ‘quack busters’ – the phony ‘experts’ from the ‘National Council Against Health Fraud’ – are trying to sabotage the TACT trial in attempt to expunge this safe, simple, effective and inexpensive alternative treatment for cardiovascular diseases. Next week we shine the TGM spotlight on the ‘quack busters.’

EDTA Monograph by Cardiologist Dr. Stephen Olmstead: “The preponderance of clinical reports in the medical literature support a claim of efficacy for symptomatic angina, intermittent claudication and critical leg ischemia.” Note: we are currently trying to get in touch with Dr. Olmstead to find a digital version of the Monograph and link to it from the TGM website.

EDTA Chelation Therapy as ‘Holistic’ Therapy: EDTA is not a ‘natural’ product. It is an artificial, synthetic drug. However, one could argue that it is a ‘holistic’ therapy since it is infused systemically, and reaches and potentially detoxifies heavy metals from most of our tissues and organs.

EDTA Package Insert Altered by Abbott Labs to Remove Cardiovascular Disease as an Indication for the Drug: Even by the 1960s existing evidence for EDTAs efficacy to treat cardiovascular disease was enough for Abbott Labs to include it as one of the ‘indications’ for the drug. Later the language was arbitrarily changed, stating that EDTA is ‘not’ indicated for this purpose. To the best of our knowledge, this mysterious manipulation of medical product information is unprecedented in medical history.

Off-Label Drug Legislation the Result of One Doctor’s Fight Against the FDA to Be Able to Offer EDTA Chelation to His Patients. In 1981, during a ‘David and Goliath’ type battle, Dr. Ray Evers from Alabama fought the US Food and Drug Administration for his right to use EDTA to treat his patients with cardiovascular disease. With EDTA in his ’sling’ he toppled the FDA. The federal court ruling in favor of Dr. Evers stated that the FDA’s arguments against Dr. Evers were “nonsensical.” This was a huge victory for patients and the advancement of good medicine not only because it lessened the FDA’s tyranny against our medical freedoms, but also because it resulted in today’s doctors’ ability to prescribe drugs ‘off-label.’ This means we  can now legally use any medication for any purpose, even though that purpose – that ‘indication’ – is not necessarily approved by the FDA. All this because of Dr. Ever’s fight for EDTA! Kevin asks the logical question: Why was the FDA trying to regulate an Alabama doctor’s medical practice? And Dr. Douglass asks: What political influences – what constituencies/vested interests – may have teamed up with the FDA to start that battle against EDTA and Dr. Evers in the first place? We’ll may never know.

Dr. Rogers vs. the Florida State Board of Medical Examiners: Dr. Robert Rogers, MD fought the Florida Medical Board all the way to the Florida Supreme Court over his right to provide EDTA to his patients with cardiovascular disease, and won. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the action of the Florida medical board restraining Dr. Rogers from utilization of chelation therapy for his patients was “an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the state’s police power.”

Note: To download full report as a pdf file click on the document.

Negative Published Studies On EDTA Chelation Therapy For Treating Cardiovascular Disease: There have been six negative studies. We discuss them, and how they all either have major irregularities from a scientific standpoint, or have negative conclusions even though the results reported in the studies were positive. For an excellent online resource with commentary and analysis of each one of the studies, go to http://www.drcranton.com/chelation.htm And as we’ve mentioned on previous shows, a good resource for finding physicians who are likely to be offering intravenous EDTA is the organization American College for Advancement in Medicine at acam.org.

Good Medicine Word Of The Week: Off-label use – in commemoration of Dr. Ray Evers and his ‘David and Goliath’ fight against the FDA. Now American physicians can use EDTA, and any other drugs, for purposes other than what the FDA approves them for.

Next week: If intravenous EDTA chelation really is a safe, effective and inexpensive alternative to bypass surgery and angioplasty, do you think there might be attempts by conventional medicine to squelch it? We’ll shine the TGM spotlight on the phoney ‘quack busters‘ and the so-called National Councel Against Health Fraud (or is it the ‘National Councel of Health Frauds’?) in their obvious efforts to supress the TACT trial and our access to EDTA chelation therapy for treating heart disease.

 

 Standard Podcast [24:39m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

…The Real History of Medicine.

Title for this installment: Experiences in Empiricism – Past and Present.

Introduction: “The beautiful rests on the foundations of the necessary,” Ralph Waldo Emerson. Thanks for being part of the early TGM experience as we continue to lay the necessary foundation for what we think is beautiful, good medicine. Empirically minded doctors throughout history have had the mindset that evidence from experience – if the evidence has born the test of time – is just as valuable as evidence supported by rigorous scientific research. The practitioners who are more rationalist-minded tend to believe – rationalize – that we shouldn’t offer any therapy unless: A) it’s undergone the gamut of scientific studies to ‘prove’ that it’s safe and effective; and B) unless we’ve fully defined the therapy’s mechanism of action. This is neither practical nor realistic for the advancement of good medicine.

Empiricism at Work Historically: The Homeopaths Introduced Nitroglycerin to Medicine.
Nitroglycerin is a perfect case in point for our discussion today, because back in the 1800s, before the FDA even existed, it was introduced into medicine empirically, not based on controlled scientific studies. And we need to credit and thank the Homeopaths – the chief empiricists of that time – for the fact that the good medicine has been grandfathered into our modern-day ‘standard of care.’

If the Homeopaths Introduced Nitroglycerin into Medicine Today:
The current ‘FDA-Approval-Based’ health care model (the approval of drugs, ‘space alien molecules’) largely controls our health care and it fosters and epitomizes the rationalist mindset. It’s possible that if nitroglycerin were discovered today that we’d never get the medication through the FDA approval process and included in our therapeutic armamentarium.

EDTA Chelation: Contemporary Example of Empirically-Based Therapy.
The NIH Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) for the treatment of cardiovascular did not come about as a result of a pharmaceutical company wanting to get approval for a promising cardiovascular drug, since Abbot lab’s patent on EDTA expired a long time ago. Instead, the NIH trial was initiated largely as a result of public pressure on the NIH – pressure by innovative, contemporary, empirically-minded doctors and their satisfied patients – to get approval for a non-patentable, and thus non-prevailing therapy that empirically really works (based on the historical experiences of doctors and their patients).

Modern-Day Medical Mavericks and Chelation Therapy:
Even to get to the point of now having the NIH trial, a lot of good doctors, empirically-minded practitioners – history’s recent medical heretics – have fought really hard to be able to offer EDTA chelation to their patients.

Insights From Informal Polling of Contemporary Empiricists at ACAM Meetings:
If the vast majority of doctors offering intravenous EDTA chelation to their cardiovascular disease patients (with chest pain and claudication) indicate during a ’straw pole’ that they see – experience – dramatic improvements in their patients, does this really mean anything? To the empirically minded doctor, probably: yes. To the rationalist minded doctor: probably not. The different frames of reference and perceptions regarding the value of empirical evidence illustrate the tension between the empiricists and the rationalists throughout medical history.

Echoes From the Wilds of Good Medicine: Thank you Steve from Arizona for feedback and insights.

Good Medicine Word of the Week: Empiricism – the frame of thought, the mindset for medicine, that experience-based evidence throughout medical history – not necessarily just controlled clinical trials – are really important and valid aspects of good, evidence-based medicine.

Next week’s show: The 3rd installment of History of Healing–History of Killing, with more necessary insights to lay the foundation for TGM.

Good medicine is a beautiful thing. Thanks for being part of it with us!

Send TGM #5 to a friend: click here.