A Summary of EDTA Chelation 
Clinical Research: All Good!

A chapter from Bypassing Bypass Surgery, by Elmer M. Cranton, M.D., 2001 

The medical community eagerly accepts scientific research buttressing a therapy it already approves. Somewhat more reluctantly, it examines and debates entirely novel approaches. But what it hates worse than poison is reappraising a treatment once rejected. Medicine, after all, is made up of people―people trailing MDs after their names―who, like the rest of us, do not enjoy admitting error.

Someday when chelation therapy is an established part of standard medical care, historians of twentieth century medicine will wonder how so much supportive research on its benefits could have been scrupulously conducted by skillful medical researchers and even more scrupulously ignored by the guardians of our health. By that time, most of the individuals who successfully shifted chelation toward the fringes will not be alive to blush, sparing them extensive embarrassment.

The amount of positive research is certainly formidable. And those studies that purport to demonstrate that chelation doesn't work actually show the opposite. We will now examine much of this research in detail.

In a sense, we're attempting to set the record straight and to tell people who read Bypassing Bypass Surgery―especially physicians―where they should look for the scientific evidence. After all, mainstream medical journals engage in unconscionable editorial censorship. They refuse to publish positive research studies on EDTA chelation but are quick to print editorial criticism and anecdotal letters to the editor that are biased against this marvelous therapy. They are also quick to uncritically print highly flawed studies that erroneously allege to disprove chelation, as demonstrated by the Danish and New Zealand studies analyzed below. Journals that do publish supportive studies, although medically excellent, tend to be smaller, less widely read and ignored by the mainstream. Studies supportive of EDTA chelation therapy have consistently been refused inclusion in the MEDLINE computer database by the National Library of Medicine.

Also, academically positioned researchers and professional clinical trialists have been chastised repeatedly by their colleagues, should they be intellectually honest enough to express an interest in research of EDTA chelation therapy for atherosclerosis. They are told behind closed doors that this is not a "politically correct" topic, and that such a research interest would be "career suicide."

Most practicing physicians are entirely unaware that less than 20 percent of the world's total biomedical literature (in all languages) is referenced by the National Library of Medicine in the Index Medicus, and its electronic counterpart, the MEDLINE computer database. Thus, a computer search for positive studies of chelation therapy in the treatment of atherosclerosis will be deceptively negative.

In this chapter, we will discuss several of the most important positive studies, referenced for those who wish to obtain the original articles. Then we will analyze the allegedly "negative" studies. (A very complete listing of all studies thus far published on this topic can be found at the end of chapter 17 of Bypassing Bypass Surgery and many are published in complete form as chapters in A Textbook on EDTA chelation Therapy, Second Edition.

ORAL CHELATION WITH EDTA
IS INEFFECTIVE AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS

        It is deceptive, irresponsible and perhaps even dangerous to promote EDTA (ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid) by mouth as so-called “oral chelation”.

NOTE WELL: The information below applies only to use of EDTA.  EDTA  does not remove mercury  (even when given intravenously). The correct treatment of mercury or arsenic toxicity is DMSA by mouth. EDTA, on the other hand, is only proven to be effective for cardiovascular disease when give intravenously, and can be toxic when taken daily by mouth for a prolonged time. Treatment for mercury and arsenic are thus quite different in terms of chelation therapy. Lead toxicity can also be treated by oral DMSA. Intravenous treatment is not appropriate for mercury and arsenic toxicity, although DMPS is sometimes recommended by clinics that profit from that practice. Unlike EDTA, intravenous DMPS can itself be toxic.  Click here for more information on DMPS toxicity. In my opinion, DMPS no longer has any use in the practice of medicine.  DMSA by mouth is more effective, much more convenient, safer and also much less expensive.

Intravenous EDTA chelation therapy has been proven safe, effective and inexpensive as a treatment for coronary heart disease, atherosclerosis and other age-related diseases. Dozens of scientific studies spanning 50 years prove that intravenous EDTA safely increases blood flow and alleviates symptoms of cardiovascular disease. There are no scientific studies of any kind showing similar benefit using EDTA by mouth. And there’s good reason to believe that prolonged use of high-dose oral EDTA is harmful.

EDTA is very poorly absorbed by mouth—only about five percent. Although even that small amount does remove lead from the body, it also increases the absorption of lead.  (Of course if you chelating, you probably AREN'T exposing yourself to lead.LL)

It is theoretically possible to slowly absorb a substantial amount of EDTA by mouth over a prolonged period of time. But, there are serious potential problems with that:

1. The unabsorbed 95 percent of EDTA remains within the digestive tract, mixing with undigested food and nutrients while passing on out of the body in stool. This unabsorbed EDTA tightly binds to and blocks absorption of many essential nutritional trace elements as it passes through. It blocks the uptake of zinc, manganese, chromium, vanadium, copper, chromium, molybdenum and other essential nutrients, causing deficiencies. (Good oral chelation sites will tell you these things and advise you to take supplements or include them in their "package".LL)

2. When EDTA enters the body, either by mouth or intravenously, it removes 10 to 20 times more of the essential nutritional trace elements (such as zinc and manganese) than it does the undesired iron and other elements that can speed ageing and cause atherosclerosis. When given intravenously, with 100% absorption, a full therapeutic dose of EDTA can be administered with 20 to 30 doses. Replenishment of essential trace elements from diet and supplements can then take place during the remaining 330 days of the year, when EDTA is not present to interfere. Because such a small amount is absorbed by mouth, oral EDTA must be given every day to accumulate what is alleged to be an effective dose, with no break to replenish the essential nutrients that are continuously being blocked and depleted.

3. Intravenous EDTA results in high therapeutic blood levels. EDTA by mouth results in very low blood levels with no proven benefit in treatment of cardiovascular disease.

Daily (Longtime LL) use of EDTA by mouth causes progressive deficiencies of zinc, manganese and other essential trace nutrients, which are an essential part of the body’s antioxidant defenses. For example, superoxide dismutase (SOD), a very important intracellular antioxidant, cannot function without zinc and manganese. By inactivating antioxidant enzymes, daily EDTA by mouth actually worsens the very problems supposedly being treated.  (Of course if you chelating, you probably AREN'T interested in making it a daily regime for the rest of your life.   Are you?  LL)