Medical Toxicologists Condemn Quackery
Anyone with a reasonable scientific education can easily spot the flaws in the manifold claims of quackery. But for those who lack a reasonable scientific education, ie most of us, the sciency gloss that many quacks use to cloak their claims with credibility can be very persuasive.
This is especially the case with tests for metal poisoning. The quack doctors give a chelating agent to a patient and then take a urine sample and analyse it. These tests usually reveal levels of metals that are above the reference levels based on large scale population studies that are regarded as normal.
But now the American College of Medical Toxicology has issued an authoritative statement condemning the practise and pointing out the dangers.
Although the ACMT does not go as far as to call this practise fraudulent, it does state its
disapproval of the use of post-challenge urinary metal testing in clinical practice and the use of such test results as an indication for further administration of chelating agents.
People with safe levels of metals will demonstrate excess levels after such a provoked test. The quacks claim that the body sequesters metals in internal organs and the provocation is necessary to reveal the true level of metals in the body. This ignores the fact that the body is taking in, sequestering and excreting toxins continually. The provoked test is equivalent to wringing out a damp cloth that was quite happily drying out and pointing to the puddle as proof that the cloth was actually soaking wet.
Then there are the health risks. Stirring up all those metals and releasing them from sites in the body where they are doing no harm may increase the risks of toxicity. And the quacks do not stop at one test. They chelate and test, chelate and test over and over. Chelation does not just target toxic elements. Essential minerals like copper, iron and zinc are also excreted in quantities that may be dangerous to health. In the case of Tariq Nadama the “wrong” chelator, disodium edetate, removed so much calcium from his system that he died. The “right” chelator (calcium disodium edetate) would have still taken out essential minerals like copper, iron and zinc. Previous treatments of this unfortunate child for alleged aluminium toxicity had already depleted his iron levels.
Those parents who avoid intravenous chelators like edetate in favour of “safe” oral chelators like DMSA and DPMS should be aware that they can redistribute metals like mercury to sites within the body where they can do harm. The ACMT also points out that
There is published experimental evidence that deleterious effects may occur when chelation is applied in the absence of prior lead exposure.
They conclude
It is, therefore, the position of the American College of Medical Toxicology that post-challenge urinary metal testing has not been scientifically validated, has no demonstrated benefit, and may be harmful when applied in the assessment and treatment of patients in whom there is concern for metal poisoning.
They make no mention of autism but their message is plain. There is no scientific basis for using provocation or challenge testing to diagnose metal poisoning. Therefore all the evidence from this type of testing that is used to support claims of metal poisoning in autistic children is worthless. And the repeated treatment of children with chelation agents for this non-existent poisoning has no benefits but carries risk of harm.
So when will the practitioners who carry out this abuse of children be told to stop or risk prosecution?
