Heart Patients Sought for Alternative Therapy

  • Thread starter M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-May 14, 2004
  • Start date



Perhaps what you are asking is impossible?
http://drcranton.com/chelation/rebuttal.htm
Arteriograms before and after treatment are demanded by critics to prove
benefit from chelation therapy. It is not possible, however, to accurately
measure decreases in atherosclerotic plaque unless the diameter of the
artery is increased by approximately 25%. In the presence of turbulent
blood flow past plaques, it requires only a 10% increase in arterial
diameter to double the flow of blood (Poiseuille's Law of hemodynamics as
can be found in any textbook of medical physiology or biophysics). As proven
in studies, arteriograms and ultrasound are not sensitive enough to
consistently measure changes of less than 25% in the diameter of a blood
vessel. Increases much less than that can greatly relieve or totally
eliminate symptoms, and are not detectable on arteriograms.
How would you measure this?
Anth

"Hawki63" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Subject: Re: Heart Patients Sought for Alternative Therapy
> >From: [email protected] (Jan)
> >Date: 5/16/2004 1:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <[email protected]>

>
> >>He seems to think it has - he posted a clear rebuttal of the chelation
> >>studies disinformation.
> >>Anth

>
> >All dismissed by EOM.
> >

>
> still waiting for the angiographic proof....why is that so hard to

produce???
>
> oh right....they can't
>
>
> hawki.....
>
>
 
"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Subject: Re: Heart Patients Sought for Alternative Therapy
> >From: "Anth" [email protected]
> >Date: 5/16/2004 3:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >
> >I showed my argument referencing a while back about the chelation study

and
> >ascorbate how both groups experienced significant effects which you would
> >attribute to placebo.
> >How's about you post your rebuttal to what this doctor quotes.
> >(Keep in mind that I will post this information off to this chelation

doctor
> >and ask him his opinion on it, and repeat)
> >I suspect you won't even take me up on this, I think you are bluffing.
> >Anth

>
> Orac is full of hot air, all mouth, little action.


What Jan is full of, no cleanse can reach.
 
He has posted utter hogwash.


"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> He seems to think it has - he posted a clear rebuttal of the chelation
> studies disinformation.
> Anth
>
> "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-May 16, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
> [email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Why is he a 'quack'?

> >
> > He is selling a treatment for something thast it has never been shown to

> do
> > any good, i.e. treat the underlying pathology.
> >
> >
> > > Anth
> > >
> > > "Hawki63" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > >Subject: Re: Heart Patients Sought for Alternative Therapy
> > > > >From: [email protected] (Jan)
> > > > >Date: 5/15/2004 4:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> > > > >Message-id: <[email protected]>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >http://drcranton.com/sham.htm
> > > >
> > > > ohhhh yeah...the quack cranston again..
> > > >
> > > > do you know any REPUTABLE docs Janny??
> > > > hawki.....
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >

> >
> >

>
>
 
"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Subject: Re: Heart Patients Sought for Alternative Therapy
> >From: "Anth" [email protected]
> >Date: 5/16/2004 10:17 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >
> >He seems to think it has - he posted a clear rebuttal of the chelation
> >studies disinformation.
> >Anth

>
> All dismissed by EOM.


All question my Real Medicine, because Real Medicine does not administer
placebo treatments like CHEATlations.

>
> >"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-May 16, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
> >[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > Why is he a 'quack'?
> >>
> >> He is selling a treatment for something thast it has never been shown

to
> >do
> >> any good, i.e. treat the underlying pathology.

>
> That is clearly lie, it has been shown over and over.


You would not know a lie if I stuck it in your cranial sac. CHEATlation has
not been shown to open clogged arteries.

> >> > Anth
> >> >
> >> > "Hawki63" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[email protected]...
> >> > > >Subject: Re: Heart Patients Sought for Alternative Therapy
> >> > > >From: [email protected] (Jan)
> >> > > >Date: 5/15/2004 4:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >> > > >Message-id: <[email protected]>
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > >http://drcranton.com/sham.htm
> >> > >
> >> > > ohhhh yeah...the quack cranston again..
> >> > >
> >> > > do you know any REPUTABLE docs Janny??
> >> > > hawki..

>
> The *gang* keeps asking the same questions over and over. Bad memories.
>
> Look it up.


Jan promotes deadly alternative treatments.
 
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Well that's where ethics come in, do you deny a group of patients drugs
> which help them, just so you can get your scientific results?


In studies, the control group may well be denied drugs which would be
likely to help them if that is the only way to gather the information
needed. Patients who participate in studies are supposed to be made
aware of this.

There are a whole set of standards & protocols used when conducting
studies. Patients are supposed to be told they may be in the group
receiving whatever med or other therapy is being studies -- or that
they may wind up in the control group. Assignment to either is
randomized, since all subjects should meet whatever criteria (age,
health condition, etc.) were established for study participants. They
are supposed to be informed of the risks & potential benefits of being
part of either group & that they *usually* will not be told which
group they are assigned to (although there are exceptions), in order
to keep information garnered as objective as possible. Of course,
being part of the control group may mean denying someone meds that may
help them -- just as those who might be given an experimental drug of
great benefit will most likely stop taking it when the research ends
until (maybe) that drug is finally approved for distribution. It
sucks, but those who elect to participate in studies are told the pros
& cons of their participation. The cost of the drug or therapy is
borne by the study, often along with other related health care
expenses during the research. Subjects are usually compensated for
their travel expenses & given a modest consideration (whether cash,
gift certificates, etc.) for their time & participation in the
research no matter which group they are assigned to.

Sometimes studies are terminated early or subjects are cut from them
because the subject(s) are being harmed more than they were informed
they might be, or more than any benefit of the study merits. [An
example would be testing a med being developed to treat poison ivy &
quickly seeing indications that subjects taking the drug were
developing unforeseen neurological problems.] Participants are
supposed to be made aware of this possibility also.

There are times when I've been uncomfortable with some of these
aspects of research, but I know that feelings & ethics aren't always
the same thing. Just as long as study subjects have been informed
about the study, it *is* their choice whether to participate or not --
knowing they may not benefit from it at all.