February 22, 2000
Derrick Lonsdale, MD, PhD, Editor
Journal of Advancement in Medicine
24700 Center Ridge Road
Westlake, OH 44145
Re: Guest Editorial: What About Oral Chelation?
Elmer M. Cranton, MD
Vol 12, Number 4, Winter 1999
Dear Sir:
The Guest Editorial, What About Oral Chelation? which appeared in the 1999 Winter issue, pages 237-239 by Elmer Cranton has presented the negative view. I am a strong proponent, involved in the commercial development of oral chelators. I believe that all health professionals seriously underutilize chelating agents in our polluted world. I believe they need more information if they are to accurately inform their patients regarding the benefit/risk ratio of any oral chelators including EDTA, penicillamine, DMPS, DMSA, malic acid, etc.
My extensive background in trace element research has convinced me that we exist in a heavy metal polluted environment that most experts today agree is clearly having adverse effects on everyone on the planet. The remarkable long term benefits documented in Dr. Blumer’s 18-year study of IV CALCIUM EDTA proves that simply lowering at least some of these toxic metals offers significant benefits, probably for everyone. I propose that very possibly similar but less dramatic benefits are achievable with oral chelators. I do NOT suggest that oral chelation can or should replace IV chelation, but we must clearly delineate, for the consumer to the best of today’s understanding, what each modality might do for them.
The question becomes what is the most cost-efficient way to provide at least some of these chelation benefits to millions of people. Clearly there are probably few entirely risk-free medical interventions. Even aspirin is not risk free, yet in an effort to have fewer heart attacks, many are consuming it daily, while approximately 3000 die each year from it, and over 20,000 require blood transfusions annually. Thus, anyone may allege that oral EDTA may have some risks, just as many allege that hi-dose Vitamin C, or high fiber diets are also dangerous. (Again due to Mineral depletion, or kidney stones) However I believe oral chelation is here to stay, so I believe we need to bring the entire story out, perhaps in a debate forum, where adequate time to really review the published literature will help attendees develop their own informed opinion. A major university, Baylor, is reportedly completing the research on a patented Liposome form of EDTA for oral administration. This may bring its absorption up to as much as 60 percent, from the generally accepted 5-18 percent absorption, with currently available oral EDTA preparations. We also know that rectal suppositories of EDTA are now being promoted as effective for enhancing lead excretion, although many other claims have already appeared in lay literature.
These developments along with the recent development by a major multi-billion dollar corporation of a new, reputedly highly effective oral chelator, clearly suggest that this “turf-war” over which chelator and which mode of administration is best for which indication is not going to go away. I believe it is professionally dangerous to improperly or incompletely inform our patients about this topic when we are asked, particularly when it may appear that we have a conflict of interest if we are only advocating IV chelation. I therefore perceive a real need for every chelating physician to get at the full truth behind oral and IV EDTA as well as other chelators so that their patients are as fully informed as possible regarding all benefits and risks associated with the various choices of chelating approaches. I believe our patients MUST be clearly informed that IV therapy is not documented to reverse plaque as consistently, as for example the Ornish program has clearly been shown to do. So we must be careful to separate symptomatic improvement due to improved blood flow from what the patients generally believe is reversal of arteriosclerosis. If patients can also achieve ANY benefits from well-formulated oral chelation products, we must avoid repeating the same mistake of which we accuse by-pass surgeons; namely, providing false and misleading or certainly incomplete information regarding the benefits and risks of their proposed therapies, particularly where we have an obvious financial interest in the patient’s chosen therapy.
The use of chelating agents as medicinals has long been controversial. Commercial preparations, such as desferoxamine, BAL and DMPS, penicillamine, DMSA and other organic acids, vary in availability and approved indications between countries. Ethylene diamine tetra-acetic acid (EDTA, a synthetic amino acid), in particular, went from respectability to notoriety as a result of being liberally dispensed in pill form to lead (PB) exposed workers by an industry opposed to less contaminated but more expensive factories, and that reputation, combined with enigmatic mechanisms of biological action, tarnished the promising results seen in early studies of EDTA therapy in a variety of chronic degenerative diseases.
FDA-approved indications for use of available EDTA formulations are still limited to lead and heavy metal toxicity, hypocalcaemia and digitalis-related arrhythmias, but off-label use as an intravenous (IV) infusion to treat cardiovascular illnesses has persisted for more than forty years in over one million patients. This practice has become synonymous with the term “Chelation therapy” in contemporary usage, and medical organizations such as the American College for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM) and American Board of Chelation Therapy (ABCT) continue to train doctors and promote its use according to safety and efficacy protocols based upon clinical experience and other scientific documentation. Despite numerous published medical reports and lay testimonials attesting to beneficial effects, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has recently ruled that ACAM and its members must cease and desist from promoting EDTA chelation therapy as a specific treatment for cardiovascular disease, and has served notice it will monitor printed and on-line literature for violations of individual practitioners.
While opposition to EDTA Chelation from cardiovascular surgical interests and pharmaceutical companies with competing patent-protected drugs might not be unexpected, controversy has also erupted among proponents of EDTA, largely over what is meant clinically by “chelation.” At times, the debate over “mini-chelation”, oral chelation, and rapid calcium-disodium edetate chelation, is so impassioned that it is reminiscent of the bitter internecine warfare between the “low potency” and “high potency” homeopaths, which ultimately weakened and helped destroy the profession for a century. The introduction recently of a patented suppository form and the development of a patented enhanced “Liposomal” form for oral use threatens to further divide the chelation movement.
Part of the division stems from belief in single mechanisms of action for EDTA in biological systems, which physicians may perceive as a more defensible posture, but which is probably neither scientifically accurate or legally secure. While biological activities such as the redistribution of metastatic calcium, removal of heavy metals and cross-linkages, binding of transition metals and quenching of free radical reactions, egress of metallic enzyme inhibitors, and apparent increased efficiency of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation have each been nominated as EDTA’s primary mode of action, its actual functions appear to be multiple, intertwining and not yet fully discovered. For example, its remarkable effects in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) have never been satisfactorily explained by any known mechanism. Nor has its remarkable “adjunctive” action rendering oral heparin virtually as active as injected heparin ever been fully understood or even studied.
Genomic diversity and acquired biochemical individuality may selectively determine a more operant mode of EDTA action from person to person and, not surprisingly, different forms of administering EDTA show different clinical effects in different types of patients. There are today at least three distinct forms and meanings to EDTA “chelation” therapy, and misperception of their respective current roles has led to unnecessary confusion and fears of economic loss by health care providers.
First, disodium (or magnesium-disodium) EDTA by slow IV, in accordance with the original Gordon-Cranton protocol as adopted by AAMP, ACAM and ABCT, has been proven to mobilize the pathological calcifications associated with the aging process, and is clinically observed to often be beneficial as part of treatment programs for a number of conditions associated with aging, such as cardiovascular deterioration which accompanies calcific atherosclerosis. Second, calcium-disodium EDTA by rapid IV, has been shown to also remove ubiquitous heavy metals, especially lead (EDTA does not compete well for mercury, and other agents are needed), and was associated with a 86 percent reduction in cancer deaths and an 91 percent decline in overall cardiovascular mortality in an 18-year Swiss study by Dr. Blumer.
Finally, with the recent discovery that rupture of vulnerable, non-calcified arterial plaque is the cause of as high as 85 percent of sudden cardiac and cerebrovascular deaths, non-parenteral EDTA (oral and suppository) and EDTA based natural product supplement combinations has gained new candidacy as a safe, long-term, adjunctive anti-thrombotic food supplement particularly in the presence of vascular inflammation and hypercoagulable states. (NOTE-1999 American Heart Association text on Vulnerable plaque clearly admits the relative ineffectiveness of all commonly prescribed antiplatelet/anticoagulent drugs- while making the case that such continuous therapy is more important that surgical intervention!).
As IV chelation provides no practical around-the-clock protection against sudden lethal thrombosis following plaque rupture, it may be advisable to combine both a properly formulated oral EDTA product and parenteral EDTA at least in the patient at risk from vulnerable plaque, in order to extend survival and obtain full future benefit from IV therapy.
It is important to realize that daily non-parental EDTA does not duplicate or supplant periodic IV chelation or vice versa, and to dispel misconceptions in the dietary supplement marketplace that one is an equal substitute for the other. Similarly, an oral chelation program adequate to minimize heavy metal burdens, or an IV program sufficient to decalcify blood vessels, will not suffice to prevent most heart attacks, strokes, or sudden deaths.
We must learn from our failures as well as our successes. Dr. Cranton cites a case of calcific atherosclerosis in a patient taking oral EDTA, which should not surprise anyone who reads the preceding paragraphs. Unfortunately, any published claims that IV EDTA is an “effective” treatment for atherosclerosis puts ACAM’s or the involved physicians’ credibility at stake, as I am personally aware of autopsies showing extensive atherosclerosis, including 90 percent LAD obstruction, in patients who have received over 100 IV Chelations. We are not stopping heart attacks with IV EDTA, but helping people function much better.
The risk/benefit ratio of oral EDTA based anticoagulent/antiplatelet formulas versus alternatives such as aspirin and other anticoagulants would appear favorable, in that the latter are responsible for significant morbidity and mortality while inhibiting only a minority of platelet activation pathways operant in lethal thrombo-embolic disease.
Furthermore, oral EDTA renders sulfated polysaccharides, like heparin, orally active. Dr. Cranton indicts the trace element binding properties of oral EDTA as more than negating its proven ability to remove lead, and does not address the more immediate matter of coagulopathy at all.
Furthermore, oral EDTA alone has been shown to enhance total body levels of zinc, cobalt and B12 in chickens fed zinc-deficient diets, so there is clearly much more to the story. Liposomal EDTA, with an oral absorption of up to 70 percent, is under active investigation, and, ALT-711 represents another new threat to IV chelation’s logical primary indication i.e. to improve blood flow. ALT-711 is an orally effective formula, produced by Alteon Corporation, which has been shown to effectively reverse vascular cross-linkages. It clearly provides similar improved blood flow benefits to those seen with IV EDTA. Thus I hope that we soon discover other mechanisms of action to explain the benefits we all know we provide with IV chelation so that we can evolve into the best selection of oral and/or IV chelating agents that will provide the greatest benefits to our patients, whether that is EDTA, or another molecule.
In the absence of definitive, incontrovertible proof for either Dr. Cranton’s or my opinion, the issue is fundamentally one of informed consent. Can we withhold or deny evidence of potential benefit to patients who rely on our objectivity to counsel them on matters of life and death? There are over 60 boxes of scientific literature, including previously largely unseen correspondence from the files of Abbot Laboratories, recently delivered to Dr. Rozema, which may contain detailed answers to the questions raised about oral EDTA. It is vital that this information be made available in totality to the ACAM membership at the earliest possible time. GLCCM recently sponsored a debate on oral chelation, and I encourage ACAM (or A4M) to convene a special one-day conference to put to rest any perception that the integrity of this organization, which I helped to found, and to which I devoted over 15 years of my primary efforts, is for sale or determined by anyone’s economic self-interest.
Chelation therapy has been said to be, like Vitamin E, a treatment in search of a disease. Most patients feel better and live longer, but it is not always entirely clear why, and further research is needed. Given its diverse actions at the molecular level, it is not fundamentally a treatment solely for a single disease, as it has in the past twice become differently identified in the public mind, first with lead poisoning and then with hardening of the arteries. Instead, the lifespan prolongations seen with EDTA exposure in rotifers and mammalian germ cells suggest that chelation may ultimately be repositioned as an anti-aging treatment in the burgeoning field of longevity medicine.
If as I believe, oral EDTA proves valuable, and chelation physicians are incorrectly informed that its use is “deceptive” and /or dangerous, then the integrity of any organization accepting this without “due diligence” I fear will become irreparably damaged, just as the ADA will eventually be seriously harmed over their denial of the mercury-silver amalgam dental filling issue.
I fully recognize that we all have “vested interests” that makes “truth” a relative term for us all, clearly depending on how threatened we feel about the information we are receiving. I have donated over fifteen years of my life attempting to make ACAM a leading alternative medical organization. I do not want to let the appearance of conflict of interest taint their assessment of what I believe is still a grossly underutilized miracle molecule. After all, food scientists all know that EDTA preserves food by helping prevent the oxidative degradation of nutrients, and anti-aging experts know that EDTA makes rotifers and sperm survive FAR longer than without it. Are we so sure it will not help to do the same thing for humans?
I feel that the scientific credibility of every chelating physician is directly involved since it was published in Nature back in 1961 that EDTA makes sulfated polysaccharides (like heparin) become orally effective, and the scientific world is searching desperately for a safe anticoaglent/antiplatelet therapy. We must not dismiss the anecdotal reports we continue to hear that oral EDTA has helped people just because we do not understand the involved mechanism(s).
I firmly believe that at least one of the garlic/EDTA combinations being labeled as deceptive and dangerous may be far safer and more effective than the aspirin from which many people die, or nearly bleed to death, trying to take to help prevent a heart attack. Literature shows that garlic or eicosapentanoic acid (EPA) both are very effective in this regard, and logically EDTA should only help, although the coagulation cascade is FAR more complex than the incomplete picture we can obtain from the few affordable tests clinically widely available today. More research needs to be done, but based on my clinical outcomes (i.e., low death rate), I know that Dr. Morrison’s Formula, enhanced with oral EDTA, has enabled me to successfully prevent heart attacks in patients with advanced coronary disease without surgery for over seventeen years.
Doctors advising their patients that this category of product is useless, or dangerous, may one day have to answer, certainly at least to themselves, for needless deaths to which they may have contributed by telling people that such garlic/EDTA anti-coagulant formulas are useless.
The new research published by the American Heart Association is now widely accepted, namely that nearly 85 percent of heart attacks are due to a blood clot, and that aspirin affects only one of the three pathways of platelet activation (while killing over 3000 annually and requiring countless transfusions in people who nearly bleed to death, usually without warning).
Furthermore anticoagulants are similarly too weak to really effectively do the job and, at the same time, too dangerous. Before telling patients that well formulated EDTA containing products are dangerous and deceptive, I believe it is vital to carefully look at what is being offered, as your patients’ life may be at stake. Many can tolerate garlic, EDTA, Max EPA etc., who cannot take aspirin. Also, NO PROVEN deaths have occurred from garlic preparations, while clearly superior antiplatelet/anticoagulent benefits are conferred, and reported in mainstream literature. If EDTA in anyway is enhancing those benefits, are the undocumented dangers ascribed to EDTA sufficient to warrant denying your patient a fully informed consent on this life and death issue?
I hope to raise the level of interest high enough that either we commission an outside study for qualified, disinterested scientists, or everyone finally reviews for themselves, the EXTENSIVE literature available regarding ORAL CHELATION for HIMSELF OR HERSELF, rather that letting someone else cursorily attempt to interpret it for them, as it is YOUR patients lives as stake. We all know how the typical AMA doctor does not get the whole story from their organization; we are too small an organization to get away with a similar shoddy or biased analysis of the facts, even though some assume there will be fewer physicians seeing fewer chelation patients Anyone as familiar as I am with the complete literature on lead toxicity and EDTA will know that there are significant benefits for mankind in cost-effectively lowering lead and other toxic metal levels in everyone on the planet today. I am not sure we can do IV’s on the billions of people that now have an average of 1000 times more lead in them than before the industrial age. This is therefore a public health issue and is NOT an issue about how many patients will come and take IV treatments.
The sixty boxes of scientific literature that have recently been delivered to Dr. Rozema from Martin Rubin includes VITAL EDTA research material that I loaned to Dr Rubin, and which was NEVER returned to me. I believe that it is critical that ACAM or an outside entity that they contract with make copies available to all interested parties at a reasonable cost as soon as possible so that the incorrect information many have accepted as fact becomes clarified.
We now have over 1000 physician members whose future credibility is on the line and I know that even I have not seen or had the opportunity to fully digest all of the articles. Having defended chelation therapy on the floor of the house of delegates of the AMA and in many legal proceedings, I believe I have studied these papers more than anyone else. I know that most chelating physician have never seen more than one percent of this voluminous material. So it is this knowledge that convinces me that we are all grossly underutilizing EDTA, which means it is NOT being used optimally by anyone, because of this information gap. Yet, since it is PUBLICALLY now known to exist, certainly ever since the great oral EDTA debate sponsored by GLLCM, the existence of these extensive materials in Dr. Rozema’s temporary custody will clearly be sought out by interested parties in the event of any serious litigation. That may be a little too late for some members who may want and need all the truth now.
We do not want physicians’ licenses and reputations riding on someone else’s hurried and incomplete review of this information, which I fear may be a ticking time-bomb if we continue to treat in a cavalier manner a subject of vital interest to the millions of individuals who are bound to learn sooner or later that we all have “asymptomatic” elevations of lead, and who then choose to seek cost–effective treatment to lower their lead levels and thus improve their health in many otherwise unrelated conditions.
The State of Rhode Island was the first to file a lawsuit against the lead industry, which is being handled by the same firm that initiated the legal action against the tobacco industry. If and when the information regarding the adverse effects of low level lead elevations on IQ and health become widely known, there will predictably be a major interest on the part of the public to affordably “delead” themselves and their children. As I understand Dr. Cranton’s unreferenced editorial, all of these people, and all of the third world countries where the problem is far greater cannot safely be helped with oral EDTA. That position, if unchallenged, may be the end of ACAM’s credibility and potential opportunity to effectively champion EDTA and other oral chelators in any meaningful manner.
The fact that official estimates are that, world-wide, everyone consumes between 15mg and 50 mg of EDTA orally everyday, and the FDA has position papers supporting their belief that EDTA belongs on the “generally recognized as safe” list makes it seem that we musts attempt to determine at what level does this miracle molecule become as dangerous as Cranton alleges.
The World Health Organization and the Center for Disease Control are well aware of the need for safe, cost-effective, deleading therapies. I hope that ACAM can take this task to heart and come out with a carefully referenced position paper that will not make the organization seem as politically motivated as the larger organizations I have spent so much of my life fighting.
We need to determine just what we do with IV chelation before we can allow unchallenged statements in our literature that CLAIM that IV is a safe and “effective” treatment for atherosclerosis. I am personally aware of autopsies where over 100 IV chelations had been received and there was still extensive atherosclerosis disease, including as much as a 90 percent blockage of the LAD.
We must learn from our failures, not JUST our successes if, as a group, chelation physicians are ever to achieve widespread acceptance for chelation therapy. We must all remember that Dr. Blumer used CA EDTA and has BETTER proof than anyone else of long term benefit -- over 90 percent reduction in fatal heart attacks and significantly reduced cancer in an eighteen-year follow-up in Switzerland. Since without identifying some new, still unidentified mechanism(s) of action we cannot claim that his therapy was doing anything other than simply deleading, how SURE can we be that oral deleading therapy is not a way to help millions live a longer healthier life?
Dr. Cranton at least took one item off the oral chelation debate; he at least has admitted that there ARE positive studies documenting a great increase in urinary lead excretion from oral EDTA! Most chelation physicians do not even believe that is true! If it is accepted as true, then there CLEARLY has to be some potential benefit from oral EDTA. Now, however, without ANY supporting published literature, Dr. Cranton alleges that the essential trace minerals lost more than negate this benefit, although there is published evidence supporting the concept that EDTA improves absorption of nutrients. Furthermore HEYL Pharmaceutical Company of Germany has done a three-year study with DMPS that ALSO refutes this loss of essential nutrient concept with long-term oral administration of their DMPS!
A multi-billion dollar corporation that has found new, highly effective oral chelators, has recently contacted me. So the issue should NOT be to try and stop the use of EDTA by mouth, but to determine what oral and/or IV chelation REALLY may do for our patients.
It is my simple contention that both have unique value for different reasons, and I believe that it could eventually become almost malpractice for someone to mislead patients on this important issue (i.e., they may stop taking a proven safe garlic as a blood thinner that happens to have some EDTA in it, because they could not tolerate coumadin or aspirin).
I now serve on a homeopathic medical board and acutely feel the need for honesty in the assertions made by our licensed physicians, as I know the fear I have of someday facing the media or a class-action legal suit where it is found that the information provided by those II help license was incorrect and misleading. IV and even IM therapies are NOT innocuous. We just had a physician lose a patient eighteen hours after a simple IM injection and a literature review indicates this is NOT that unusual.
Clostridium is often implicated, and it is on the skin of many people and is NOT killed with the alcohol swab technique. Thus we MUST have clear communication to patients about the benefit/risk ratio of everything we either prescribe or choose to categorize as worthless.
Dr. Cranton’s explanation of why EDTA is added to foods is not fully descriptive. The FDA position is simply that by binding trace metals that catalyze free radicals, it slows the oxidative degradation of nutrients.
Some patients might consider this to be a form of “preservative” they might like to have in their, obviously, metal toxic bodies, possibly taken continuously. Dr. Cranton asserts that this will dangerously deplete the patient of essential nutrients. Interestingly, since I actually read the supporting literature from which the protocol for the safe use of IV EDTA was based, it seems that Dr. Cranton has forgotten the remarkable 50 percent life prolongation in rotifers treated daily with EDTA and the unbelievable increase in longevity of sea urchin sperm cells kept in EDTA.
These experiments have caused some responsible scientists to believe that maximum longevity for every living organism is only achievable in a less polluted environment.
I recognize that neither Dr. Cranton nor I have proof of our clearly conflicting view points regarding the benefit/risk ratio of long-tern ingestion of EDTA/garlic-containing compounds, but I believe the obvious self-interest of a chelating physician in protecting the IV use of EDTA means that, as a group for the preservation of their integrity, chelating physicians must strive even harder for truth. I believe that almost everyone will benefit from lowering lead levels and from less clot formation and all that at a cost not much greater than involved from taking garlic capsules alone. This then is something we should not dismiss lightly and, although there is no medical procedure that is risk-free, we MUST strive to determine exactly what additional benefit ABOVE the obvious deleading effect we give patients with the more invasive and expensive IV EDTA route. If it is merely reversal of cross-linkages (a LIKELY activity) then Alteon Corporation’s new ALT 711 threatens to do this quite effectively by mouth!
Chelating physicians must NOT ignore the vulnerable plaque research. Just use any search engine on the web and type in those words. This research STRONGLY suggests that our patients need MORE than IV EDTA if we hope to significantly decrease cardiovascular death rates long term. I agree that with IV EDTA we improve blood flow, but increasingly we learn that we are NOT effectively removing the plaque for which our patients assume they are taking these treatments. All too often we are not even lowering the calcium content in the coronaries. (I have a documented, dramatic lowering by 40 percent in 90 days using the oral program I advocate on my website-in a dentist-see gordonresearch.com).
It is asserted by Dr. Cranton that we avoid the mineral depletion risk with the IV route because we have time between the treatments to recover.
This suggests that the ACAM physicians who have personally taken well over 1000-2000 IV Chelation’s are likely to be extremely mineral depleted.
Yet, we all see them looking and acting FAR younger than their stated ages at our conferences. I believe that this overly simplistic defense regarding the potential safety of IV over orally administered chelating agents would tend to seem rather self-serving and unscientific to an unbiased jury, just as the anecdotal story of the patient who was allegedly harmed. We have far too many patients who want to tell their success stories to accept such skimpy “evidence” as reason to abandon oral EDTA.
There, is in fact, published literature showing enhanced total body levels of zinc, cobalt and B-12 in chickens, suggesting there is MUCH more to the story. We must adequately investigate this subject with full analysis of the 1000 or more available references, including correspondence from researchers to Abbott Labs.
I believe EDTA has a bright future, but we must identify some of the basic mechanisms of action in order to reposition for the new molecular-based medicine we will soon find ourselves practicing. I believe it could be far better positioned and researched as a longevity strategy. I fear that it has unfortunately become incorrectly positioned, at least to the public, as a so-called “effective treatment for coronary heart disease, or atherosclerosis.” My autopsy experience refutes that simplistic notion.
I clearly recall helping to start the chelation movement many years ago and virtually single-handed writing the first protocol for its safe use. I carefully chose to employ the language then used in the PDR “ . . . possibly effective in vascular occlusive disease . . .” That far simpler notion, which is fully compatible with the reversal of cross-linkages, would be far easier to prove than anything involving arteriosclerosis or plaque reversal in view of our new understanding of vulnerable plaque as the MAJOR cause of heart attacks and strokes.
I learned years ago that EDTA may only be an adjunct to the activity of something else in the body, and I always remembered the research in Nature where EDTA made heparin or sulfated polysaccharides become orally effective. This lead to my collaboration with Dr. Lester Morrison on Mucopolysaccharides, which directly lead to the Garlic formula I have formulated and relied on for over 17 years now.
I believe that only molecular based research, where we study adhesion molecules and binding sites, will ever lead us to discover all of the beneficial activities of EDTA. I have seen extensive documentation of provable benefits from BOTH routes of administration of chelating agents.
I do not believe one negates the other. In fact, I believe they are synergistic, just like IV Vitamin C works even better if you concurrently give it ORALLY.
I do not want to be a co-founder of an organization that loses its integrity. We are here to serve our patients first and foremost. I hope that ACAM chooses to feature some debates on this topic or I imagine ACAM will seize this obvious opportunity. I believe that such debates will be well attended!
Sincerely,
G.F. Gordon, MD, DO, MD(H)
If you missed it, you can go to either a SHORT explanation of the whole story, or a detailed explanation on ONE PAGE. On this page you are getting more detail on one part of the story, but on either of those pages you can get the broad picture. Don't miss reading one of them. You can actually spend many hours on this web site, depending on the depth of research and reading you want to do. There are an amazing 4,000 pages here -- more information on these general subjects than almost all other web sites combined! At some point along the way you will probably say, "Karl's crazy," and leave never to return to this site, or you will say "I want to try some of that oral chelation formula he writes about!"
|
I promise to answer your message -- click here to send me a personal message
|
SUBSCRIBE: The Wednesday Letter is a free electronic monthly newsletter written and published by Karl Loren. You can view more than 50 back issues of this publication by clicking here. The Wednesday Letter subscription list is maintained on a secure server, no name is ever given or sold to anyone, and it is never used except for this Newsletter. It is automatically published on the Tuesday night just before the first Wednesday of every month. You can subscribe to this free monthly electronic letter by entering your eMail address and name below. You will then automatically receive a request for confirmation, sent to whatever address you have entered. If you do NOT receive this confirmation request, then you will not be subscribed. There may have been an error with your address and you should resubmit. The letter is never sent twice to the same address -- so you do not have to worry about a duplicate subscription. When you receive this confirmation request you must reply to it, or your subscription will not become active. No one can subscribe your name, and address, without you being notified, and if you get an unwanted notice of subscription you only need to DO NOTHING and the subscription will NOT be active.
REMOVAL: You can remove yourself from the subscription list in several different ways. Click here to read about this entire newsletter system. Every edition of The Wednesday Letter is delivered to your address with YOUR name and address in view on the letter, with a link that allows you to remove THAT name from the subscription list. If you try to send this removal message from an address different from the one you used to send in your original confirmation, then you will get a warning notice first, sent to the subscription address, asking you to confirm that you want to be removed from the list -- by replying to THAT request for confirmation, you will then be automatically removed. Thus, no one else can unsubscribe you, from some other computer, without your knowledge. But, if you send in the unsubscribe notice from the same machine used to receive the Letter, then the removal from the subscription list is automatic.
Personal Message: When you send a personal message to Karl Loren, you will receive a personal reply as per his instructions. Karl pledges that every personal message will get a personal answer. When you provide your mail address, we will send you free information including our free catalog and a cassette tape lecture by Karl Loren about heart disease, no charge, by mail, even if outside the US. You can select particular information you would like to receive, along with the free cassette tape and catalog.
You can reach Vibrant Life in many ways, including by mail to Vibrant Life, 2808 N. Naomi St., Burbank, CA 91504. Within the US and Canada, use the toll free number: (800) 523-4521, the local number: (818) 558-1799, the FAX: (818) 558-7299, eMail to kimberly@oralchelation.com or any one of the hundreds of message forms throughout the 50 web sites. Vibrant Life normally ships the same day we get an order. There are message forms on each of the 100,000+ pages on this and other sites where you can communicate with Vibrant Life. Check out our companion site, at: http://www.oralchelation.net where Karl's 2000 page book is published. Karl Loren is the author and webmaster for this BOOK, as well as for another web site about ORAL CHELATION. His personal philosophical articles are at PHILOSOPHY.
Copyright © May 20, 2008 6:25 AM by Karl Loren on behalf of Vibrant Life, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Permission is granted for non-commercial downloading, copying, distribution or redistribution on two conditions: One, that some form of copyright notice is included in every copy distributed or copied, showing the copyright belonging to Vibrant Life, Burbank, CA, at www.oralchelation.com . The second condition is that the material is not to be used for any purpose contrary to the purposes and objectives of this site. This permission does not extend to materials on this site which are copyrighted by others.
