Updated: January 2020
30th January 2020
A statement from Dr Gabriel Stewart in response to recent news story reporting and online attacks.
Updated: December 2019
3rd December 2019
A statement from Dr Gabriel Stewart with regard to recent online social media commentary.
Updated: September 2019
At the launch of Vicky Phelan's new book in Limerick - September 2019
Updated: July 2019
MetDetox International Conference - Berlin 2019
The first international conference on Metal Detoxification was held in Berlin in June, 2019 (MetDetox.org) and was attended by over 72 scientists, researchers and physicians from all over the world, including USA, Canada, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Germany, UK, Belgium, India, South Africa
and also Dr Stewart from Ireland.
Updated: April 2019
Unsafe levels of lead found in drinking water across country
Tests show lead concentration nearly 15 times above legal limit
Tests have found lead concentrations nearly 15 times over the legal limit in north Dublin drinking water, and unsafe levels elsewhere across the country.
Since the start of 2017 unsafe levels of lead have been found in drinking water in more than 30 areas, according to figures from Irish Water obtained by The Irish Times.
A test of drinking water near Sutton Dart station, north Co Dublin, found lead contamination nearly 15 times above the legal limit last year.
In a test by local authority staff in parts of Coolock, north Dublin, lead concentrations 12 times above the legal limit were identified.
In most cases the contamination is the result of older lead pipes still in use across the public water network.
HSE guidelines state that long-term exposure to lead can affect brain development in children, or babies in the womb. It can also cause harm to kidneys and high blood pressure, and is classed as a probable carcinogen.
Updated: February 2019
In Ireland, according to reports,
7 people a day die due to Sepsis in our hospitals.
60% of all deaths in our hospitals are related to a sepsis infection.
Patients with Sepsis have been shown by several studies to be also suffering with Hypovitaminosis C,
a critical depletion of Vitamin C.
Now a US Professor of Medicine, who is also a specialist Doctor in charge of an ICU (Intensive Care Unit), has come up with a novel treatment involving Intravenous Vitamin C in combination with another vitamin (B1) and Hydrocorsitone, which is having remarkable results.
Read our Special Report in full here...
Updated: October 2018
Riordan Clinic IV Vitamin C Symposium
The 2018 Riordan Clinic IVC Symposium has just taken place and it brought together many experts who understand the structure and energy-producing function of the mitochondria and have applied their knowledge in the care chronically ill patients.
Attended by hundreds of doctors from all over the world, (including Dr Stewart) to bring them up to date on the latest scientific research that supports the use of intravenous Vitamin C in the support and remediation of mitochondrial distress caused by various health conditions.
The clinic is now led by Dr Ron Hunninghake, and the Riordan IVC protocol is practiced by an increasing number of doctors around the world, including over 1,000 doctors in Japan alone.
Updated: September 2018
IV Vitamin C in the News
IV Vitamin C and Sepsis
Sepsis is a very serious and critical medical condition.
Almost 15,000 cases of sepsis were diagnosed in Ireland in 2016, resulting in 2,735 deaths
Hypovitaminosis C and vitamin C deficiency in critically ill patients despite recommended enteral and parenteral intakes. (link below)
The positive role of IV Vitamin C in the treatment of Sepsis, (amongst many other health conditions) is now being re-examined much more closely around the world.
Given the huge amount of previously published data on Vitamin C, this is not too surprising for those increasing number of doctors who have been studying and administering IV Vitamin C for years.
"..Most clinicians are likewise unaware that primates and guinea pigs are the only mammals that are unable to synthesize vitamin C (in their livers) and that all other mammals increase the synthesis of vitamin C during stress (vitamin C is a true stress hormone). " (from article - see link below.)
A recent study has now shown the positive effects in Sepsis cases, of early intervention with IV Vitamin C and Thiamine and Hydrocortisone. This generally considered safe protocol is now being implemented by several hospitals around the world, they are not waiting on longer trial results, and early reports indicate it has cut mortality rates sharply. (see links below)
Newspaper article : Seven people die of sepsis every day in Ireland - Irish Times
Updated: March 2018
One in five deaths is linked to lead pollution, scientists reveal
by Chris Smyth, Health Editor, The Times,
March 13 2018, 12:01am.
Almost one in five deaths in the US can be linked to lead pollution,
with even low levels of exposure potentially fatal, researchers have said.
Middle-aged people today are still at risk due to past exposure to lead in
traffic fumes, paint and plumbing, with the lingering effects of decades of
pollution killing as many as smoking, they added.
The results of a study led by Bruce Lanphear, at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, are published in The Lancet Public Health. The figures quoted apply to the US, and it is unclear how levels of lead exposure in Britain compare, but if results were similar in this country it would mean 100,000 deaths a year could be linked to past lead pollution.
Lead has long been known to be toxic but was used in petrol for decades to lessen wear and tear in engines. It was phased out in the 1990s amid concern over the environmental impacts, the adverse effects on children’s brains and its contribution to heart disease.
It was previously thought that low-level exposure was harmless, but the study challenges that. The researchers followed 14,300 people for 20 years, measuring the levels of lead in their blood in the late 1980s and early 1990s. During this time 4,422 people died — and the tenth with the highest levels of lead in the blood were 37 per cent more likely to be among them than the tenth with the least. The link held even below levels of lead in blood previously thought to be safe.
People exposed to high levels of lead were 70 per cent more likely to die of heart disease and twice as likely to die due to having blocked arteries.
“Our study calls into question the assumption that specific toxicants like lead have ‘safe levels’, and suggests that low-level environmental lead exposure is a leading risk factor for premature death,” said Professor Lanphear. “Currently, low levels of lead exposure are an important but largely ignored risk factor for deaths from cardiovascular disease. Public health measures such as abating older housing, phasing out lead-containing jet fuels, replacing lead-plumbing lines, and reducing emissions from smelters and lead battery facilities will be vital to prevent lead exposure.”
Professor Lanphear estimated that 412,000 deaths in the US each year, 18 per cent of the total, were hastened by past lead exposure. This is about ten times higher than previous estimates.
“The estimated number of deaths from all causes and cardiovascular disease that were attributable to concentrations of lead in blood were surprisingly large; indeed, they were comparable with the number of deaths from current tobacco smoke exposure,” he wrote. “Despite the striking reductions in concentrations of lead in blood over the past 50 years, amounts found nowadays in adults are still ten times to 100 times higher than people living in the pre-industrial era. Moreover, the assumption that there are thresholds for specific toxicants — eg, lead, tobacco, and airborne particles — is slowly eroding.”
Tim Chico of the University of Sheffield said: “This study suggests that lead, or factors that increase people’s exposure to lead, causes thousands more deaths every year than we previously recognised.”
Metin Avkiran, associate medical director at the British Heart Foundation, said: “This study adds to the substantial evidence that exposure to lead can have long-term consequences. It also suggests that even ‘low-level’ exposure increases health risks.
“The air that we breathe is still dangerously toxic and we know that it has harmful effects on heart health. We therefore cannot be complacent in our campaign for clean air in order to reduce the risks posed to the nation’s health.”
(links to Lancet articles below)
Lead was used in petrol for decades
despite its toxicity.
Its use was phased out in the 1990s
Updated: March 2018
The Lancet - Public Health
Lead and the heart: an ancient metal's contribution to modern disease
Low-level lead exposure and mortality in US adults: a population-based cohort study
Note: Lead toxicity is treated with IV EDTA Chelation
Updated: February 2017
IV vitamin C supply shortages
Due to unfolding events worldwide - high quality vitamin C for IV use,
is getting more difficult to source, and as a result of this,
the costs have increased substantially.
Sadly this is an issue that is beyond our control, here at Dr Stewarts Clinic.
This is also impacting on the large number of other clinics and doctors,
who provide this service across the EU, and in the US and around the world.
The Minimata Convention
The United Nations Minamata Convention on Mercury is an international treaty designed to protect human health and the environment from anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds.
In accordance with the United Nations Minimata Convention on Mercury - dental mercury-based amalgam fillings are being phased out, worldwide, due to mercury being an environmental Bio-hazard.
This also applies to Ireland.
In 2020, Irish Dentists will no longer be permitted to use mercury-based amalgam tooth fillings.
It would be advisable for those people who have, or may have had, amalgam tooth fillings, that they should have a
Heavy Metals Challenge Test, to determine their toxicity levels.
From Forbes Magazine - Online - written by Harlan Krumholz, Contributor
Chelation Therapy: What To Do With Inconvenient Evidence
What do we do with inconvenient evidence? Imagine studying a seemingly absurd practice that is used to an alarming extent by those who believe in it despite the lack of evidence – and finding that the intervention improves outcomes. And imagine that the people conducting that trial are famous scientists with impeccable credentials who have extensive experience with this type of investigation. Imagine that the practice is so out of the mainstream that the investigators cannot even posit how the treatment could reduce patient risk?
We live in a world of evidence-based medicine, where we are urged to base our medical recommendations and decisions on clinical studies. We base our guidelines on the medical literature and evaluate our practices by how well we adhere to the evidence. But what should we do with inconvenient evidence?
The National Institutes of Health sponsored a $31 million trial of chelation therapy, a therapy that involves the infusion of vitamins and a substance that binds certain minerals, such as calcium. Some practitioners embraced this therapy and have recommended it for patients with heart disease. Although I never learned about it in my training as a cardiologist, it is quite widespread with reportedly more than 100,000 people using it in 2007, an increase of 68% from 2002.
The trial, published in JAMA, compared 839 patients who had a heart attack. They randomized these individuals to chelation with 869 to a placebo infusion. To the surprise of many (including me), after almost 5 years of follow-up, the chelation group had a lower risk of the combination of death, heart attack, stroke, hospitalization for angina or a procedure to improve blood flow to the heart. There was an 18% lower risk in the chelation group – and for about every 25 patients treated with chelation, there was one few adverse event. Also, there were no safety issues. This trial, like most others, has some limitations – but it is a positive trial.
The authors, who are quite esteemed, seemed surprised. They noted that no one knows how this therapy works. They said that the results were not strong enough to support the routine use of chelation therapy. It is not clear what they mean by routine – they seem unable to make a strong recommendation – as if they have some uncertainty how to act on what they found.
The irony is that if a drug manufacturer had gotten this result, they would have celebrated. We have billion dollar drugs like niacin and fenofibrate and ezetimibe that have less evidence than chelation therapy has now. None of those drugs has contemporary outcomes studies showing benefit – and 2 of them (niacin and fenofibrate) have 2 recent negative trials.
So why are scientists not accepting the verdict of this study? Why the reluctance to incorporate this therapy into our armamentarium?
The answer is more than just a reluctance to accept results that we do not like (though medicine is not beyond that behavior – see the slowness with which medicine adopts new information into practice). I believe that the answer here is that when confronted with a truly surprising result that is hard to explain. In this situation we need to examine our assumptions – and the consequences of being wrong. The amount of evidence we require may vary based on the treatment. For example, I am more likely to demand strong evidence for the use of treatments that may cause risks and incur substantial costs – except perhaps in dire circumstances where no alternatives exists and in these cases we need to be able to track the effect after approval and spread so that the interventions can be reassessed over time. And I may want stronger empiric evidence where I have no underlying expectation that a treatment would be beneficial based on previous studies – or the absence of previous studies.
If we have little faith in chelation therapy, then it is hard to turn 180 degrees with a positive result and suddenly completely believe in it and recommend its use. Any trial can give an anomalous result and we need to be careful about jumping to a new position with each new piece of evidence. However, we cannot on one hand promote evidence-based medicine and on the other hand ignore what we do not like.
I am glad that we are subjecting popular but out of the mainstream practices to rigorous study. If I endorse that course I cannot ignore the evidence because it goes against what I expected. But I need to interpret the findings through the totality of what is known about it and determine if it is really ready for prime time. In this case, I want to see more studies of this approach to be sure. However, this study has opened my mind to the possibility that there may be something more to this therapy than I originally thought. And given what I thought about it before, I can hardly believe I am writing that.
The NIH TACT Study of EDTA Chelation Therapy Proves Significant Benefit
At the American Heart Association meeting in Los Angeles on November 4, 2012, Dr. Gervasio Lamas, principal investigator, presented results of the NIH-sponsored Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT). This randomized, placebo-controlled study of 1,708 patients showed that intravenous disodium EDTA chelation therapy decreased subsequent cardiac events with statistical significance, when compared to a control group of similar patients who received placebo.
Cardiologists from prestigious medical schools, including the Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, and Johns Hopkins, joined a total of 134 medical centers across the U.S. and Canada who participated in this study, at a cost of $30 million. Statistical analysis showed benefits to be highly significant.
Cardiac events that were reduced included fewer deaths, fewer heart attacks, and fewer strokes, less need for cardiovascular surgery, and fewer hospitalizations for heart problems. Chelation Therapy shown to be safe, without any serious side effects. Patients experienced increasing benefits during the time that they were studied−up to five years thus far.
Forty 3-hour intravenous infusions of EDTA were administered during 30 weekly sessions, followed by 10 more treatments once per month.
All patients in the study had previously suffered with a well documented heart attack. Results showed effectiveness at reducing their overall death rate, with fewer heart and vascular events. Diabetic patients appeared to do particularly well.
The investigators concluded that intravenous EDTA chelation therapy can safely provides important benefits for heart disease patients, who were already on more traditional therapies before receiving chelation.
These findings were unexpected by cardiologists, who have long disparaged EDTA chelation therapy. Additional research will be sought to confirmation these findings. Studies to explore the mechanism of action are also needed.
Chelation Therapy in the News
"Access Denied." That's the last thing you want to see when you're trying to get something done on the Internet.
But that's just an annoyance. Imagine having your access denied to medical treatment.
You probably won't be surprised that it happens every day. Sadly, many of those treatments can save lives... including chelation or chelation therapy.
Standard but not good enough?
Chelation therapy is the treatment used to treat heavy metal poisoning. It often involves the injection of ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) – also referred to as a 'synthetic amino acid' - that binds with (chelates) heavy metals, which include iron, lead, mercury, cadmium, and zinc.
EDTA is a man-made amino acid, which has a particular affinity for toxic metals such as mercury, cadmium, aluminium and lead. EDTA binds with these toxic metals after an intravenous infusion or oral application, helping the body to easily secrete them.
EDTA was first used in the US in 1948 as a treatment for industrial workers suffering from lead poisoning and, in America, has since become the treatment-of-choice for lead poisoning. The US Navy gave EDTA orally to thousands of sailors in the 1940s to treat and combat lead toxicity.
Today, it is also used as an antioxidant in foods, a chelating agent in pharmaceuticals and as an anticoagulant for blood taken for haematological studies. In the UK, it is the standard treatment for acute heavy metal poisoning.
If that were all chelation did, it would be a remarkable therapy. But it also clears calcium deposits from artery walls.
World renowned alternative health expert, Dr. Alan Spreen is a long-time champion of chelation. He believes that anyone with confirmed cardiovascular disease should give this therapy serious attention.
However, all of this is about to change...
Follow the money
At a 2012 medical toxicology meeting in the US, officials urged doctors to report on other doctors who use chelation. That's right. They want them to betray their own colleagues.
If doctors rat out other doctors, they'll do that by calling state medical boards. Many of those boards are likely to take action to suppress this therapy, which by the way is approved by the American Food and Drug Administration.
Mainstream doctors win... and who loses? You don't even have to ask. Patients lose, of course. But why?
A full chelation regimen will not cost an arm and a leg... and most medical insurers won't pay for an alternative therapy like chelation... On the other hand, health insurance WILL pay for heart surgery.
You've guessed it... right there is the key to the chelation "problem."
When it comes to a decision between alternative or conventional medicine, you know which one the mainstreamers will try to protect... Heart specialists and medical boards would rather you have a bypass operation or a stent inserted in a vein, instead of having a much cheaper and more effective alternative therapy.
As always, when it comes to patient care, these guys will rather follow the money instead of providing their patients with the most cost-effective and less invasive alternative.
From Daily Health eAlert Newsletter 11Jan13
"Chelation: a treatment with a track record"
Irish Medical News Published 3/10/2005
In a recent edition of IMN (29/8/05), there are three articles which touch on the subject of chelation. There is quite an amount of misinformation about this excellent treatment. Many agents referred to as chelating agents are in fact not chelating agents, but provide their benefits via their antioxidant properties.
A chelating agent is a substance that grasps heavy metals and removes them from the body via the kidneys. This can be demonstrated, and the toxic metals identified, by performing a urinary metals challenge test. The test is done by administering the chelating agent, collecting a timed urine sample, and measuring and identifying toxic metals excreted.
In one of the articles, Dr Caroline Ward referred to lipoic acid and sulphur colloidal in chelating therapy. Neither of these are chelating agents. Lipoic acid is primarily an antioxidant with minimal chelating properties. It inhibits the oxidation of heavy metals, thereby preventing the formation of free radicals. It is these free radicals that damage cells and are believed to be a major factor in the chronic degenerative diseases. Colloidal silver, used by some in the treatment of autism, is a suspension of silver that kills almost all micro-intestinal organisms, but it also kills beneficial organisms. It is in itself a heavy metal, and as such is toxic. Generally, its use is not recommended.
Likewise, many of the vitamins and trace elements are referred to as chelation agents which they are not. While vitamin C in large doses has some chelating properties, it mainly acts via its antioxidant effect. Certain herbs such as chlorella have very weak chelating properties. Vitamins A,C, E, and selenium together with N Acetyl cysteine and alpha-lipoic acid are essential for the manufacture of glutathione, the most abundant antioxidant in the body. These nutrients and antioxidants are used as adjuncts in the chelation process but of themselves are not chelating agents.
The two most widely used and effective chelating agents are intravenous EDTA and oral DMSA. EDTA is used intravenously in the treatment of adults and is particularly effective in the treatment of heart disease, circulatory disorders and the chronic degenerative diseases.
It was recently reported in the lay press that intravenous EDTA may have been responsible for the death of a five-year-old autistic child in Pittsburgh, US. While the cause of death has yet to be established, it is important to understand that intravenous EDTA has no role to play in the treatment of autism at this time. While intravenous EDTA is an excellent chelator of toxic metals such as aluminium, antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead, uranium, silver, tin etc., as well as excess iron and copper, it is a weak chelator of mercury.
In autism, mercury is believed to be the main offending agent. Concerns over rising levels of mercury are dealt with by Dr John Fleetwood in his excellent article, The impact of rising mercury levels (IMN, 29/8/05).
In the case in Pittsburgh, the question must be asked: “Was EDTA given according to established protocol?” Neither of the main proponents of chelation therapy, ACAM (The American College for Advancement in Medicine) or the IBCT (International Board Of Chelation Therapists) would condone its use in the treatment of a five-year-old autistic child without following established guidelines.
According to the recommended ACAM protocol, millions of chelations have been performed over the last 30 years with no recorded death.
In western Canada,doctors are licensed to practise intravenous EDTA chelation since 1997, provided they prove themselves familiar with, and follow the protocol of, ACAM. Despite strict reporting guidelines, no serious adverse effects have been seen.
The NIH in the US is presently conducting a $30 million, five-year clinical trial with intravenous EDTA using the ACAM protocol on 2,300 cardiac patients, with no serious adverse effects so far reported.
The NIH also estimated that 800,000 intravenous EDTA chelations were performed in 1997 in the US alone, with no serious adverse effects.
As it is only five per cent absorbed, EDTA is ineffective orally and in suppository form. The oral chelators of choice are DMPS and DMSA. Of these, the one most widely used is DMSA orally. While not as powerful as intravenous EDTA, it does chelate heavy metals and is effective in chelating mercury.
Where mercury is shown to be the offending agent in adults, dental amalgams must be removed following a proper technique and a programme followed using DMSA to detoxify the tissues. Simply removing the dental amalgams by itself will not provide any benefit. A good dietary regime with nutritional supplementation is also essential.
DMSA in oral form is the chelator of choice in autism, and forms part of an overall treatment programme. It is administered according to the DAN (Defeat Autism Now) protocol and does bring significant improvements in many cases. This is well documented by the Autism Research Institute in San Diego.
While genetics undoubtably plays a role, were autism entirely genetic we would not be seeing the dramatic surge we see today. At least one expert using the same criteria for the diagnosis of autism for the past 30 years has found a tenfold increase in incidence.
There is evidence that environmental issues and increasing mercury concentrations play a major role. That chronic, low-grade exposure to heavy metals is toxic can no longer be disputed.
There is no doubt that chelation, properly administered, is both safe and effective, providing significant health benefits. It has a 30-year safety record .
Were intravenous EDTA and DMSA still patentable today and of commercial interest, I have no doubt they would be widely used in conventional medicine.
Dr T E Gabriel Stewart
is a GP in Castleknock, Dublin
(Post date: New information and learning has superseded some of the information in the above article, making it redundant and no longer recommended by Dr Stewart.)
The following article was published in the Irish Times on May 2nd, 2006, in response to the article "A Dose of Cynicism" by Paul O'Donoghue of The Irish Skeptics Society:
"Mainstream medicine hostage to vested interests"
Irish Times Published 02/05/2006
Dr Gabriel Stewart replies to a recent Health Supplement article deriding alternative treatments and puts forward his arguments for why conventional medicine deserves its share of scepticism
In his article A dose of cynicism Paul O'Donoghue again takes a wide swipe at all alternative treatments that fall out of the realm of conventional medicine.
He purports to understand why mainstream practitioners get involved in these treatments. While many alternative treatments are rather bizarre, and patently do not work, there are many well-trained and experienced physicians who integrate beneficial treatments into their practices that are not part of mainstream medicine.
The main reason that these are not accepted is that they have not been proven by the Randomised Clinical Trials so rigorously demanded by mainstream medicine. Yet more than 80 per cent of conventional treatments have not been subject to trials.
Many of the treatments which become part of medical dogma do so as a result of clinical trails, many of which are fatally flawed. The following are some of the problems which have been documented by experts in the field of clinical trials such as Elmer Cranton, author JS Cohen, MD, who wrote a book entitled Overdose: The case against drug companies and James P Carter MD, a professor of nutrition in the US and author of Racketeering in Medicine:
1. Key findings in the body of these trials do not appear in the abstract or summaries of the studies, which is all the physicians, reporters, insurers and others may ever read.
2. References are selected to include only ones that support the papers' conclusions.
3. Side effects which cause drop outs are often omitted.
4. Adverse effects are usually deprecated.
5. Trials are run only as long as the outcome favours treatment.
6. Unfavourable trials are not published.
7. The use of ghost writers and figurehead authors in papers on drug research has been well documented, along with directions from sponsors to authors about what key pages to include and what findings to de-emphasise. This point has been made by a number of medical experts on the issue.
8. Only studies with the most favourable results are published.
9. More importantly, drug research gives details of relative risks, rather than absolute risk. Research findings usually also give details of the reduction of the death rate in specific categories, rather than the overall death rate which should be given in clinical trials. This last point paints a rosy, but inaccurate picture of many trials.
Doctors who incorporate effective treatments in their practices that are not recommended by mainstream authorities, risk losing their licences and all that it entails. The benefits of these treatments can often be demonstrated by clinical observation and further verified by clinical tests. Pharmaceutical firms are not interested in this particular approach as there is no money to be made from these treatments.
Drug manufacturers also have a serious conflict of interest in trying to balance the interests of employees and shareholders against the interest of patients.
A drug can cost up to €800 million to put on the market. Nor is the National Institute of Health (NIH), in the US, nor the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) free from the pharmaceutical industry's influence. It wasn't until last June the US House of Representatives voted to prohibit doctors and scientists who work for drug companies from sitting on FDA panels. It remains to be seen if this is confirmed by the US Senate or if the drug companies can use their enormous influence to derail it. Clinical observation is the most important vehicle for a physician to assess any treatment.
However, with the advent of ever more stringent audits of doctors, the art of medicine will be further eroded. Doctors will be forced to follow treatments, many of which are based on poor science and flawed clinical trials. The cosy relationship that exists between the medical powers that be, and the powerful pharmaceutical industry will be further solidified.
O'Donoghue comments on treatments that do not have a scientific base. He states: "Try wishing away appendicitis."
Yet this is apparently what happens in 20 per cent of cases.
Twenty per cent of appendectomies reveal appendices that are perfectly normal. While these procedures are entirely justifiable it demonstrates that surgical procedures are subject to the "mind over matter" placebo effect which science cannot explain.
How many other procedures are placebo effect with no scientific basis as demanded by O'Donoghue? It is believed that on average 30 per cent of successful treatments are placebo effects.
For a drug treatment to be ratified, it barely has to exceed this.
O'Donoghue states that many naturally occurring materials are highly toxic. While deaths from alternative practices are rare and when happen get headline-grabbing attention, the same does not apply to conventional treatments. He fails to mention that non error, adverse effects of drugs is the fourth leading cause of death in the US each year. To put this into perspective, more people die from taking drugs correctly, as prescribed by their doctor, every year in the US than are killed in road accidents.
Some of the suggestions of experts to prevent perversion of trials include the following: to prevent "manipulation" all government employees at NIH, FDA or investigating bodies should be barred from any consulting agreements, or any form of compensation or gifts. All clinical trials of devices, tests, surgeries, drugs supplements should be registered with a totally independent NIH or some other investigative body. Independent observers should be assigned to each study to ensure it was not perverted or buried.
Only if these and other measurements are put in place can the public feel assured in following any treatment either mainstream or alternative.
Dr Gabriel Stewart is a practising GP who uses both complementary and conventional treatments. He has a clinic in Dublin.
© The Irish Times
QUACKBUSTERS - There has emerged over the years a self appointed group who refer to themselves as quackbusters This group operates a network of eight websites under different names, two of the most active being Quackwatch and its affiliate the so called NCAHF (national council against health fraud). These self designated “experts” label all forms of complementary and alternative treatments (CAM) as quackery and fraud. They never question conventional medicine and with their misguided philosophy have caused un-necessary suffering for countless numbers of people over the years. This extreme right wing network actively encourage lawsuits against CAM physicians and then pocket large sums of money by presenting themselves as "expert "witnesses. They have however suffered a series of setbacks in U.S. courts in recent years.Acting on behalf of the so called NCAHF two of their leading members,Stephen Barrett founder of Quackwatch,and Wallace Sampson M.D., were found by the Californian appeals court in April 2003 "To be biased and unworthy of credibility".Likewise both were found by the superior court to lack expertise.The court also found that both Barrett and Sampson had a direct personal and financial interest in the proceedings. This group also receive funding from the pharmaceutical industry to help maintain the industrial/ pharmaceutical monopoly over orthodox medicine.Despite court findings against them they still continue to engage in a campaign of misinformation to discredit Chelation therapy, and to discredit doctors who integrate it into their practices.Another of their members Saul Green PH.D. has collaborated with Wallace Sampson M.D in attacking CAM treatments, despite the fact that Sampsons evidence has already been deemed by the U.S. courts to be"unworthy of credibility"and to lack expertise.This self appointed group are simply a front for the Pharmaceutical Industry.They like to quote one of their own members Saul Green PhD who is also supported and financed by the Pharmaceutical Industry,and his arguments against chelation.Each and every one of his arguments have been debunked by Elmer Cranton MD.See "Busting the Quackbusters" rebuttal to Saul Green below.Likewise,Joel M Kauffman PhD has effectively debunked Saul Greens claims against chelation therapy, and he goes on to state that Greens use of "supposed" chemical knowledge"was a deliberate effort to feign knowledge of chemistry in order to discredit chelation by strewing non-facts of chemistry"(Joel M Kauffman PhD 2006).
"Bypassing Bypass Surgery" by Elmer Cranton M.D. Hampton Roads Publishing Co. Inc copyright 2001 ISBN 1-57174-297-2.
"Forty Something Forever" by Harold and Arline Brecher published by Healthsavers Press, 2001 ISBN 0927839-46-6
"Children with Starving Brains" by Jaquelyn McCandless,MD
"World Without Cancer" by G. Edward Griffin
All the books mentioned here can be purchased at Amazon.com.