Talk:Chelation
Added chelation in plants and micro-organisms. Chemists should dig up references for the other bits. Miikka Raninen 19:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Sequestering same as chelating?
I believe so, so I'm adding it. --Rajah 01:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Merging with Chelate effect
I support the merger (hardly anything links here anyway). --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think someone was working on missing articles, but didn't search hard enough to realize this one wasn't missing after all. —Keenan Pepper 22:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I also think they should be merged.
I agree. The merge seems sensible. -mc043
- Agree, merge. Dieter Simon 00:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
OOps .. forgot to tell, I already merged all the articles together (chelate effect, chelation, chelant, etc). All is now 'here'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Important addition to the definition: it should emphasize that a single bond does not form a chelate -- this term is generally reserved for two or more bonds, of any type, between the chelating agent and the metal ion. Axewiki 15:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
section 'uses - nutrition' seems very non-factual
Right now,it says this:
In nutrition, certain amino acids are utilized as chelating agents to replicate the natural mineral forms found in raw fruits, vegetables, and grains. The resultant chelated minerals are absorbed directly into the bloodstream through the intestinal villi in relatively high proportions. Because micromineral levels in farm soils tend to gradually decline over the years, and because modern food processing often breaks the chelate bond and renders any remaining minerals much less bioavailable, humans today receive reduced quantities of minerals from their meals[verification needed]. Dozens of medical studies have shown that dietary supplementation with both vitamins and chelated minerals can have wide-ranging benefits to health, mental acuity, and life expectancy[verification needed]. Chelated minerals are sometimes prescribed by doctors to treat such ailments as anemia, arthritis, diabetes, nervous disorders, and heart attacks[verification needed].
Fortunately it already says 'verification needed' but the whole section is less-than-factual in tone.
micromineral levels in farm soils tend to gradually decline over the years - this is what soil fertilizer is for, right? (non-nutrition sidenote: There's a serious environmental issue with overmineralization of soil, due to excess supply with dung from intensive farming. This lead to obligatory registration, for farms in Europe, of their total mineral input and output.)
modern food processing often breaks the chelate bond - I actually came to this article after reading some concerns about artificial chelate agents such as EDTA being used as additives!! Seems there's very opposing concerns.
humans today receive reduced quantities of minerals from their meals - source badly needed.
Dozens of medical studies have shown - - source badly needed. wording very non-factual
The nutritional claims should IMHO refer to the wiki article on Dietary mineral. Whether the minerals used in mineral supplements are usually administered in the form of chelates,is relevant but needs verification.
Chelated minerals are sometimes prescribed by doctors - it is important to note that Chelation Therapy , (linked in 'see also') , is actually about administering chelating agents to remove excess minerals, not about medical use of chelated minerals. Is there any source or article supporting these medical claims on the use of chelated minerals, other than anything being said in Dietary mineral ?
--83.83.58.242 09:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
TV Show 15 to 20 Yeas Ago
I recall seeing a talk show on Canadian TV. It had one host, and multiple guests. The show was about anti-aging or something.
It stuck with me that one of the guests explained that hardening of the arteries (atherosclerosis) involved a calcification process of the blood vessel walls, and that Calcium was a metal. Even back then the guest stated that it was very difficult to locate a doctor who would administer chelation therapy to reduce the calcification of a patient's circulatory system to fix heart disease or poor circulation troubles.
He explained that the chelation therapy treatment had no horrendous side-effects, since, after all, it was already being used as a safe, effective treatment method for heavy metal poisoning. It was extremely frustrating and puzzling to him how illogical the American Medical Association (AMA) treated this practice issue. Most doctors would refuse to treat atherosclerosis using chelation therapy because it was not a listed protocol for its treatment. Using a protocol not listed as standard operating procedure for a given disease is grounds for medical malpractice. As such doctors who are timid about lawsuits or worse, losing their license to practice medicine are forced to comply with the established protocols of surgery or administering drug therapy instead.
The TV guest listed several US states where some doctors could be eventually found to prescribe this treatment without it being a case of heavy metal poisoning. He explained also that even those friendly doctors did not want to use the procedure very often on the same patient. He explained that calcium was added back in order to reduce thinning of bone. He also explained that the post-treatment adding back of calcium and other vitamins and minerals done to prevent unnecessary losses of this nature, made patients "feel" great as much if not more so than had they only just been treated with the chelating agent. The patients so treated, the guest claimed remarkably, would have virtually all of their heavy plaque deposits stripped away, leaving their blood vessels / heart / valves free to operate almost as effectively as a young healthy athlete.
He or another guest were also heavily endorsing anti-oxidants. I seem to recall that it was folic acid--and that several vegetables and plants were mentioned that contained this substance.
Ketosis and ketones were also explained.
From chemistry I seem to remember that Calcium is a fairly reactive metal, and that trying to chelate it might be a tough job so that any agent used to grab it might easily grab other less reactive metals from one's system. It is not quite as reactive as sodium, but quite nasty if not found in ionic solution or in salt form.
In the TV show, to my recollection of it now, did not have any specifics about the chelating agent used for the atherosclerosis treatment. From the description of the various chelating agents listed, specifically that different agents more specifically target certain metals, then calcium as a highly reactive metal would be more troublesome to specifically chelate. If a double-blind study were used with inappropriate chelating agents being used, the conclusions would be forgone that failure would be the outcome of such an exercise: ie., chelating is no more effective than placebo--which would be inaccurate and biased. Oldspammer 18:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- In researching Alzheimer's disease, I found a treatment scheme based on chelation meant to cure Alzheimer's disease after numerous treatments. I compiled an article from several web sources, then today was re-reading the document. I performed a search on one of the doctors mentioned in the article, and found an audio recording of this doctor. It specifically states that chelation was found effective when it was first discovered in the early 1900s and used on car battery factory workers who also had heart disease and chest pains. The key chemical involved was developed a decade or more before WW2, and the German manufacturer had begun in the late 1920s - early 1930s to ship the compound world-wide when WW2 broke out. The interviewed doctor also says that the AMA are money hungry for their surgeon doctor members and hospitals. It also states that a Swiss study demonstrated a 90% preventative effect on cancer. If I were evil and greedy, then I would fight to prevent chelation therapy from competing with my surgical livelihood, have false medical treatment studies published in peer reviewed journals, have the practice banned from use, sue and take away the licenses of doctors performing the procedure just like some in the USA, and similar countries have done. Does it seems simple to structure a double blind study to fail: use too much, or use to little, or mix in something that will conflict, or summarize incorrectly, or tamper with the results provided by other contributing researchers? Who benefits from preventing chelation therapy? Heart and stroke foundation? Cancer societies? Pharma? Universities funded by the same? Hmmm? Oldspammer (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Here here Oldspammer! Ah a little intelligence brought to the discussion at last. Good on you - hope someone picks up the ball. This is not about conspiracy you all, unless you choose to call it that to bury your heads in the sand, it is about economic reality. Big Pharma has share holders, and cares first and foremost about dividends and profits - health doesn't come into the question - just the game that they play in. Just lest we forget it wasn't many decades ago that smoking was endorsed by doctors and dentists - for health benefits. I'll be back ... Antoniolus
Chelation is also used...for autism
"...Autistic individuals generally reject this treatment for being unnecessary..." Somehow this seems to beg the question, how far autistic people are able to judge and therefore determine their treatment and it being necessary or not. Should this be rephrased? Surely it should read "carers" or "people in charge of their care" (who reject this treatment)? Dieter Simon 23:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- There is considerable research out there on this subject - not just for autism but also for heavy metal detox generally. This section is a little weak. Antoniolus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.236.47 (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Fix pronunciation
I don't know IPA. Pronunciation is key-lation, not chee-lation. Cburnett 05:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Done - Zeibura (Talk) 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
