News Rate IT- Kirby: Autism and Chelation: Where is the Science?

[Guest guest]

http://tinyurl.com/86wsg

Kirby Sat Aug 27,12:28 AM ET

Nearly four years ago, the Institute of Medicine

recommended research into chelation therapy and

autism. But that never happened, and now a little boy

in Pennsylvania is dead.

The heartrending tragedy of Abubakar Tariq Nadama, an

autistic five-year-old who died while undergoing

chelation this week, is one of the saddest chapters in

the very sad saga of autism in America.

But even as the grieving immigrant mother makes

funeral arrangements for her beloved boy, opponents of

the theory that drew the family to America (the theory

that mercury triggers autism, and removing it through

chelation may improve symptoms) are holding his death

up as proof that the idea is bogus. They claim that

the use of chelation to treat autism is foolishly

dangerous, and should be shut down at once.

Some people have come perilously close to exploiting

this tragedy to further their own political or

personal agendas. Some blame the boy’s death on his

mother, who has been labeled as reckless and

“desperate.†Others blame the Pennsylvania doctor

-- and any autism doctor willing to try chelation (the

use of certain chemicals to remove heavy metals from

the body) – for the tragedy. Some fault me, for

writing a book that dared to include the topic of

chelation and autism within its pages.

It’s time to take a deep breath and look at the

facts.

First of all, only an autopsy will reveal the actual

cause of death, and I think it is prudent to wait

before jumping to any conclusions about the general

safety of chelation and autism. That said, the boy did

die while undergoing the procedure, and it’s

possible the controversial treatment is what killed

him.

But here is where things get more complicated.

Abubakar was given a substance known as EDTA, and he

was receiving it intravenously. EDTA is used mostly

(and legally, I might add) for the treatment of lead

poisoning. EDTA is not typically used in mercury

cases, and it is not clear why it was used to treat

autism here.

In fact, I am unaware of any autistic child who’s

been chelated with EDTA, nor am I familiar with any

autism cases where IV chelation was employed. The

chelation methods I have written about (I do not, and

cannot recommend treatments, for the record, I only

report on them) were either oral or trans-dermal, and

they used substances that are significantly different

than EDTA.

Furthermore, I cannot find any reference in the

medical literature about any patient dying from

chelation. (Please post them if you have them).

Does chelation therapy work? We just don’t know.

Could it be dangerous, even deadly, for children with

autism? Perhaps, but there’s no hard science

available one way or the other. And if chelation does

improve symptoms, what are the best agents, at what

doses and timing, and through which route of

administration? No one can say, of course, because no

one has bothered to study these questions in

double-blinded trials.

Which brings us back to the IOM recommendation of

2001. The committee assigned to look into thimerosal

(the mercury containing vaccine preservative) noted

that some autism practitioners report “clinical

improvements following chelation.†And though the

committee said that chelation “is not a benign

treatment,†it nonetheless recommended “careful,

rigorous, and scientific investigations of chelation

when used in children with neurodevelopmental

disorders, especially autism.â€

That report was issued on October 1, 2001, nearly four

years ago. But few paid attention to the

recommendation, and no one did the hard science on

chelation. This left parents and doctors flying

half-blind in pursuit of chelation -- not out of

“desperation,†but out of strong evidence their

children had suffered from mercury exposure.

Just think, if the government had listened to the very

IOM report it commissioned back in 2001, we might know

a lot more about chelation and autism than we know

today. If clinical trials had gotten underway then, we

would know with certainty whether chelation could

heal, or kill.

If hard scientific proof had been uncovered that

chelation was 100-percent worthless in the treatment

of autism, no parent or doctor would still be pursuing

the therapy today. If evidence had surfaced in

clinical trials that children could be harmed or even

killed by chelation, no one would be using it today.

The doctor in Pennsylvania would have halted chelation

therapy long ago, and this poor grieving family would

never have crossed the ocean from the UK in pursuit of

its false promise.

But what if the opposite were true? What if the

“rigorous science†recommended by the IOM had

yielded proof that chelation can indeed help some kids

-- provided that it’s done with the safest agents,

at the safest doses, and through the safest routes of

administration (not to mention in combination with

other therapies)?

Either way, if America had done its scientific

homework, as recommended by its top science

professors, Abubakar might still be alive today.

If chelation is quackery that kills, let’s outlaw it

today. But if it can be done safely, with demonstrated

clinical benefit to some autistic patients at a

minimum of risk, then it should be approved by the FDA

for the treatment of autism.

Does chelation in autism kill or cure? Only hard

science will answer that question. What a shame we

have wasted four long years not finding out.

* Email Story

* IM Story

* Discuss

* Printable View

RECOMMEND THIS STORY

Recommend It:

Average (1 vote)

5 stars

____________________________________________________

Start your day with - make it your home page

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

This is at #13 in " Most Viewed Opinion " ...let's get it to #1!!

In EOHarm , teresa <redhead60707@y...> wrote:

> http://tinyurl.com/86wsg

>

>

>

> Kirby Sat Aug 27,12:28 AM ET

>

> Nearly four years ago, the Institute of Medicine

> recommended research into chelation therapy and

> autism. But that never happened, and now a little boy

> in Pennsylvania is dead.

>

> The heartrending tragedy of Abubakar Tariq Nadama, an

> autistic five-year-old who died while undergoing

> chelation this week, is one of the saddest chapters in

> the very sad saga of autism in America.

>

> But even as the grieving immigrant mother makes

> funeral arrangements for her beloved boy, opponents of

> the theory that drew the family to America (the theory

> that mercury triggers autism, and removing it through

> chelation may improve symptoms) are holding his death

> up as proof that the idea is bogus. They claim that

> the use of chelation to treat autism is foolishly

> dangerous, and should be shut down at once.

>

> Some people have come perilously close to exploiting

> this tragedy to further their own political or

> personal agendas. Some blame the boy’s death on his

> mother, who has been labeled as reckless and

> “desperate.†Others blame the Pennsylvania doctor

> -- and any autism doctor willing to try chelation (the

> use of certain chemicals to remove heavy metals from

> the body) †" for the tragedy. Some fault me, for

> writing a book that dared to include the topic of

> chelation and autism within its pages.

>

> It’s time to take a deep breath and look at the

> facts.

>

> First of all, only an autopsy will reveal the actual

> cause of death, and I think it is prudent to wait

> before jumping to any conclusions about the general

> safety of chelation and autism. That said, the boy did

> die while undergoing the procedure, and it’s

> possible the controversial treatment is what killed

> him.

>

> But here is where things get more complicated.

> Abubakar was given a substance known as EDTA, and he

> was receiving it intravenously. EDTA is used mostly

> (and legally, I might add) for the treatment of lead

> poisoning. EDTA is not typically used in mercury

> cases, and it is not clear why it was used to treat

> autism here.

>

> In fact, I am unaware of any autistic child who’s

> been chelated with EDTA, nor am I familiar with any

> autism cases where IV chelation was employed. The

> chelation methods I have written about (I do not, and

> cannot recommend treatments, for the record, I only

> report on them) were either oral or trans-dermal, and

> they used substances that are significantly different

> than EDTA.

>

> Furthermore, I cannot find any reference in the

> medical literature about any patient dying from

> chelation. (Please post them if you have them).

>

> Does chelation therapy work? We just don’t know.

> Could it be dangerous, even deadly, for children with

> autism? Perhaps, but there’s no hard science

> available one way or the other. And if chelation does

> improve symptoms, what are the best agents, at what

> doses and timing, and through which route of

> administration? No one can say, of course, because no

> one has bothered to study these questions in

> double-blinded trials.

>

> Which brings us back to the IOM recommendation of

> 2001. The committee assigned to look into thimerosal

> (the mercury containing vaccine preservative) noted

> that some autism practitioners report “clinical

> improvements following chelation.†And though the

> committee said that chelation “is not a benign

> treatment,†it nonetheless recommended “careful,

> rigorous, and scientific investigations of chelation

> when used in children with neurodevelopmental

> disorders, especially autism.â€

>

> That report was issued on October 1, 2001, nearly four

> years ago. But few paid attention to the

> recommendation, and no one did the hard science on

> chelation. This left parents and doctors flying

> half-blind in pursuit of chelation -- not out of

> “desperation,†but out of strong evidence their

> children had suffered from mercury exposure.

>

> Just think, if the government had listened to the very

> IOM report it commissioned back in 2001, we might know

> a lot more about chelation and autism than we know

> today. If clinical trials had gotten underway then, we

> would know with certainty whether chelation could

> heal, or kill.

>

> If hard scientific proof had been uncovered that

> chelation was 100-percent worthless in the treatment

> of autism, no parent or doctor would still be pursuing

> the therapy today. If evidence had surfaced in

> clinical trials that children could be harmed or even

> killed by chelation, no one would be using it today.

> The doctor in Pennsylvania would have halted chelation

> therapy long ago, and this poor grieving family would

> never have crossed the ocean from the UK in pursuit of

> its false promise.

>

> But what if the opposite were true? What if the

> “rigorous science†recommended by the IOM had

> yielded proof that chelation can indeed help some kids

> -- provided that it’s done with the safest agents,

> at the safest doses, and through the safest routes of

> administration (not to mention in combination with

> other therapies)?

>

> Either way, if America had done its scientific

> homework, as recommended by its top science

> professors, Abubakar might still be alive today.

>

> If chelation is quackery that kills, let’s outlaw it

> today. But if it can be done safely, with demonstrated

> clinical benefit to some autistic patients at a

> minimum of risk, then it should be approved by the FDA

> for the treatment of autism.

>

> Does chelation in autism kill or cure? Only hard

> science will answer that question. What a shame we

> have wasted four long years not finding out.

>

> * Email Story

> * IM Story

> * Discuss

> * Printable View

>

> RECOMMEND THIS STORY

>

> Recommend It:

>

> Average (1 vote)

> 5 stars

>

>

>

>

> ____________________________________________________

> Start your day with - make it your home page

> http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

This is at #13..let's get it to #1!!

--- teresa <redhead60707@...> wrote:

> http://tinyurl.com/86wsg

>

>

>

> Kirby Sat Aug 27,12:28 AM ET

>

> Nearly four years ago, the Institute of Medicine

> recommended research into chelation therapy and

> autism. But that never happened, and now a little

> boy

> in Pennsylvania is dead.

>

> The heartrending tragedy of Abubakar Tariq Nadama,

> an

> autistic five-year-old who died while undergoing

> chelation this week, is one of the saddest chapters

> in

> the very sad saga of autism in America.

>

> But even as the grieving immigrant mother makes

> funeral arrangements for her beloved boy, opponents

> of

> the theory that drew the family to America (the

> theory

> that mercury triggers autism, and removing it

> through

> chelation may improve symptoms) are holding his

> death

> up as proof that the idea is bogus. They claim that

> the use of chelation to treat autism is foolishly

> dangerous, and should be shut down at once.

>

> Some people have come perilously close to exploiting

> this tragedy to further their own political or

> personal agendas. Some blame the boy’s death on

> his

> mother, who has been labeled as reckless and

> “desperate.†Others blame the Pennsylvania

> doctor

> -- and any autism doctor willing to try chelation

> (the

> use of certain chemicals to remove heavy metals from

> the body) – for the tragedy. Some fault me, for

> writing a book that dared to include the topic of

> chelation and autism within its pages.

>

> It’s time to take a deep breath and look at the

> facts.

>

> First of all, only an autopsy will reveal the actual

> cause of death, and I think it is prudent to wait

> before jumping to any conclusions about the general

> safety of chelation and autism. That said, the boy

> did

> die while undergoing the procedure, and it’s

> possible the controversial treatment is what killed

> him.

>

> But here is where things get more complicated.

> Abubakar was given a substance known as EDTA, and he

> was receiving it intravenously. EDTA is used mostly

> (and legally, I might add) for the treatment of lead

> poisoning. EDTA is not typically used in mercury

> cases, and it is not clear why it was used to treat

> autism here.

>

> In fact, I am unaware of any autistic child who’s

> been chelated with EDTA, nor am I familiar with any

> autism cases where IV chelation was employed. The

> chelation methods I have written about (I do not,

> and

> cannot recommend treatments, for the record, I only

> report on them) were either oral or trans-dermal,

> and

> they used substances that are significantly

> different

> than EDTA.

>

> Furthermore, I cannot find any reference in the

> medical literature about any patient dying from

> chelation. (Please post them if you have them).

>

> Does chelation therapy work? We just don’t know.

> Could it be dangerous, even deadly, for children

> with

> autism? Perhaps, but there’s no hard science

> available one way or the other. And if chelation

> does

> improve symptoms, what are the best agents, at what

> doses and timing, and through which route of

> administration? No one can say, of course, because

> no

> one has bothered to study these questions in

> double-blinded trials.

>

> Which brings us back to the IOM recommendation of

> 2001. The committee assigned to look into thimerosal

> (the mercury containing vaccine preservative) noted

> that some autism practitioners report “clinical

> improvements following chelation.†And though the

> committee said that chelation “is not a benign

> treatment,†it nonetheless recommended “careful,

> rigorous, and scientific investigations of chelation

> when used in children with neurodevelopmental

> disorders, especially autism.â€

>

> That report was issued on October 1, 2001, nearly

> four

> years ago. But few paid attention to the

> recommendation, and no one did the hard science on

> chelation. This left parents and doctors flying

> half-blind in pursuit of chelation -- not out of

> “desperation,†but out of strong evidence their

> children had suffered from mercury exposure.

>

> Just think, if the government had listened to the

> very

> IOM report it commissioned back in 2001, we might

> know

> a lot more about chelation and autism than we know

> today. If clinical trials had gotten underway then,

> we

> would know with certainty whether chelation could

> heal, or kill.

>

> If hard scientific proof had been uncovered that

> chelation was 100-percent worthless in the treatment

> of autism, no parent or doctor would still be

> pursuing

> the therapy today. If evidence had surfaced in

> clinical trials that children could be harmed or

> even

> killed by chelation, no one would be using it today.

> The doctor in Pennsylvania would have halted

> chelation

> therapy long ago, and this poor grieving family

> would

> never have crossed the ocean from the UK in pursuit

> of

> its false promise.

>

> But what if the opposite were true? What if the

> “rigorous science†recommended by the IOM had

> yielded proof that chelation can indeed help some

> kids

> -- provided that it’s done with the safest agents,

> at the safest doses, and through the safest routes

> of

> administration (not to mention in combination with

> other therapies)?

>

> Either way, if America had done its scientific

> homework, as recommended by its top science

> professors, Abubakar might still be alive today.

>

> If chelation is quackery that kills, let’s outlaw

> it

> today. But if it can be done safely, with

> demonstrated

> clinical benefit to some autistic patients at a

> minimum of risk, then it should be approved by the

> FDA

> for the treatment of autism.

>

> Does chelation in autism kill or cure? Only hard

> science will answer that question. What a shame we

> have wasted four long years not finding out.

>

> * Email Story

> * IM Story

> * Discuss

> * Printable View

>

> RECOMMEND THIS STORY

>

> Recommend It:

>

> Average (1 vote)

> 5 stars

>

>

>

>

> ____________________________________________________

> Start your day with - make it your home page

> http://www./r/hs

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

You guys are good!! It's at #6..

In EOHarm , teresa <redhead60707@y...> wrote:

> This is at #13..let's get it to #1!!

>

> --- teresa <redhead60707@y...> wrote:

>

> > http://tinyurl.com/86wsg

> >

> >

> >

> > Kirby Sat Aug 27,12:28 AM ET

> >

> > Nearly four years ago, the Institute of Medicine

> > recommended research into chelation therapy and

> > autism. But that never happened, and now a little

> > boy

> > in Pennsylvania is dead.

> >

> > The heartrending tragedy of Abubakar Tariq Nadama,

> > an

> > autistic five-year-old who died while undergoing

> > chelation this week, is one of the saddest chapters

> > in

> > the very sad saga of autism in America.

> >

> > But even as the grieving immigrant mother makes

> > funeral arrangements for her beloved boy, opponents

> > of

> > the theory that drew the family to America (the

> > theory

> > that mercury triggers autism, and removing it

> > through

> > chelation may improve symptoms) are holding his

> > death

> > up as proof that the idea is bogus. They claim that

> > the use of chelation to treat autism is foolishly

> > dangerous, and should be shut down at once.

> >

> > Some people have come perilously close to exploiting

> > this tragedy to further their own political or

> > personal agendas. Some blame the boy’s death on

> > his

> > mother, who has been labeled as reckless and

> > “desperate.†Others blame the Pennsylvania

> > doctor

> > -- and any autism doctor willing to try chelation

> > (the

> > use of certain chemicals to remove heavy metals from

> > the body) †" for the tragedy. Some fault me, for

> > writing a book that dared to include the topic of

> > chelation and autism within its pages.

> >

> > It’s time to take a deep breath and look at the

> > facts.

> >

> > First of all, only an autopsy will reveal the actual

> > cause of death, and I think it is prudent to wait

> > before jumping to any conclusions about the general

> > safety of chelation and autism. That said, the boy

> > did

> > die while undergoing the procedure, and it’s

> > possible the controversial treatment is what killed

> > him.

> >

> > But here is where things get more complicated.

> > Abubakar was given a substance known as EDTA, and he

> > was receiving it intravenously. EDTA is used mostly

> > (and legally, I might add) for the treatment of lead

> > poisoning. EDTA is not typically used in mercury

> > cases, and it is not clear why it was used to treat

> > autism here.

> >

> > In fact, I am unaware of any autistic child who’s

> > been chelated with EDTA, nor am I familiar with any

> > autism cases where IV chelation was employed. The

> > chelation methods I have written about (I do not,

> > and

> > cannot recommend treatments, for the record, I only

> > report on them) were either oral or trans-dermal,

> > and

> > they used substances that are significantly

> > different

> > than EDTA.

> >

> > Furthermore, I cannot find any reference in the

> > medical literature about any patient dying from

> > chelation. (Please post them if you have them).

> >

> > Does chelation therapy work? We just don’t know.

> > Could it be dangerous, even deadly, for children

> > with

> > autism? Perhaps, but there’s no hard science

> > available one way or the other. And if chelation

> > does

> > improve symptoms, what are the best agents, at what

> > doses and timing, and through which route of

> > administration? No one can say, of course, because

> > no

> > one has bothered to study these questions in

> > double-blinded trials.

> >

> > Which brings us back to the IOM recommendation of

> > 2001. The committee assigned to look into thimerosal

> > (the mercury containing vaccine preservative) noted

> > that some autism practitioners report “clinical

> > improvements following chelation.†And though the

> > committee said that chelation “is not a benign

> > treatment,†it nonetheless recommended “careful,

> > rigorous, and scientific investigations of chelation

> > when used in children with neurodevelopmental

> > disorders, especially autism.â€

> >

> > That report was issued on October 1, 2001, nearly

> > four

> > years ago. But few paid attention to the

> > recommendation, and no one did the hard science on

> > chelation. This left parents and doctors flying

> > half-blind in pursuit of chelation -- not out of

> > “desperation,†but out of strong evidence their

> > children had suffered from mercury exposure.

> >

> > Just think, if the government had listened to the

> > very

> > IOM report it commissioned back in 2001, we might

> > know

> > a lot more about chelation and autism than we know

> > today. If clinical trials had gotten underway then,

> > we

> > would know with certainty whether chelation could

> > heal, or kill.

> >

> > If hard scientific proof had been uncovered that

> > chelation was 100-percent worthless in the treatment

> > of autism, no parent or doctor would still be

> > pursuing

> > the therapy today. If evidence had surfaced in

> > clinical trials that children could be harmed or

> > even

> > killed by chelation, no one would be using it today.

> > The doctor in Pennsylvania would have halted

> > chelation

> > therapy long ago, and this poor grieving family

> > would

> > never have crossed the ocean from the UK in pursuit

> > of

> > its false promise.

> >

> > But what if the opposite were true? What if the

> > “rigorous science†recommended by the IOM had

> > yielded proof that chelation can indeed help some

> > kids

> > -- provided that it’s done with the safest agents,

> > at the safest doses, and through the safest routes

> > of

> > administration (not to mention in combination with

> > other therapies)?

> >

> > Either way, if America had done its scientific

> > homework, as recommended by its top science

> > professors, Abubakar might still be alive today.

> >

> > If chelation is quackery that kills, let’s outlaw

> > it

> > today. But if it can be done safely, with

> > demonstrated

> > clinical benefit to some autistic patients at a

> > minimum of risk, then it should be approved by the

> > FDA

> > for the treatment of autism.

> >

> > Does chelation in autism kill or cure? Only hard

> > science will answer that question. What a shame we

> > have wasted four long years not finding out.

> >

> > * Email Story

> > * IM Story

> > * Discuss

> > * Printable View

> >

> > RECOMMEND THIS STORY

> >

> > Recommend It:

> >

> > Average (1 vote)

> > 5 stars

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ____________________________________________________

> > Start your day with - make it your home page

> > http://www./r/hs

> >

> >

>

>

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

#2 Most Emailed Opinion...#14 Most Viewed Opinion..only 106 votes so

far....

In EOHarm , teresa <redhead60707@y...> wrote:

> http://tinyurl.com/86wsg

>

>

>

> Kirby Sat Aug 27,12:28 AM ET

>

> Nearly four years ago, the Institute of Medicine

> recommended research into chelation therapy and

> autism. But that never happened, and now a little boy

> in Pennsylvania is dead.

>

> The heartrending tragedy of Abubakar Tariq Nadama, an

> autistic five-year-old who died while undergoing

> chelation this week, is one of the saddest chapters in

> the very sad saga of autism in America.

>

> But even as the grieving immigrant mother makes

> funeral arrangements for her beloved boy, opponents of

> the theory that drew the family to America (the theory

> that mercury triggers autism, and removing it through

> chelation may improve symptoms) are holding his death

> up as proof that the idea is bogus. They claim that

> the use of chelation to treat autism is foolishly

> dangerous, and should be shut down at once.

>

> Some people have come perilously close to exploiting

> this tragedy to further their own political or

> personal agendas. Some blame the boy’s death on his

> mother, who has been labeled as reckless and

> “desperate.†Others blame the Pennsylvania doctor

> -- and any autism doctor willing to try chelation (the

> use of certain chemicals to remove heavy metals from

> the body) †" for the tragedy. Some fault me, for

> writing a book that dared to include the topic of

> chelation and autism within its pages.

>

> It’s time to take a deep breath and look at the

> facts.

>

> First of all, only an autopsy will reveal the actual

> cause of death, and I think it is prudent to wait

> before jumping to any conclusions about the general

> safety of chelation and autism. That said, the boy did

> die while undergoing the procedure, and it’s

> possible the controversial treatment is what killed

> him.

>

> But here is where things get more complicated.

> Abubakar was given a substance known as EDTA, and he

> was receiving it intravenously. EDTA is used mostly

> (and legally, I might add) for the treatment of lead

> poisoning. EDTA is not typically used in mercury

> cases, and it is not clear why it was used to treat

> autism here.

>

> In fact, I am unaware of any autistic child who’s

> been chelated with EDTA, nor am I familiar with any

> autism cases where IV chelation was employed. The

> chelation methods I have written about (I do not, and

> cannot recommend treatments, for the record, I only

> report on them) were either oral or trans-dermal, and

> they used substances that are significantly different

> than EDTA.

>

> Furthermore, I cannot find any reference in the

> medical literature about any patient dying from

> chelation. (Please post them if you have them).

>

> Does chelation therapy work? We just don’t know.

> Could it be dangerous, even deadly, for children with

> autism? Perhaps, but there’s no hard science

> available one way or the other. And if chelation does

> improve symptoms, what are the best agents, at what

> doses and timing, and through which route of

> administration? No one can say, of course, because no

> one has bothered to study these questions in

> double-blinded trials.

>

> Which brings us back to the IOM recommendation of

> 2001. The committee assigned to look into thimerosal

> (the mercury containing vaccine preservative) noted

> that some autism practitioners report “clinical

> improvements following chelation.†And though the

> committee said that chelation “is not a benign

> treatment,†it nonetheless recommended “careful,

> rigorous, and scientific investigations of chelation

> when used in children with neurodevelopmental

> disorders, especially autism.â€

>

> That report was issued on October 1, 2001, nearly four

> years ago. But few paid attention to the

> recommendation, and no one did the hard science on

> chelation. This left parents and doctors flying

> half-blind in pursuit of chelation -- not out of

> “desperation,†but out of strong evidence their

> children had suffered from mercury exposure.

>

> Just think, if the government had listened to the very

> IOM report it commissioned back in 2001, we might know

> a lot more about chelation and autism than we know

> today. If clinical trials had gotten underway then, we

> would know with certainty whether chelation could

> heal, or kill.

>

> If hard scientific proof had been uncovered that

> chelation was 100-percent worthless in the treatment

> of autism, no parent or doctor would still be pursuing

> the therapy today. If evidence had surfaced in

> clinical trials that children could be harmed or even

> killed by chelation, no one would be using it today.

> The doctor in Pennsylvania would have halted chelation

> therapy long ago, and this poor grieving family would

> never have crossed the ocean from the UK in pursuit of

> its false promise.

>

> But what if the opposite were true? What if the

> “rigorous science†recommended by the IOM had

> yielded proof that chelation can indeed help some kids

> -- provided that it’s done with the safest agents,

> at the safest doses, and through the safest routes of

> administration (not to mention in combination with

> other therapies)?

>

> Either way, if America had done its scientific

> homework, as recommended by its top science

> professors, Abubakar might still be alive today.

>

> If chelation is quackery that kills, let’s outlaw it

> today. But if it can be done safely, with demonstrated

> clinical benefit to some autistic patients at a

> minimum of risk, then it should be approved by the FDA

> for the treatment of autism.

>

> Does chelation in autism kill or cure? Only hard

> science will answer that question. What a shame we

> have wasted four long years not finding out.

>

> * Email Story

> * IM Story

> * Discuss

> * Printable View

>

> RECOMMEND THIS STORY

>

> Recommend It:

>

> Average (1 vote)

> 5 stars

>

>

>

>

> ____________________________________________________

> Start your day with - make it your home page

> http://www./r/hs