Lorenzo's Oil is on HBO tonight!



J

[email protected]

Guest
The movie 'Lorenzo's Oil' (1992) is currently playing on HBO.

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=info&id=1800182886&intl=us
It is a "Story about a couple who defy the medical professionals and
try to save the life of their son who's suffering from an "incurable"
disease."

This movie upon watching it once again, was even more engrossing than
the first time that I saw it.

It has something for anyone interested in Alternative Medicine and
Medical Research.

You will see researchers, following in the footsteps of Benjamin Rush,
marching lock step in the blind pursuit of science with the patient be
damned. You will see the parents of a patient doing the impossible,
pressing all the time for something that will actually help their son,
science be damned. Susan Sarandon will be sure to please any Right
Wringers in the audience with her famous liberal lines.

See, gaggles of weak willed parents buy into the Learned physician
researcher ******** and cheerfully watch their offspring die from ALD
as science marches along at its own slow pace.

See the unlearned parents find a treatment for ALD, science be damned.

And, last but NOT least, you will see that dreaded toxic 'rapeseed' oil
showing up as part of the miracle Lorenzo's Oil cure. Proving once
again, that even poisons of the PUFA purests can actually benefit some
people.

Now, how is that for a timeless medical research drama from the point
of view of patients who just want something that helps them, and
researchers wishing that those pesky parents would simply shut up?
 
http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/neurol/lorenz.html

Clinical bottom line
Lorenzo's oil has no value in patients with established symptoms. It may be
of value of asymptomatic patients, and may delay onset of symptoms, but the
extent of any effect is unclear. The problem is that the fatty acids in
Lorenzo's oil do not replace the very long chain fatty acids in the brain
because they do not cross the blood-brain barrier.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>The movie 'Lorenzo's Oil' (1992) is currently playing on HBO.
>
>It has something for anyone interested in Alternative Medicine and
>Medical Research.
>
>You will see researchers, following in the footsteps of Benjamin Rush,
>marching lock step in the blind pursuit of science with the patient be
>damned. You will see the parents of a patient doing the impossible,
>pressing all the time for something that will actually help their son,
>science be damned. Susan Sarandon will be sure to please any Right
>Wringers in the audience with her famous liberal lines.
>
>See, gaggles of weak willed parents buy into the Learned physician
>researcher ******** and cheerfully watch their offspring die from ALD
>as science marches along at its own slow pace.
>
>See the unlearned parents find a treatment for ALD, science be damned.
>
>Now, how is that for a timeless medical research drama from the point
>of view of patients who just want something that helps them, and
>researchers wishing that those pesky parents would simply shut up?

Yes, it's a very nice story, but it is fiction. It's based on a true
story, but the tragic ending -- the parents spent a fortune, and the
magic remedy doesn't work -- was changed by Hollywood to make a more
upbeat, salable movie. Unlike reality, fiction can have the outcome
you really, really want, that the characters really, really deserve,
unrestricted by boring science.

Lots of movies based on true stories are changed this way, to make
better stories. You shouldn't think that they accurately reflect
reality, or are a source of real information. Some are art, some are
entertainment, and some are propaganda. Just because a piece of
fiction confirms your opinions doesn't make it true, even if you
really, really want it to be.
 
Nana Weedkiller wrote:

> http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/neurol/lorenz.html
>
> Clinical bottom line
> Lorenzo's oil has no value in patients with established symptoms. It may be
> of value of asymptomatic patients, and may delay onset of symptoms, but the
> extent of any effect is unclear. The problem is that the fatty acids in
> Lorenzo's oil do not replace the very long chain fatty acids in the brain
> because they do not cross the blood-brain barrier.

I hate to break the bad news to you, but that fact was in fact in the
movie.

The movie defiantly implied that Lorenzo's oil was of value to new ALD
victims ONLY. The movie ended with a trailer of supposed victims
stating that they have been taking Lorenzo's oil for many years. They
all appeared to be normal.

The movie did in fact state many times that Lorenzo's oil would never
undo brain damage already done.

What is your problem? Oh, I know! The scientific mind in action. :(
 
Mr-Natural-Health wrote:

> The movie did in fact state many times that Lorenzo's oil would never
> undo brain damage already done.

Johnny, that is a good point, and I am impressed. Those hawking
chelation for treating Autism should bear that in mind.
 
Mark Probert wrote:
> Mr-Natural-Health wrote:
>
> > The movie did in fact state many times that Lorenzo's oil would never
> > undo brain damage already done.
>
> Johnny, that is a good point, and I am impressed. Those hawking
> chelation for treating Autism should bear that in mind.

Yes, the original Lozenzo child ended up still being screwed for life
but those who came after him were helped. Lorenzo's oil treats the
symptoms and slows down the progression of the disease if not down
right halts it.

Lozeno was supposedly waiting for completely different therapy which
apparently involved the implantation of new cells inside the brain.
That is in 1990 or so the studies were still being conducted on
animals.

Of course, all this is according to the movie. Just how effective
Lorenzo's oil is in reality I don't care and I have not researched. I
just enjoyed the timely medical drama because it is a good microcosm of
the American Health Care system in action.
 
Mr-Natural-Health wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
> > Mr-Natural-Health wrote:
> >
><snip>
> Of course, all this is according to the movie. Just how effective
> Lorenzo's oil is in reality I don't care and I have not researched. I
> just enjoyed the timely medical drama because it is a good microcosm of
> the American Health Care system in action.

Which says everything we need to know about your objectiveness.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Lots of movies based on true stories are changed this way, to make
> better stories. You shouldn't think that they accurately reflect
> reality, or are a source of real information. Some are art, some are
> entertainment, and some are propaganda. Just because a piece of
> fiction confirms your opinions doesn't make it true, even if you
> really, really want it to be.

Ah! The scientific mind in action, yet again.

Noticed the characteristic chronic negativity. :(

Notice how the patient is presumed automatically to be stupid and
living in a fantasy world. :(

What this movie is, is a case-study of the length some patients have to
go through in order to get something that works for them in the
American Health Care system. Could be why people often resort to
Alternative Medicine and that dirty word: natural health?

Another good movie, that was also recently on HBO is the 'The Doctor.'
The story of a successful heart surgeon who came down with a cancer on
his vocal cords. That was another interesting case-study of how
patients must aggressively advocate for themselves.

see:
http://attitude.naturalhealthperspective.com/empowerment.html

Nobody, but nobody is suggesting that movies are reality. Perhaps, you
might actually learn something from them, but I rather doubt it.

Just thought that the public might be interested in an interesting
case-study of Science in action. Science lives on forever, even if
patients die in droves along the way.
 
"Nana Weedkiller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/neurol/lorenz.html
>
> Clinical bottom line
> Lorenzo's oil has no value in patients with established symptoms. It may
be
> of value of asymptomatic patients, and may delay onset of symptoms, but
the
> extent of any effect is unclear. The problem is that the fatty acids in
> Lorenzo's oil do not replace the very long chain fatty acids in the brain
> because they do not cross the blood-brain barrier.
>

How permeable is the blood-brain barrier?
Obviously certain things cross it - blood, nutrition, alcohol, drugs.

Carole
http://www.conspiracee.com
http://www.cellsalts.net

>
 
"Mark Probert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mr-Natural-Health wrote:
>
> > The movie did in fact state many times that Lorenzo's oil would never
> > undo brain damage already done.
>
> Johnny, that is a good point, and I am impressed. Those hawking
> chelation for treating Autism should bear that in mind.

Isn't chelation more to do with removing heavy metals from the brain, rather
than brain damage?

I've heard that chelation is a suppressed technology. Should I be surprise
that you are against it?

Carole
http://www.conspiracee.com
http://www.cellsalts.net
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >The movie 'Lorenzo's Oil' (1992) is currently playing on HBO.
> >
> >It has something for anyone interested in Alternative Medicine and
> >Medical Research.
> >
> >You will see researchers, following in the footsteps of Benjamin Rush,
> >marching lock step in the blind pursuit of science with the patient be
> >damned. You will see the parents of a patient doing the impossible,
> >pressing all the time for something that will actually help their son,
> >science be damned. Susan Sarandon will be sure to please any Right
> >Wringers in the audience with her famous liberal lines.
> >
> >See, gaggles of weak willed parents buy into the Learned physician
> >researcher ******** and cheerfully watch their offspring die from ALD
> >as science marches along at its own slow pace.
> >
> >See the unlearned parents find a treatment for ALD, science be damned.
> >
> >Now, how is that for a timeless medical research drama from the point
> >of view of patients who just want something that helps them, and
> >researchers wishing that those pesky parents would simply shut up?
>
> Yes, it's a very nice story, but it is fiction. It's based on a true
> story, but the tragic ending -- the parents spent a fortune, and the
> magic remedy doesn't work

Yes, why spend a fortune on alternative remedies when you already have "safe
and efficacious" pharmaceutical treatments.

> -- was changed by Hollywood to make a more
> upbeat, salable movie. Unlike reality, fiction can have the outcome
> you really, really want, that the characters really, really deserve,
> unrestricted by boring science.
>
> Lots of movies based on true stories are changed this way, to make
> better stories. You shouldn't think that they accurately reflect
> reality, or are a source of real information.

And sometimes movies are made just to push disinformation.

> Some are art, some are
> entertainment, and some are propaganda. Just because a piece of
> fiction confirms your opinions doesn't make it true, even if you
> really, really want it to be.

And it doesn't make it false either.

Carole
http://www.conspiracee.com
http://www.cellsalts.net
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Carole <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Mark Probert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Mr-Natural-Health wrote:
>>
>> > The movie did in fact state many times that Lorenzo's oil would never
>> > undo brain damage already done.
>>
>> Johnny, that is a good point, and I am impressed. Those hawking
>> chelation for treating Autism should bear that in mind.
>
>Isn't chelation more to do with removing heavy metals from the brain, rather
>than brain damage?
>
>I've heard that chelation is a suppressed technology. Should I be surprise
>that you are against it?

Chelation is used to remove toxic heavy metals from the body. It's
about as "suppressed" as television. It isn't infallible, and it also
doesn't work well at removing mercury.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
 
David Wright wrote:

> Chelation is used to remove toxic heavy metals from the body. It's
> about as "suppressed" as television. It isn't infallible, and it also
> doesn't work well at removing mercury.

Perhaps, if you Arses were to concentrate?

Chelation was brought up by the biggest **** of all. It has nothing to
do with this thread.

Just thought that you Arses, might want to know.
 
cathyb wrote:

> > Of course, all this is according to the movie. Just how effective
> > Lorenzo's oil is in reality I don't care and I have not researched. I
> > just enjoyed the timely medical drama because it is a good microcosm of
> > the American Health Care system in action.
>
> Which says everything we need to know about your objectiveness.

And, your point is?

Obviously, just like most science people you talk the talk but you
don't walk the walk. :)

Obviously, you do NOT keep up with the literature.

Just because science, or is it science people, are slow to prove that a
particular therapy works doesn't mean that the therapy don't work.

Both watching movies and Lozeno's oil at last count have been shown by
science to work. )

Just thought that you arses might want to know.

"The usefulness of movies to illustrate the psychological and
sociological conflicts of medical practice is widely recognized.
However, the use of popular movies to teach less oriented medical
sciences, such as pharmacology is not so common. In the present review,
we report the use of three films (Awakenings, Lorenzo's Oil, and Miss
Evers' Boys) as a teaching tool to allow students to better understand
some conflicts which appear in the domain of clinical pharmacology.
These movies may help to introduce some relevant topics such as the
difficulties of planning and performing clinical research with new
drugs, the need of considering bioethical principles when doing
research with human beings, and the social and psychological aspects of
drug therapy. The films may increase the motivation of students to
understand clinical pharmacology principles and may become a driving
force for an increased desire to learn."

Farre M, Bosch F, Roset PN
Putting clinical pharmacology in context: the use of popular movies.
J Clin Pharmacol. 2004 Jan;44(1):30-6. Review.
PMID: 14681339

"CONCLUSIONS: In this single-arm study, hexacosanoic acid reduction by
Lorenzo's oil was associated with reduced risk of developing MRI
abnormalities. We recommend Lorenzo's oil therapy in asymptomatic boys
with X-linked adrenoleukodystophy who have normal brain MRI results."

Moser HW, Raymond GV, Lu SE
Follow-up of 89 asymptomatic patients with adrenoleukodystrophy treated
with Lorenzo's oil.
Arch Neurol. 2005 Jul;62(7):1073-80.
PMID: 16009761
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16009761&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
 
Carole wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Mr-Natural-Health wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The movie did in fact state many times that Lorenzo's oil would never
>>>undo brain damage already done.
>>
>>Johnny, that is a good point, and I am impressed. Those hawking
>>chelation for treating Autism should bear that in mind.
>
>
> Isn't chelation more to do with removing heavy metals from the brain, rather
> than brain damage?

Proper chelation removes heavy metals from the body, not just the brain,
no question. The claim is that Autism is a form of brain damage due to
mercury poisoning. The problem arises when someone claims that it can
reverse Autism, they are claiming that chelation can reverse brain
damage. When chelation is used to remove high levels of lead, the lead
is out, but the damage done remains. Therefore, as a treatment to cure
or reverse autism it is not going to happen. No one can explain why it
would reverse brain damage in one situation (Autism) and not the other
(lead poisoning).

> I've heard that chelation is a suppressed technology.

Chelation is an accepted medical therapy to remove toxic levels of
certain metals. I have no problem with that at all.

However, claiming that it can reverse Autism, or coronary artery
disease, when there is no showing of a real clinical improvement, is
hogwash, and dangerous.

Should I be surprise
> that you are against it?

You should be surprised if I was for its use as a treatment for Autism.
 
> "The usefulness of movies to illustrate the psychological and
> sociological conflicts of medical practice is widely recognized.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Somebody beat me to it. Sweet: There actually is
published research on the movie: 'Lorenzo's Oil.'

Too bad "widely recognized" does NOT apply in these backward ngs. :(

> In the present review,
> we report the use of three films (Awakenings, Lorenzo's Oil, and Miss
> Evers' Boys) as a teaching tool to allow students to better understand
> some conflicts which appear in the domain of clinical pharmacology.

I got to check out these other two movies. :)

Awakenings
http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=info&id=1800153918
"Based on a true story, a passionate and somewhat unorthodox doctor
struggles to cure patients of encephalitis, a sleeping disorder which
struck many victims in the 1920s, rendering them motionless and
seemingly thoughtless."

Miss Evers' Boys
http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=info&id=1800275955
"Faced with having their federal funding cut off entirely, the staff of
a syphilis treatment center in Tuskegee, Alabama is forced to institute
a government-mandated research project in which they study--without the
patients' knowledge--the effects of the disease on untreated black
patients. Based on the true story of the decades-long Tuskegee
experiment, this HBO-produced drama is adapted from Dr...."

> These movies may help to introduce some relevant topics such as the
> difficulties of planning and performing clinical research with new
> drugs, the need of considering bioethical principles when doing
> research with human beings, and the social and psychological aspects of
> drug therapy.

YES! Whatever happened to ethics in medical research, when patients
are dying?
 
"Mark Probert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Carole wrote:
> > "Mark Probert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>Mr-Natural-Health wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>The movie did in fact state many times that Lorenzo's oil would never
> >>>undo brain damage already done.
> >>
> >>Johnny, that is a good point, and I am impressed. Those hawking
> >>chelation for treating Autism should bear that in mind.
> >
> >
> > Isn't chelation more to do with removing heavy metals from the brain,
rather
> > than brain damage?
>
> Proper chelation removes heavy metals from the body, not just the brain,
> no question. The claim is that Autism is a form of brain damage due to
> mercury poisoning. The problem arises when someone claims that it can
> reverse Autism, they are claiming that chelation can reverse brain
> damage. When chelation is used to remove high levels of lead, the lead
> is out, but the damage done remains. Therefore, as a treatment to cure
> or reverse autism it is not going to happen. No one can explain why it
> would reverse brain damage in one situation (Autism) and not the other
> (lead poisoning).
>
> > I've heard that chelation is a suppressed technology.
>
> Chelation is an accepted medical therapy to remove toxic levels of
> certain metals. I have no problem with that at all.

Are you sure?

> However, claiming that it can reverse Autism, or coronary artery
> disease, when there is no showing of a real clinical improvement, is
> hogwash, and dangerous.

Oh so its an accepted therapy, but its not very useful. I see.
Should I be surprised that you find some way to discount the usefulness of
an alternative therapy?

>
> Should I be surprise
> > that you are against it?
>
> You should be surprised if I was for its use as a treatment for Autism.

Actually, I'd be surprised if I could ever believe anything you or Dave said
without checking it carefully.

Carole
http://www.conspiracee.com
http://www.cellsalts.net
 
Carole wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Carole wrote:
> > > "Mark Probert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > >>Mr-Natural-Health wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>The movie did in fact state many times that Lorenzo's oil would never
> > >>>undo brain damage already done.
> > >>
> > >>Johnny, that is a good point, and I am impressed. Those hawking
> > >>chelation for treating Autism should bear that in mind.
> > >
> > >
> > > Isn't chelation more to do with removing heavy metals from the brain,
> rather
> > > than brain damage?
> >
> > Proper chelation removes heavy metals from the body, not just the brain,
> > no question. The claim is that Autism is a form of brain damage due to
> > mercury poisoning. The problem arises when someone claims that it can
> > reverse Autism, they are claiming that chelation can reverse brain
> > damage. When chelation is used to remove high levels of lead, the lead
> > is out, but the damage done remains. Therefore, as a treatment to cure
> > or reverse autism it is not going to happen. No one can explain why it
> > would reverse brain damage in one situation (Autism) and not the other
> > (lead poisoning).
> >
> > > I've heard that chelation is a suppressed technology.
> >
> > Chelation is an accepted medical therapy to remove toxic levels of
> > certain metals. I have no problem with that at all.
>
> Are you sure?
>
> > However, claiming that it can reverse Autism, or coronary artery
> > disease, when there is no showing of a real clinical improvement, is
> > hogwash, and dangerous.
>
> Oh so its an accepted therapy, but its not very useful. I see.
> Should I be surprised that you find some way to discount the usefulness of
> an alternative therapy?
>
> >
> > Should I be surprise
> > > that you are against it?
> >
> > You should be surprised if I was for its use as a treatment for Autism.
>
> Actually, I'd be surprised if I could ever believe anything you or Dave said
> without checking it carefully.
>
> Carole

Carole, do you realize that you are talking to a debarred lawyer (ie,
Mark Probert)?

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/cf64fa5f70e4afc0?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/07d6a11aa8c2c6ec

In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a
Suspended Attorney, Respondent.
Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.

92-02731

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT

183 A.D.2d 282; 590 N.Y.S.2d 747

November 9, 1992, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: [***1]

Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Grievance Committee for the
Tenth Judicial District. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on
February 15, 1978, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court in the Second Judicial Department, under the name Mark S.
Probert.

DISPOSITION: Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline
upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is
granted; and it is further,

HEADNOTES: Attorney and Client - Disciplinary Proceedings

Respondent attorney, who is charged with 22 counts of failing to
cooperate with investigations of alleged misconduct by the Grievance
Committee, and who has failed to answer or appear, is disbarred.

COUNSEL:

Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Westbury (Muriel L. Gennosa of counsel), for
petitioner.

JUDGES: Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ.,
concur.

Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the
respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and
it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately,
the respondent, Mark Probert, is disbarred and his name is stricken
from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent shall continue to comply with this Court's
rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned
attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary [***2] Law § 90, the respondent,
Mark Probert, is commanded to continue to desist and refrain (1) from
practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or
employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or
counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission
or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to
the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4)
from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and
counselor-at-law.

OPINIONBY: Per Curiam.

OPINION: [*282]

[**747] By decision and order of this Court dated September 29,
1989, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law until the
further order of this Court based upon his failure to cooperate with
the Grievance Committee. By further order of this Court dated June 4,
1992, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and
prosecute a disciplinary proceeding [*283] against the respondent
and the Honorable Moses M. Weinstein was appointed as Special Referee.

[**748] A notice of petition and petition was personally served upon
the respondent on July 2, 1992. No answer was forthcoming. The
petitioner now moves to hold the [***3] respondent in default. The
motion was personally served upon the respondent on August 14, 1992.
The respondent has failed to submit any papers in response to the
default motion.

The charges involve 22 counts of the respondent's failure to cooperate
with the Grievance Committee in its investigations into complaints of
professional misconduct.

The charges, if established, would require the imposition of a
disciplinary sanction against the respondent. Since the respondent has
chosen not to appear or answer in these proceedings, the charges must
be deemed established. The petitioner's motion to hold the respondent
in default and impose discipline is, therefore, granted. Accordingly,
the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of
attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately
 
Carole wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Carole wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark Probert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mr-Natural-Health wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The movie did in fact state many times that Lorenzo's oil would never
>>>>>undo brain damage already done.
>>>>
>>>>Johnny, that is a good point, and I am impressed. Those hawking
>>>>chelation for treating Autism should bear that in mind.
>>>
>>>
>>>Isn't chelation more to do with removing heavy metals from the brain,
>
> rather
>
>>>than brain damage?
>>
>>Proper chelation removes heavy metals from the body, not just the brain,
>>no question. The claim is that Autism is a form of brain damage due to
>>mercury poisoning. The problem arises when someone claims that it can
>>reverse Autism, they are claiming that chelation can reverse brain
>>damage. When chelation is used to remove high levels of lead, the lead
>>is out, but the damage done remains. Therefore, as a treatment to cure
>>or reverse autism it is not going to happen. No one can explain why it
>>would reverse brain damage in one situation (Autism) and not the other
>>(lead poisoning).
>>
>>
>>>I've heard that chelation is a suppressed technology.
>>
>>Chelation is an accepted medical therapy to remove toxic levels of
>>certain metals. I have no problem with that at all.
>
>
> Are you sure?

Absolutely. It is used to treat lead poisoning and hypercalcemia, just
to name two conditions. And I am absolutely sure that if I had those
problems, I would want to have chelation if it were the best treatment
for me.

>>However, claiming that it can reverse Autism, or coronary artery
>>disease, when there is no showing of a real clinical improvement, is
>>hogwash, and dangerous.
>
> Oh so its an accepted therapy, but its not very useful. I see.

No, I did not say it is not very useful. I said it is useful in many
circumstances, but not the ones that are being promoted by the rip-off
artists.

> Should I be surprised that you find some way to discount the usefulness of
> an alternative therapy?

Incorrect. It is a conventional therapy, and was developed by
conventional medicine.

>>Should I be surprise
>>
>>>that you are against it?
>>
>>You should be surprised if I was for its use as a treatment for Autism.
>
> Actually, I'd be surprised if I could ever believe anything you or Dave said
> without checking it carefully.

Did you check the URLs I posted so you can find your missing posts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back