werner@aecom.UUCP (10/22/86)
> > > > > > Any information about chelation therapy, pro and con, would > > > be appreciated. ... > > > > > It is worthless. It is potentially dangerous. It is expensive. > > And, if the FDA has since acted, it is illegal (or soon will be.) > > > > Besides, there are currently some very good conventional and > > proven methods of accomplishing the same thing. > > > > Craig Werner (MD/PhD '91) > From Bill Stoll: > I've been trying to lure my father back to the net since he left it > around 1/86 due to full schedules and defective Macintoshes. He is an ^^^^^^^^ > advocate of chelation ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Why am I not suprised about the latter? Chelation Therapy usually involves giving the patient Sodium EDTA in the belief that it will chelate the Cholesterol off the arteries. Calcium EDTA would probably be a better idea, but is used less often. EDTA chemically will chelate divalent cations, which means Iron, Lead, Calcium, Maganese, Magnesium, etc. Of course, supplements for these minerals (excepting Lead, of course) are provided (at considerable profitability). It will not, in a test tube, significantly increase the water-solubility of cholesterol. Yet despite that, about half the patients who undergo it, at about $3500 per, experience some relief of symptoms. I should note that in heart disease, any manipulation will relieve the symptoms in 50% of the people. So it is a very expensive placebo - no more. Does it lower serum cholesterol? No, it doesn't. Is it harmless? Not really, since in addition to mineral loss which can be mitigated as above, EDTA damages the kidneys. Is it effective? It works no better than placebo, even if it does help about half of those that try it. But then again, I suspect that for $3500, given the large psychogenic component of heart disease, people will try their unconscious best to get their money's worth. Basically it's mechanism is "You gotta believe." Is it cost-effective? No. Is it profitable? You better believe it. If you want two ways to lower cholesterol via dietary supplementation, here are the only two that I know of that work: 1. Cholestyramine - it lowers Cholesterol 10-15%, but it is a resin, has to be mixed, and allegedly tastes horrible. 2. Activated Charcoal - probably tastes just as bad, but is cheap, available without prescription, and about as effective in preliminary trials. Both work by sequestering bile acids. Bile acids are made from Cholesterol, and then recycled. WIth the recycling chain broken, the body must make more bile acids, from, you guessed it, Cholesterol. Of course, reduced fat in the diet, increased exercise (even just walking), and cessation of smoking (if applicable) are still the best means of reducing cholesterol. -- Craig Werner (MD/PhD '91) !philabs!aecom!werner (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) "Doonesbury is more important than self-respect."
jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) (11/06/86)
In article <528@aecom.UUCP> werner@aecom.UUCP writes: > 2. Activated Charcoal - probably tastes just as bad, but is >cheap, available without prescription, and about as effective in >preliminary trials. > Both work by sequestering bile acids. Activated charcoal is pretty general -- it will absorb just about any molecule within a certain range. That's why it's one of the treatments for ingested poisons. Did your source give a reason why someone thought of trying it as a specific for this? Thanks. -- Joe Yao hadron!jsdy@seismo.{CSS.GOV,ARPA,UUCP} jsdy@hadron.COM (not yet domainised)