Let’s start with the facts, what’s known to be true about chelation, before we move to the possibilities and the rumors of quackery. Chelation (pronounced “key†rather than “cheâ€) is the process of bonding metal or mineral, and in medical terms can be done either via intravenous (IV) or orally by pill to remove excess metals or toxins from the body.
EDTA chelation is approved by the FDA to treat lead poisoning and for heavy metal removal; different chelation chemicals are used for various purposes. In fact, multiple agents are used in each treatment, such as adding magnesium and potassium, and perhaps bicarbonate to reduce acidity.
Its first documented use in treatment of atherosclerosis was in 1956, but it’s still not approved to treat cardiovascular disease, nor does insurance pay for it in that instance. Still, the anecdotal evidence is accumulating, and that may get more solid next year when the results of an on-going National Institutes of Health (NIH) study are published. This is a 5-year trial that began in 2002 to determine the efficacy and safety of EDTA IV chelation therapy on coronary artery disease, specifically adults who have previously had a heart attack.
At this point, there are only guesses at how this works for reducing blood vessel stress, if it works at all. Researchers don’t yet know if it actually pulls the calcium from the plaques blocking the arteries or whether by reducing the metals in the bloodstream, arterial oxidative stress is decreased along with inflammation. Or something else entirely, no one knows; the majority have never heard of the treatment or those who have doubt it works at all.
But heck, let’s just make the jump from skeptic to curious — it’s easy enough to see how such a process would benefit us all. Arsenic… lead… cadmium… now mercury: metals are known to be toxic to the human body, some of us more susceptible than others, yet all affected somewhat by metal poisoning. Chelation is acknowledged even by the AMA to work for removing metals, and is covered by most insurance companies for treatment of metal poisoning, so why wouldn’t it work to treat people like Dave who may have problems with oxidation causing arterial disease?
Neither of us is convinced this will work. In fact, even Dave’s new doc (Warren Klausner, D.O.), who has seen IV chelation work time and time again in his own patients, tells us the success of chelation is varied. Some of his patients have remarkable results; some have moderate success and others can’t tell much of a difference.
It’s a gamble, really, of time (each of the 20 or 30 treatments takes nearly three hours) and of money (the treatments are $125 each and, in Dave’s case for cardiovascular disease, are not covered by insurance). But it’s not an unreasonable gamble. We paid more than that for our portion of Dave’s by-pass operation, and that was more of a targeted patch than a permanent fix. If chelation works, it’s a systemic solution to clear the circulatory system throughout the body, rather than replacing arteries of the heart that may again get blocked… and all this without major surgery.
While it’s only an experiment of one, we’ll make notes and provide an assessment, pro or con — and truthfully, we have no preconceived notion other than a positive but faint hope — for others who have arterial problems such as heart disease or peripheral arterial disease and are heading for radical medical options.
Most chelation doctors are registered with the American College for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM) and you can search out a local physician on their site if you find yourself interested in a consultation.
For the rest of us, the average aging adult with no apparent health issues who may be wondering about taking EDTA pills, Dr. Klausner says he hasn’t seen any research showing the effectiveness of oral chelation. However, Dr. Garry Gordon, perhaps the most well-known modern chelation practitioner, says in this article, “In our toxic world, oral EDTA offers potential benefits as diverse as those seen with some of our most powerful essential nutrients. I believe it has become as essential today for optimal health as any essential nutrient.â€
There are plenty of skeptics, way lots. For a collection of opposing viewpoint material, spend some time at Dr. Stephen Barrett’s Chelation Watch site, where you’ll find much of the anti-chelation pages organized. At first read, it appears the major gripe is that the studies done to date were inconclusive or not done using the double-blind protocol, and secondly, that there are chelation scam artists at work, no big surprise there.
Between 2,000 and 3,000 medical doctors use IV chelation in their practice here in the US, and it’s even more commonly used in Europe. Literally hundreds of thousands of patients have been “chelated,†perhaps even millions. Problems — side effects — of IV chelation include kidney pain, scary indeed, yet when patients who have kidney damage are pre-screened and dissuaded from treatment, problems are virtually eliminated if the chemical drip is slowed down and if adequate water is consumed by the patient. Conservative chelation doctors tamp down the drip to take at least two hours, even up to four, while monitoring the patient during treatment. Slower intake seems to prevent side effects.
Additionally, not everyone is a candidate. Blood tests should be done prior to beginning treatments, and the doc should review the patient’s prescriptions and supplement intake to determine the safety of the chelation chemicals in combination with the person’s other medicines.
Wild speculation here, coming from complete ignorance: I wonder if ineffectiveness has anything to do with using the wrong chemicals. That is, since it’s *known* that chelation can clear out metals, would chelation have worked on heart patients who felt no benefits had a different solution been used? It’s quite a time and financial commitment. Patients who don’t feel better are unlikely to take another run at it with a different doctor using other agents.
This article by Dr. Ward Dean discusses chelation as an underutilized treatment for heart disease and overall wellness, and is a good place for me to drop you as we wait for Dave’s treatments to begin or good, bad or null results to report.
Finally, we’re both hopeful, and Dave’s willing to invest a couple of months’ trial. Just the same, we’re completely aware that we may be back a month or two from now with a dismal report, and a laugh at ourselves for jumping, however briefly, off the traditional medicine treadmill.