Suit yourself
I know that, more often than not, I come across as a conspiracy theorist when it comes to mainstream medicine and the government (or los Federales, as Dr. Wright calls government officials). But considering the alarming rate that natural medicine continues to be persecuted, I think things have gone well beyond the "theoretical." Here's a recent example that illustrates my point perfectly: Back in 2002 the government magnanimously and oh-so-open-mindedly gave $30 million to fund a study on chelation therapy. It was the most money los Federales had ever spent on alternative medicine research. It certainly seemed like a giant step forward. But in late September of this year, the government abruptly halted enrollment in the study, claiming that participants hadn't been properly informed of the risks involved. So what exactly are these risks that are suddenly so important to los Federales? Well, none of the information I read actually cited any specific concerns associated with this study, but each article did list a few hypothetical risks that "may be" associated with chelation in general (although, again, none of them have occurred in this particular trial). And, of course, they all make a point to say that chelation is "controversial" and "hasn't been proven safe or effective." Hmmm…isn't that the point of conducting a study? But, I digress… Apparently, two participants have died since the study began, which was likely the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. But consider this: That's two people out of more than 1,500 who are taking part in the trial (all of whom had already suffered a heart attack, by the way). When you do the math, it comes out to be around .1 percent—yes, that's one-tenth of one percent. That number wouldn't normally cause los Federales to raise so much as an eyebrow. For example, the risk of "fatal and nonfatal malignancies" associated with the mainstream HRT given to participants in the discontinued Women's Health Initiative study is 12 percent, according to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. And it took them more than five years to call that study off! And in another ironic twist, "study critics said the research…represented a conflict of interest for more than half of the physicians involved, since they made money by selling chelation treatments to patients." Conflict of interest, huh? I wonder what they call all of those fancy dinners and all-expense-paid trips that so many pharmaceutical companies dangle in front of researchers conducting studies on their drugs? Oddly enough, the articles I read didn't address that… While the chelation study itself hasn't been officially halted, it's clear that the aim is to frighten people away from this valuable therapy, or, at the very least, to reinforce the mainstream message that "alternative" medicine lacks credibility and efficacy. Once again, this is just one more underhanded attempt at manipulating the so-called evidence to suit their own purposes—not yours. Sources:
"U.S. halts chelation study enrollment," Health Day (www.healthday.com), 9/28/08
"Feds probe chelation-heart disease study," MSNBC (www.msnbc.com), 9/25/08
"Health risks and benefits 3 years after stopping randomized treatment with estrogen and progestin," JAMA 2008; 299(9): 1,036-1,045 | 
