NIH Study Set Up For Failure

Dear Karl,

The large NIH study of the safety and usefulness of chelation is the chelation industry's chance once and for all to show that this procedure works and is safe.

If safe and effective, there will still be an effort by some to discredit the results. If chelation is found to be ineffective as a treatment for vascular disease, based on this trial, then it will become fraudulent for any to prescribe it for this purpose. That is right now chelation is not approved, and yet not disapproved. Disapproval may result in the FDA trying to shut down chelation for vascular use, including the selling of oral chelation.

If you don't think the FDA would do this, then you do not know their history. Personally, I think that there is a better than 50% chance for a negative result, negative being no significant or statistically measurable change for the patient conditions to be monitored.

Frankly, I think this trial is set up for failure, for the following reasons:

1.  A patient basically has to have a cardiovascular event (stroke, angina, etc.) during the trial as a measure of comparison between placebo and non-placebo patients. These events are not only unlikely for the majority of the patients, they are difficult to quantify.  I feel this will lead to an inability to statistically show any difference between placebo and non-placebo patients.

2.  Some sort of stress test is planned. A prior Canadian study showed no difference in stress test results after chelation.

3.  This study will be performed without the knowledge of why chelation works (MMP's) and therefore they don't know what to look for.

Urine MMP tests should be performed before and during the trial. If this is done, then at least it can be shown that chelation removes MMP's.

The Medical Establishment would find it difficult to shoot down chelation if this was established, whatever the other trial results showed. Another NIH Study just completed Phase 2,showing the safety and so far the effectiveness of Doxycycline in preventing growth of stomach aneurysms (AAA).

Guess what?

Doxycycline inhibits all MMP's as does EDTA.

So Doxycycline will get approved for AAA treatment and EDTA won't. At least some patients in this trial should be selected because they have AAA. 4.I did not see that the NIH study was going to check leg cramps, which my wife found was the only measurable benefit of chelation for her arteriosclerosis. I do not see any mention of Ultrasound Measurements for coronary artery calcification. Non of this affects me, but the outcome of this Study could have an adverse affect on your business (if I am right about the outcome).

So, I have submitted it for your consideration as it is not too late to at least get MMP and leg cramp measurements included in this Study.

Fred

Dear Fred,

It is interesting to read your comments.  I knew months ago that this was a rigged test -- doomed to failure and that some one or more people "inside ACAM" are betraying their own group for personal profit.

I believe I know who it is that is doing this.  I write about this HERE.

The IV doctors have made a fatal error, years ago.  They claim that EDTA removes calcium.  It does not.

My oral chelation formula does NOT depend on the false claims of the IV doctors.

I've written this idea in several places, but repeat it here as I wrote it relative to "cancer cure."

Cancer, by rule of law, may not be treated by a medical doctor with any method other than methods which, in fact, cause cancer.  This evil dilemma has been created by drug companies and doctors.  Ignorant and bribed legislators have put this crime into statutes so that it is legal to slash/burn/poison the victim, but a violation of law to use safe and quite effective vitamin C, for instance, to cure cancer.

The legal problem could be solved if those who want to "use" vitamin C realized the truth -- that vitamin C does NOT cure cancer, but removes some harmful component within the body.  It was the harmful component that CAUSED the cancer.  Thus, much of "alternative medicine " may "work" but the people who have discovered these truths have not gone further into the science behind the alternative treatment.  To give massive doses of Vitamin C, observe that cancer disappears, is all that many healers might do. They then claim that Vitamin C "cures" cancer.  That gets them into trouble with the law.

But, if their science were better and they realized that Vitamin C deficiency is wide spread in man, that Vitamin C deficiency (scurvy) in mild situations is hardly ever detected, that a mild case of scurvy causes some pancreatic enzyme to no longer function and that enzyme function allows something else to cause something else that causes cancer? They could then claim the truth.

They could say that you need Vitamin C to handle mild, undetected cases of scurvy, and that this scurvy condition is often the cause of this, this, this, and cancer? They could say all that.  They would NOT be claiming the cure cancer, but only to "cure" a mild case of scurvy.  If all their science were well documented and they were not making unscientific claims, they could sell their pill.

They would then, of course, have to present the science of cancer not just the anecdotal claim that Vitamin C handles cancer.

This page presents new science that shows the cause of cancer.  The formula recommended on this page does NOT cure cancer, but it does handle the problem that causes the problem that causes the problem that causes cancer. The science of all that causation is HERE.

Thus, you can handle the first problem.    End!  But, that problem then, solved, eliminates the sequence of problems, and eventually the cancer is solved.   That is the legal theory here.  (source)

So, the IV doctors have dug their own grave and are calmly jumping to their death.

Rather than try to save them, I salute them and learn not to do what they do.

The FDA cannot criticize me for selling a formula to remove metal from the body. That is my claim.  I have made that claim for many years while the IV doctors fiddle, watching the burning City.  I do not claim that my formula improves blood circulation.  I have to explain my concept of heart disease. The IV doctors have failed miserably on two major fronts.  Even the famous Dr. Atkins, one of the leading IV doctors, is making the foolish claim that high cholesterol is dangerous. That is false, but it is politically correct. So, he makes that claim.  I tell the truth on that subject.

Virtually every IV doctor would also claim that the "plaque" in your arteries is dissolved or cleaned out by their IV chelation treatment. That is foolish falseness.  The truth is here.

The IV docs were good guys. They are doomed.  It is the leadership of ACAM that is to blame.  I know some of the data, not all.

Karl Loren