Contents on this page:
How It Is Done ?
Bypass Surgery
Side Effects
How It Is Done ?
Bypass Surgery
Side Effects
Chelation Therapy - Plain Talk - (Continued)
How It Is Done?
Chelation therapy is primarily aimed at increasing blood flow, which in turn is known to be a determining factor in how healthy you are
or how quickly you will become a candidate for one or more of the many degenerative diseases.
Complete and comprehensive histories and physical examinations, along with various laboratory tests and diagnostic procedures are
taken before chelation therapy can begin. The therapist begins with a complete assessment of the patient's health. The lungs, kidneys
and liver are given particular attention. In order to eliminate the waste products from chelation, the kidneys and liver must be
functioning properly. Persons suffering from severe kidney and liver disorders need specialized care during their therapy.
The full course of treatments may vary depending on the severity of medical conditions, but in the case of hardening of the arteries
(atherosclerosis), about 30 treatments will usually suffice. Each treatment is conducted under the supervision of skilled personnel
and a qualified physician trained in chelation therapy. EDTA is administered intravenously over a period of approximately three hours.
During this time, the patient is fully awake and may rest comfortably in a chair while reading or chatting with a fellow patient.
Before, during, and after infusion, tests are performed to insure the safety of the patient. Certain beneficial trace minerals and vitamins
which can be depleted by the chelation process are quickly replaced. These include magnesium, zinc, chromium, manganese, iron, and
the B vitamins.
The benefits of chelation therapy may occur early during treatment, or may not be visible until two or three months later.
Patients often remark upon a noticeable improvement after the first 12-14 treatments. It is interesting to note that during this same
period, their bodies have replaced nearly all of the red blood cells present at the beginning of the program. The simple explanation
may be that the new blood cells formed during treatments are better able to deliver oxygen and nutrients throughout the body.
After their first course of treatments, about eighty-five percent of patients show good to excellent improvement. After fifty treatments,
the proportion rises to about ninety-eight percent. Continued beneficial effect depends on the patient's commitment to developing
good health habits.
Bypass Surgery
In 1988, heart attacks killed over a half-million men and women in the United States. This dismal fact has been the contributing factor
in making an unproven, hazardous and speculative operation the most commonly performed major operation in the country -- the
coronary bypass operation.
The incidence of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), first performed in 1968, has been increasing each year to almost 250,000 in
1987. Strangely, cardiologists and surgeons have no proof that these operations are prolonging lives or changing the course of the
underlying disease. The number of surgical procedures keep getting higher with little to no testing to prove whether the operation
was actually helping. During this time, physicians have developed a total of eight different surgical procedures for the relief of angina.
Each one has been accepted, acclaimed, and enthusiastically promoted by the medical profession as a lifesaving operation. The fame
of each procedure (including the current favorite, bypass surgery), lasted until it was supplanted with one that looked better.
In 1983, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute released the findings of their 24 million dollar ten-year study. The study, known
as the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) used patients with mild or moderate forms of disease who had some narrowing of coronary
arteries other than the left main coronary artery. A registry of 24,959 patients was made, and from this list 780 agreed to participate in a
random control group comparing bypass surgery to medical treatment. These patients were from fifteen different hospitals. Of those
selected for surgery, 1.4 percent died during the operation or within thirty days. Nonsurgical treatment consisted of drugs such as
nitrates and beta-blocking agents.
The study is revealing. For the first time, there was reason to doubt the necessity for the operation in all but the most critical
situations. Listed below are the most revealing points of this study:
The surgical group had no better survival rate than the nonsurgical group.
There was no measurable difference in the quality of life between either group.
There was no difference in employment or recreational status.
About one in seven patients who receive coronary bypass surgery would fall into the same category as this study group. This study
shows that their surgeries could have been postponed or avoided altogether, eliminating 25,000 unnecessary operations each year.
Thomas A. Preston, Chief of Cardiology at Pacific Medical Center and a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, is an
open critic of unnecessary bypass surgery. He has written articles on this subject and even appeared on TV programs such as CBS 60
Minutes. In one article he writes,
Fully half of the bypass operations performed in the United States are unnecessary. A decade of scientific study has shown that,
except in certain well-defined situations, bypass surgery does not save lives or even prevent heart attacks. Among patients who
suffer from coronary-artery disease, those who are treated without surgery enjoy the same survival rates as those who undergo
open-heart surgery. Yet many American physicians continue to prescribe surgery immediately upon the appearance of angina, or chest
pain.
Canada and Australia perform half as many bypass operations as the US., and four times more bypass operations are performed here
than in Western Europe even though the vital statistics are nearly the same. In Canada, surgeons are paid about one fourth the money
as in the U.S. and in Europe they are paid even less.
More money is spent on coronary-bypass operations than on medical research and prevention of heart disease combined.
The chances of survival depend upon age, general health status, the severity of the disease and the skill and experience of the
surgeon and his team of assistants. Critics of too much bypass surgery state there are too many surgeons; thus a patient located in an
abundant area has a better chance of having surgery than in a location short on surgeons. They also state that 97 percent of the
patients are white, with adequate health insurance.
Many surgeons rely heavily on exercise tests to decide whether a patient should have surgery. The Harvard University School of Public
Health study stated that stress tests suggesting clogged arteries are insufficient by themselves for making the decision to undertake
such procedures as coronary angiography as a prelude to surgery.
A study on exercise tests including 170,000 persons revealed that for every 10,000 persons tested, one may die and two or three
require hospitalization resulting from the test -- a high cost, if the diagnosis is wrong.
For almost thirty years the coronary angiogram has been the most popular diagnostic tool of the majority of surgeons and the one
relied on most for evidence of the need for surgery. The angiogram (also called an arteriogram) is a procedure where dye is injected
into the arteries and a film is taken by the radiologist to locate and measure the blockage. If the angiographer reports a 75 percent
occlusion of the left main anterior descending artery, surgery is usually recommended.
Angiograms are also known to be hazardous. Death rates of up to one percent are reported. There is a possibility of heart attack or
stroke during the procedure or even months later. There are also the dangers of torn arteries, infection and allergic reaction to the
dye used.
A study by The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute stated that half the time, experienced radiologists will evaluate the same
angiograms differently. Thirty films at three different medical centers were distributed to their radiologists to see how often first,
second, and third opinions would agree. Only sixty percent of the time did two or more groups agree on the same conclusion. Three
months later, the same radiologists were given the same thirty films to reevaluate. In thirty-two percent of cases, the second evaluation
was different from the first, even when reported by the same radiologist.
Even though the results of the above study were widely distributed, the coronary angiogram is still used for the primary diagnosis and
final word when determining if bypass surgery is needed. In 1988 about one million angiograms were performed at an average cost of
$2,500 each, many requiring a day or more of hospitalization.
Hospitals encourage surgery because of the need to pay for their huge investments in the latest equipment. In their book, Jonathan
Halperin, M.D. and Richard Levine reveal that one hospital collected more than two million dollars in EKG processing fees in 1983
alone. They stated that some patients have as many as sixty-nine separate blood tests on a single day, at a total cost of over three
thousand dollars.
Taking all these facts into consideration, why would people consent to this operation in any but the most severe cases? There are a
number of reasons:
They are misled into expecting much better results than the statistics actually prove.
They are told that if they do not have the operation they would probably suffer a massive coronary and die.
They are seldom offered any other alternatives. Over five thousand people will die this year as a direct result of bypass surgery.
Thousands more will suffer other side effects such as stroke, personality changes, decreased I.Q., vision loss and depression.
Chelation therapy offers a sensible, safe, low-cost and painless alternative, which if combined with clinical nutrition, diet control and
exercise, can be almost one hundred percent effective.
Side Effects
In all medical procedures using drugs there is always the possibility of side effects. There has never been a medical treatment, a
medical drug, or even a medical theory that has not or could not result in harm to the patient because of individual health conditions
and tolerances. Chelation is no different in this respect. However, the benefits so far outweigh the possible side effects that it is well
worth the ever so slight danger. Most of the reported adverse effects of chelation occurred in the 1960's when chelating physicians
did not really know the proper dosage and frequency in which treatments should be given.
There could be a slight irritation during the EDTA infusions, like a stinging or slight burning sensation. There could be some swelling or
bruising where the needle was inserted. Some patients (fewer than one percent) may experience nausea, but this is easily treated with
additional vitamin B-6 or medication. During treatment the blood pressure is usually lowered, giving some patients a feeling of
faintness, weakness, or even fatigue if they stand up too quickly during or immediately after treatment. Resting during and after
treatment provides immediate relief for this condition.
In unusual cases, the patient may develop a skin rash because of an allergic reaction or loss of certain vitamins. A very few experience
headache pain. In these cases, the monitoring physician simply changes the EDTA solution additives to eliminate the substance
causing the reaction.
Blood sugar levels are lowered slightly during chelation, so diabetic patients are carefully monitored. Insulin doses are usually lowered
and sometimes totally eliminated after a series of treatments.
One of the best proofs of how safe a medical practise is the number of malpractice suits brought against it. For four decades EDTA has
been used on over five hundred thousand patients with more than six million treatments. The Georgetown University Law School and
the National Association of Insurance Commissioners failed to uncover any reported legal actions involving the use of chelation for
atherosclerosis during that time. Perhaps this is due in part to the markedly low toxicity of EDTA, about one fifth that of aspirin.
Probably the best testimonial to the safety of chelation therapy is that after four decades and millions of treatments, critics have only
found a handful of patients who claim to have been harmed.
How It Is Done?
Chelation therapy is primarily aimed at increasing blood flow, which in turn is known to be a determining factor in how healthy you are
or how quickly you will become a candidate for one or more of the many degenerative diseases.
Complete and comprehensive histories and physical examinations, along with various laboratory tests and diagnostic procedures are
taken before chelation therapy can begin. The therapist begins with a complete assessment of the patient's health. The lungs, kidneys
and liver are given particular attention. In order to eliminate the waste products from chelation, the kidneys and liver must be
functioning properly. Persons suffering from severe kidney and liver disorders need specialized care during their therapy.
The full course of treatments may vary depending on the severity of medical conditions, but in the case of hardening of the arteries
(atherosclerosis), about 30 treatments will usually suffice. Each treatment is conducted under the supervision of skilled personnel
and a qualified physician trained in chelation therapy. EDTA is administered intravenously over a period of approximately three hours.
During this time, the patient is fully awake and may rest comfortably in a chair while reading or chatting with a fellow patient.
Before, during, and after infusion, tests are performed to insure the safety of the patient. Certain beneficial trace minerals and vitamins
which can be depleted by the chelation process are quickly replaced. These include magnesium, zinc, chromium, manganese, iron, and
the B vitamins.
The benefits of chelation therapy may occur early during treatment, or may not be visible until two or three months later.
Patients often remark upon a noticeable improvement after the first 12-14 treatments. It is interesting to note that during this same
period, their bodies have replaced nearly all of the red blood cells present at the beginning of the program. The simple explanation
may be that the new blood cells formed during treatments are better able to deliver oxygen and nutrients throughout the body.
After their first course of treatments, about eighty-five percent of patients show good to excellent improvement. After fifty treatments,
the proportion rises to about ninety-eight percent. Continued beneficial effect depends on the patient's commitment to developing
good health habits.
Bypass Surgery
In 1988, heart attacks killed over a half-million men and women in the United States. This dismal fact has been the contributing factor
in making an unproven, hazardous and speculative operation the most commonly performed major operation in the country -- the
coronary bypass operation.
The incidence of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), first performed in 1968, has been increasing each year to almost 250,000 in
1987. Strangely, cardiologists and surgeons have no proof that these operations are prolonging lives or changing the course of the
underlying disease. The number of surgical procedures keep getting higher with little to no testing to prove whether the operation
was actually helping. During this time, physicians have developed a total of eight different surgical procedures for the relief of angina.
Each one has been accepted, acclaimed, and enthusiastically promoted by the medical profession as a lifesaving operation. The fame
of each procedure (including the current favorite, bypass surgery), lasted until it was supplanted with one that looked better.
In 1983, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute released the findings of their 24 million dollar ten-year study. The study, known
as the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) used patients with mild or moderate forms of disease who had some narrowing of coronary
arteries other than the left main coronary artery. A registry of 24,959 patients was made, and from this list 780 agreed to participate in a
random control group comparing bypass surgery to medical treatment. These patients were from fifteen different hospitals. Of those
selected for surgery, 1.4 percent died during the operation or within thirty days. Nonsurgical treatment consisted of drugs such as
nitrates and beta-blocking agents.
The study is revealing. For the first time, there was reason to doubt the necessity for the operation in all but the most critical
situations. Listed below are the most revealing points of this study:
The surgical group had no better survival rate than the nonsurgical group.
There was no measurable difference in the quality of life between either group.
There was no difference in employment or recreational status.
About one in seven patients who receive coronary bypass surgery would fall into the same category as this study group. This study
shows that their surgeries could have been postponed or avoided altogether, eliminating 25,000 unnecessary operations each year.
Thomas A. Preston, Chief of Cardiology at Pacific Medical Center and a professor of medicine at the University of Washington, is an
open critic of unnecessary bypass surgery. He has written articles on this subject and even appeared on TV programs such as CBS 60
Minutes. In one article he writes,
Fully half of the bypass operations performed in the United States are unnecessary. A decade of scientific study has shown that,
except in certain well-defined situations, bypass surgery does not save lives or even prevent heart attacks. Among patients who
suffer from coronary-artery disease, those who are treated without surgery enjoy the same survival rates as those who undergo
open-heart surgery. Yet many American physicians continue to prescribe surgery immediately upon the appearance of angina, or chest
pain.
Canada and Australia perform half as many bypass operations as the US., and four times more bypass operations are performed here
than in Western Europe even though the vital statistics are nearly the same. In Canada, surgeons are paid about one fourth the money
as in the U.S. and in Europe they are paid even less.
More money is spent on coronary-bypass operations than on medical research and prevention of heart disease combined.
The chances of survival depend upon age, general health status, the severity of the disease and the skill and experience of the
surgeon and his team of assistants. Critics of too much bypass surgery state there are too many surgeons; thus a patient located in an
abundant area has a better chance of having surgery than in a location short on surgeons. They also state that 97 percent of the
patients are white, with adequate health insurance.
Many surgeons rely heavily on exercise tests to decide whether a patient should have surgery. The Harvard University School of Public
Health study stated that stress tests suggesting clogged arteries are insufficient by themselves for making the decision to undertake
such procedures as coronary angiography as a prelude to surgery.
A study on exercise tests including 170,000 persons revealed that for every 10,000 persons tested, one may die and two or three
require hospitalization resulting from the test -- a high cost, if the diagnosis is wrong.
For almost thirty years the coronary angiogram has been the most popular diagnostic tool of the majority of surgeons and the one
relied on most for evidence of the need for surgery. The angiogram (also called an arteriogram) is a procedure where dye is injected
into the arteries and a film is taken by the radiologist to locate and measure the blockage. If the angiographer reports a 75 percent
occlusion of the left main anterior descending artery, surgery is usually recommended.
Angiograms are also known to be hazardous. Death rates of up to one percent are reported. There is a possibility of heart attack or
stroke during the procedure or even months later. There are also the dangers of torn arteries, infection and allergic reaction to the
dye used.
A study by The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute stated that half the time, experienced radiologists will evaluate the same
angiograms differently. Thirty films at three different medical centers were distributed to their radiologists to see how often first,
second, and third opinions would agree. Only sixty percent of the time did two or more groups agree on the same conclusion. Three
months later, the same radiologists were given the same thirty films to reevaluate. In thirty-two percent of cases, the second evaluation
was different from the first, even when reported by the same radiologist.
Even though the results of the above study were widely distributed, the coronary angiogram is still used for the primary diagnosis and
final word when determining if bypass surgery is needed. In 1988 about one million angiograms were performed at an average cost of
$2,500 each, many requiring a day or more of hospitalization.
Hospitals encourage surgery because of the need to pay for their huge investments in the latest equipment. In their book, Jonathan
Halperin, M.D. and Richard Levine reveal that one hospital collected more than two million dollars in EKG processing fees in 1983
alone. They stated that some patients have as many as sixty-nine separate blood tests on a single day, at a total cost of over three
thousand dollars.
Taking all these facts into consideration, why would people consent to this operation in any but the most severe cases? There are a
number of reasons:
They are misled into expecting much better results than the statistics actually prove.
They are told that if they do not have the operation they would probably suffer a massive coronary and die.
They are seldom offered any other alternatives. Over five thousand people will die this year as a direct result of bypass surgery.
Thousands more will suffer other side effects such as stroke, personality changes, decreased I.Q., vision loss and depression.
Chelation therapy offers a sensible, safe, low-cost and painless alternative, which if combined with clinical nutrition, diet control and
exercise, can be almost one hundred percent effective.
Side Effects
In all medical procedures using drugs there is always the possibility of side effects. There has never been a medical treatment, a
medical drug, or even a medical theory that has not or could not result in harm to the patient because of individual health conditions
and tolerances. Chelation is no different in this respect. However, the benefits so far outweigh the possible side effects that it is well
worth the ever so slight danger. Most of the reported adverse effects of chelation occurred in the 1960's when chelating physicians
did not really know the proper dosage and frequency in which treatments should be given.
There could be a slight irritation during the EDTA infusions, like a stinging or slight burning sensation. There could be some swelling or
bruising where the needle was inserted. Some patients (fewer than one percent) may experience nausea, but this is easily treated with
additional vitamin B-6 or medication. During treatment the blood pressure is usually lowered, giving some patients a feeling of
faintness, weakness, or even fatigue if they stand up too quickly during or immediately after treatment. Resting during and after
treatment provides immediate relief for this condition.
In unusual cases, the patient may develop a skin rash because of an allergic reaction or loss of certain vitamins. A very few experience
headache pain. In these cases, the monitoring physician simply changes the EDTA solution additives to eliminate the substance
causing the reaction.
Blood sugar levels are lowered slightly during chelation, so diabetic patients are carefully monitored. Insulin doses are usually lowered
and sometimes totally eliminated after a series of treatments.
One of the best proofs of how safe a medical practise is the number of malpractice suits brought against it. For four decades EDTA has
been used on over five hundred thousand patients with more than six million treatments. The Georgetown University Law School and
the National Association of Insurance Commissioners failed to uncover any reported legal actions involving the use of chelation for
atherosclerosis during that time. Perhaps this is due in part to the markedly low toxicity of EDTA, about one fifth that of aspirin.
Probably the best testimonial to the safety of chelation therapy is that after four decades and millions of treatments, critics have only
found a handful of patients who claim to have been harmed.
Coyle Chelation Clinic - "For Better Health"
This excerpt provided as a public service by the Coyle Chelation Clinic
Chelation Therapy - Plain Talk
Frequenty Asked Questions page 2
By Robert D. Gutting
Dr. Marcia Coyle
