Thoughtful House acknowledges that chelation can be dangerous and not effective

14 Nov

IV Chelation could cause death, and Thoughtful House acknowledges it:

From a recent story in the Austin Statesman:

Thoughtful House’s IV chelation consent form, which Juli Martinez provided to the American-Statesman, includes a long list of possible side effects that include intestinal disorders, joint pain and, in rare cases, “allergy, anaphylaxis, arrhythmia and even death.” It adds that the treatment offers no guarantee of success.

Wow, Thoughtful House admits that IV chelation, even as performed by them, could cause death.

I have read so many apologists for the doctor who killed Tariq Nadama with chelation. They typically read, “the doctor made a mistake” or “the doctor used the wrong drug” followed by statements that chelation is perfectly safe. And, yet, Thoughtful House seems to be saying that even the correct drug could result in death.

And there is no guarantee of success.

21 Responses to “Thoughtful House acknowledges that chelation can be dangerous and not effective”

  1. Socrates November 14, 2009 at 21:22 #

    And quite possibly because it’s impossible to ignore blogs this?

  2. David N. Brown November 15, 2009 at 03:14 #

    I am satisfied that Nadama’s death was caused by the doctor following instructions provided by the supplier ApotheCure and ultimately originating from ACAM. These two organizations need to be put out of business.

  3. Jen November 15, 2009 at 11:43 #

    I’m not sure that this should be taken as any kind of acknowledgement…it reads like a basic CYA consent form. We generally have to sign the same type of form for many medical procedures- the best example of which is probably general anesthesia.

    While I’d love to see the chelators out of business permanently, (well, I personally would actually love to see them in jail), I don’t think that this means too much.

  4. Robert November 15, 2009 at 15:43 #

    This amounts to nothing much. These let-out statements are included in every drug or medicine pack. Try reading the small print on that piece of paper in your next medicine pack – it is simply there to protect the supplier in a court case should anything go wrong. Incidentally, the MMR one is particularly scary!

  5. passionlessDrone November 15, 2009 at 16:22 #

    One of the biggest canards on the DAN movement is that they were telling parents they could cure their children. Isn’t this evidence that we can move this particular bullet point to the dustbin?

    – pD

  6. David N. Brown November 16, 2009 at 06:09 #

    I wouldn’t consider this “acknowledgment” to be a public statement. It looks like it wasn’t meant to be seen except by prospective clients.

    pD- I have heard a panel of DAN practitioners speak who impressed me with their candor in acknowledging autism as a life-long condition, and emphasizing the value of conventional medicine. But, I have also run across quite apalling statements by biomed practitioners and advocates who made no such qualifiers. It looks to me like a majority of DAN members may indeed be responsibly restrained. Unfortunately, it also seems to me that irresponsibility is only rewarded, particularly through greater media attention.

  7. slumlord17 November 21, 2009 at 05:05 #

    These websites are a coordinated effort by quackwatch, and the insurance companies to not pay for the emerging effective biomedical treatments for autism. Also many ABA therapy practioners are threatened by their treatments because if the children are cured with biomedical treatments they will lose their bread, and butter.

  8. faithingod November 21, 2009 at 05:20 #

    This whole webiste is a paid pr campaign against biomedical treatments with autism. It is being paid for by AETNA, CIGNA, and quackwatch. Their goal is to saturate the media with their checkbook journalism. We wonder if Mary Ann Rosser is being paid under the table. That is the way the articles I have read sound. Cox enterprises needs to make sure their reporters are only being paid by their salaries. They are using Aspergers adults as their front to be a legitimate website. If Thoughtful House doesnt stand up to Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch they will be in big trouble when Anonymous Complaint Mari Robinson comes their way.

  9. Chris November 21, 2009 at 05:38 #

    Oh, wow, it is the totally unoriginal Pharma Shill Gambit, with an echo!

  10. David N. Brown November 21, 2009 at 10:02 #

    “faithingod”,
    Let’s set some things straight:
    1. “Big Pharma” does not care about suppressing anti-vaccine messages, I presume because vaccines don’t make enough money.
    2. “Big Pharma” has no reason to shut down chelation therapy and other “quack” treatments, because the compounding pharmacies that sell these treatments are, in all likelihood, buying from “Big Pharma” suppliers.
    3. To emphasize these points, if Big Pharma cared to do these things, they would have sued the major anti-vax players into bankruptcy years ago.
    4. This and similar sites (including quackwatch) are run by private citizens who make nothing.
    5. The only people who are demonstrably accepting money from pharmaceutical suppliers are biomed sites like AoA.
    6. Threats of litigation like YOURS mark your side as the ones trying to use money and power to suppress open debate.

  11. jon November 21, 2009 at 23:29 #

    David N. Brown you must be delusional here son.

    “1. “Big Pharma” does not care about suppressing anti-vaccine messages, I presume because vaccines don’t make enough money.”
    Seriously? What next coal companies don’t care about nuclear energy corporations? Microsoft doesn’t care about google? Think about things before speaking.

    “2. “Big Pharma” has no reason to shut down chelation therapy and other “quack” treatments, because the compounding pharmacies that sell these treatments are, in all likelihood, buying from “Big Pharma” suppliers.”

    Once again do a little self education first. Understand that pharmaceutical chelation drugs are generics. Non-pharma drugs are simply natural and come from supplement companies or independent producers.

    Onto 3. What exactly would pharma sue an anti vaxer for? Science is science. They practice research fraud and have been caught covering it up. Who exactly are these anti vaxers anyway?
    4. is just pointless
    5. You seem to be missing a very large list including Seed Media Group that he had linked to along with the plain and obvious fact that media groups largest source of advertisement revenue comes from pharma
    6. Litigation is how we keep criminals off the street and research fraud off the books. Without it no one would have any accountability to anyone else.

  12. David N. Brown November 22, 2009 at 00:12 #

    Jon,
    1) What I demand, for anyone who continues to speculate “Big Pharma” coverups regarding vaccines, is a single example of a vaccine manufacturer suing a vaccine critic.

    2) You are taking me too literally: To be sure, compounding pharmacies buy from a variety of sources. As a matter of probability, some of their products will come from major US manufacturers.

    3) Allegations against “Big Pharma” consistently charge various forms of intentional wrong-doing. This goes beyond any point of scientific fact, or for that matter of product quality.

    4) Whether bloggers are purely private individuals is exactly the issue raised by the comment I was responding to.

    5) This is just continuing a cycle of mutual recriminations. The only point I think of much importance is this: The relationship between (ex) AoA and Lee Silsby is clearly “reciprocal” to a degree that will rarely if ever be seen on “ND” blogs. I, personally, have space for ads on my own site, but I have no say on what goes in there. In fact, following one of the ads to see what it is for could get me in trouble.

    6) The first line of defense against fraud is free debate. Making lawsuits ought to be a last resort. Making unprovable allegations about conspiracies is refusing to participate.

  13. Joseph November 22, 2009 at 00:36 #

    They practice research fraud and have been caught covering it up.

    I’ll bite. What are you referring to exactly, jon?

    You seem to be missing a very large list including Seed Media Group that he had linked to along with the plain and obvious fact that media groups largest source of advertisement revenue comes from pharma

    This is a completely ridiculous appeal to motive. Web ads? Seriously? I’ve seen ads for Suzanne Somers quackery over at ScienceBlogs.

    It also implies that Seed has editorial control over what bloggers write about. If they did, it’s impossible we wouldn’t know about it, and they wouldn’t have too many bloggers.

    These conspiracy theories are a little bit entertaining, but they are not very well thought out, are they?

  14. Dedj November 22, 2009 at 00:56 #

    “These conspiracy theories are a little bit entertaining, but they are not very well thought out, are they?”

    Some aren’t, and some are.

    Regardless of how well thought out they are, if they’re not evidenced, then they’re simply worthless.

  15. Dedj November 22, 2009 at 01:00 #

    As an aside, over at Respectful Insolence, I’m currently looking at a car ad and an ad for a networking site. I don’t see any cries of motor-shill coming from the, ahem, ‘pro-safe-vaxx’ camp.

    I remember when he-who-is-never-wrong accused Orac of being paid by big-pharma, simply because an ad for a pharma product appeared. The slap-down from that was a beauty to behold.

  16. David N. Brown November 22, 2009 at 02:08 #

    Looks like “Gerry Spence Lives”, like “Leonoid Brezhnev” and “Anton Chekov”, go back to sites under construction. Undoubtedly puppets, maybe Tim Bolen himself.

  17. Dedj November 22, 2009 at 02:34 #

    Certainly someone with either no prior knowledge of this site, or no understanding of non-biomedical models of autism.

    I’d certainly think about adding a few other new comers to the puppet pile.

    Same logical errors, same difficulty in making clear open statements, same difficulty with sticking to the point.

  18. KAT November 28, 2009 at 19:59 #

    Really. THIS is what somewhat took time to write about?? Obviously someone not educated in the medical field….or worse….someone who is educated in the medical field and purposely is being misleading. However you look at it, a consent form for a CT scan with contrast, MRI, or a simple biopsy all include “death” as a possiblity. Would you forgo a biopsy and just HOPE that you don’t have cancer?? Forgo a CT and just HOPE that it isn’t an appendicitis…yada yada yada.

    No credibility for this author.

    • Sullivan November 30, 2009 at 07:00 #

      Kat,

      yes, I took the time to write this post. Just as you took the time to respond.

      I am not being purposely misleading. I am noting that even ThoughtfulHouse acknowledges that chelation carries a risk, including death. How is that misleading? What is misleading is the large group of people who pretend that chelation carries no risk. And, yes, I have read many people state exactly that.

      As to your assertion that I have no credibility, you are welcome to your opinion. I have formed my own opinion as to your credibility.

  19. Chris November 28, 2009 at 21:06 #

    Concern troll is concerned. If concern troll does not like what is written on a blog, concern troll does not have to read it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: