Talk:Chelation therapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


hello everyone. i edited the wording in the lead to provide what is in my opinion a more updated definition of the concept. if you disagree and would like to work with me on the edits, please let me know. thank you. GoGatorMeds (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove prevalence information[edit]

I just removed this:

The American College for Advancement in Medicine estimates that 800,000 patient visits for chelation therapy were made in the United States in 1997.[1]

  1. ^ "Physician Group Backs New NIH Chelation Therapy Study For Heart Disease" (Press release). American College for Advancement in Medicine. PRNewswire. 14 August 2002. Archived from the original on 2007-02-04. Retrieved 11 November 2007. [unreliable medical source?]

My reasons are as follows:

  1. This is a press release, and not under enough scrutiny per WP:RS
  2. The information is not meaningful in its context. "Chelation therapy" seems to be defined in some non-standard way, including chelation therapy in the alternative medicine sense perhaps along with the same in the conventional medicine sense.
  3. I do not know why the numbers for a certain county in a certain year can give insight to the practice as a whole.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Archive review[edit]

I just looked through the archives to see if anything struck me as having been removed or changed in the article, and never having been resolved. There have been debates but on specific aspects of this article, and not the broad concept of chelation therapy generally. I am saying this to confirm that I feel the current version of this article is stable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Is chelation commonly used for horses or other animals? Any research on animals?[edit]

wp:notforum - discuss reliable sources, specific improvements or request changes Edaham (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If we find out for example that chelation of cadmium prevents many cases of prostate in laboratory animals, then it might work for humans also. (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Virtually all drugs are tested on animals as part of the clinical trials process, at least in the EU and the USA. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to place a drug on the market that *hasn't* been tested on animals. Note that it is only one stage (not the first, or last) of the process - meany drugs that are effective on surrogate animals are not effective in humans.

NB: before anyone gets in a huff about animals testing, clinical trials must pass an ethics board and animal testing is only approved where necessary for human health. It is very difficult these days, for example, to get approval for animal testing for perfumes or cosmetic compounds. (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


not MEDRS[edit]

Under "Society and culture - Use in alternative medicine - Cardiovascular disease" 4th paragraph

"In 1988, a retrospective study of 2870 patients treated with EDTA chelation found that 77% of patients with ischemic heart disease showed "marked" improvement and 91% of patients with peripheral heart disease also showed "marked" improvement.[19] A 1993 retrospective study of 470 patients who underwent EDTA chelation noted that 80% had objective evidence of improvements of their symptoms.[40]"

I would be highly surprised if "Medical Hypotheses" and "Journal of Advancement in Medicine" adhere to MEDRS and should be removed. 2A02:A210:A001:A380:6435:5369:3F04:B220 (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. remove it and some other primary/unreliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

What is MEDRS ? I have tried to look it up, and expected that to be easy, as the un-named commentator who used it wrote as if it referred to a common research protocol. I note that the reference numbers, 19 and 40, provided in the comment are not functional, here or on the article page, so I have no convenient way to look up these reports. Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS. The journal Medical Hypotheses is especially suspect, having a (ahem) unconventional approach to peer-review and having published crap from anti-vaxxers and AIDS denialists. Famousdog (c) 07:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)