The choice for treatment is made easy when the evidence is so abundant.
Diabetes has become the scourge of the 21st century. It is one of the most common, and devastating chronic illnesses of Western Civilizations. Diabetics are at increased risk for every known consequence, but they are especially at risk for cardiovascular events. Heart attacks certainly are much more common amongst diabetics. The devastation of strokes occurs at a greater rate, and peripheral vascular disease leading to amputations of the lower extremities is much more common amongst diabetics.
Unfortunately, current therapy, including drugs and insulin to control blood sugar, do not have a huge impact on these adverse outcomes. Even taking ‘statin’ drugs to lower cholesterol is not adequate to lower the risk levels down to those of non-diabetics.
Judging from the increased rate of diabetes, and the disappointing outcomes when diabetes is treated by conventional methods, it is fair to say that there is a desperate need for a new approach to keep diabetics healthy.
That is why it was so exciting to see the results that came out of the study on chelation therapy (the TACT trial).
Chelation therapy is the use of intravenous EDTA, along with other vitamins and micronutrients for the purpose of improving arterial health and reducing the risk of heart attacks, strokes and other events. Chelation therapy has been around for many decades. Complementary care physicians have been utilizing this treatment and noting great benefit to their patients. They have borne witness to the reduction of heart disease, improvement in symptoms, elimination of angina and other benefits. However conventional medicine has looked at chelation therapy as “snake oil” for as long as it has been utilized by its practitioners.
Despite conventional medicine’s rejection of chelation therapy, it continues to grow in popularity based upon the experience of patients receiving its benefits. Therefore, the National Institute of Health (NIH) decided to fund a major study led by Dr. Gervasio Lamas, a renowned cardiologist affiliated with Columbia University. The study was multi center, placebo-controlled and double blinded. In other words, it was the highest quality study possible for evaluating the issue at hand.
One group of patients received placebo Infusions, while the other group received actual chelation therapy. The scientists who were evaluating the results of the study were blinded regarding which group received placebo versus actual therapy. This was done to eliminate the possibility of bias when they interpreted the results.
The results were nothing short of astounding. The people receiving actual chelation therapy had a reduction in strokes, heart attacks, death, hospitalization for angina, stents and other procedures. The reduction was a remarkable 18%. In addition, when compared to placebo there was no increase in adverse effects. The effect on patients with diabetes was even more impressive. A subgroup analysis demonstrated a reduction of 43% in total mortality.
“Subsequent analyses identified the largest effects [41% reduction in major cardiovascular events (P 5 0.0002), and a 43% reduction in total mortality (P 5 0.011)] in patients with diabetes (2)…[the result] appears to be substantially larger than with other interventions in recent cardiovascular outcome studies (EMPA-REG, CANVAS, SUSTAIN-6); however, the TACT findings have received relatively little attention .”
- “Potential Role of Metal Chelation to Prevent the Cardiovascular Complications of Diabetes.”
- J Clin Endocrinol Metab, July 2019, 104(7):2931–2941
These results are truly remarkable. If chelation therapy had been a patented drug, it would have become an overnight sensation. However because chelation therapy is not well understood by mainstream medicine, it has remained underutilized.
There is currently another study underway to validate the findings regarding diabetics in the first study. However, the first study took over 10 years to complete and publish. Despite its outstanding results, it did not result in an immediate change of practice. Chelation therapy should have been rushed to market with the expectation of saving tens of thousands of lives. However, it has languished. The evidence is strong that by virtue of doing intravenous chelation therapy diabetics can substantially reduce their risk of devastating, life altering consequences.
Of all the benefits possible from infusion-based healthcare, the improvement in the health of diabetics is amongst its greatest achievements. Given the extraordinary risk of vascular complications, and the weight of evidence regarding the safety and benefit of chelation therapy, it makes sense to take action.
The spirit, the science, and the philosophy of infusion-based cellular support is to address cellular risk factors before bad things happen. It helps to remember that strokes and heart attacks, although they appear in a moment, are actually the result of decades of cellular damage. The best time to act is before obvious diseases and consequences have occurred. Based upon the evidence to date, and weighing the risk-benefit analysis, my strong recommendation is that every diabetic should take advantage of chelation therapy at the moment of diagnosis. I recommend that chelation Infusions be performed on a monthly basis as a regular part of health maintenance for most people living in developed societies. However this recommendation takes on a higher degree of urgency for diabetics. I believe it should be a cornerstone of their therapy. The evidence would suggest that chelation therapy has the potential to reduce the rate of diabetics from having heart attacks, strokes, amputations, and other vascular complications. It can be safely added to any other therapy for diabetics.
It seems that the only thing chelation therapy has going against it is that it is not a patentable drug! If it were, it would have been in the medicine cabinet of every diabetic in America years ago. Remember when it comes to preserving your health nobody has a greater commitment to that outcome than you. Conventional medicine is engineered around responding to a disease or an event after it has occurred, it is simply not designed for the type of cellular preventive medicine that is delivered by infusion-based health support. Therefore, it becomes an individual’s choice regarding how they want to support their health.
That choice is made easy when the evidence is so abundant.