Chelation therapy is recommended in a number of conditions. It's generally only recommended in cases of genuine, identified metal poisoning or by 'complementary medicine' practitioners who specialise in 'environmental medicine' and claim thereby to treat a large number of aggregations of symptoms which can also be found in cases of metal toxicity.
The name "chelation" refers to the chemical reactions that occur with heavy metals and some chemicals known to bind to these chemicals and take them out of solution. It's supposed to work in the body by putting stuff into the bloodstream which will bind with the toxins and take them out of circulation. It's not without risks, because such complex aggregates which result from this sort of therapy then also need to be cleaned from the system. Also, it really should be done by someone who really knows what they are doing, under controlled conditions, and by someone who really knows what they are doing.
The practice of medicine is open to abuse - while some doctors really want to help, others are out to make money. And what makes the best money? Non-fatal, vague, non-specific conditions which can be 'sold' a 'treatment' which MAY help, and shouldn't do any harm, except to the patient's wallet. Also, the sort of patients attracted to this sort of practitioner are those who feel the medical profession has ignored them or failed to heal them. In a (Western) world with increasingly ageing population, the need for good management of those with long-term chronic illness is increasing, just as health care is trending towards only being interested in sorting out acute cases. A lot of these long-term patients are justifiably frustrated at the failure of a health system to heal them. We live in Gen Y times, when we expect everything on a plate. We snap our fingers, throw down a piece of plastic and buy anything we want - instant gratification. But this has not been able to reach a lot of chronic illnesses. Those who want to be able to buy the best cure that money can buy will be vulnerable to those medicos who claim to be able to cure anything, providing you can pay for it.
Some of these 'complimentary medicine' practitioners really believe they can help. They also give the patients more time and will listen, which alone can bring about some improvement. "At last I've found a doctor who gives me the time I need, who will listen to me." Patients are more likely to trust such a doctor and to believe he has altruistic motives. And a doctor who really wants to help may genuinely believe that he can do it, just by reading up on possible treatment options and setting them up himself. But has he really done his homework? Is he sufficiently qualified to do this? Has he checked dosages? Has he done all the bloodwork necessary to justify what is really a risky procedure?
Chronically ill patients are vulnerable. Some doctors are also vulnerable - they went into medicine as a career, to do their bit in eliminating all illness. Any degree of emotional instability is likely to be aggravated, in a practising doctor, simply due to the strain and other problems of the job. Some become megalomaniac, convinced they have the key to the panacea for all vague aches and pains. Others begin to justify anything they do, in order to produce some report of improvement in the patient. Again, these doctors are not the majority, but are often the ones to adopt a new idea without checking it thoroughly first. As a result, they are the ones we hear about. It's the fanatics in ANYTHING that really stick in your mind - I've had a few of these doctors try to sell this and similar ideas to me, so I do know what I'm talking about. Sorry if this seems critical of all doctors who are interested in complementary medicine - I'm only talking of those who give the rest of you a bad name.
Chelation, when used correctly in cases of heavy metal poisoning, is still a recognised treatment. But there are still too many unproven theories about this or that, and these do not provide sufficient justification to embark on a risky procedure. You can watch chelation in a test tube, it's fascinating. But to do it in a person's blood stream - you need a darn good reason to risk it.
Chelation should only be carried out in cases of known heavy metal poisoning, where the type AND quantity is known. To simply say to a patient, "You seem tired, you're not able to concentrate properly, your joints and muscles are aching, you have dark rings under your eyes - these are all symptoms of heavy metal poisoning and I'm going to administer EDTA to you via an intravenous drip," is medically irresponsible. The patient may simply have flu.
But to say to a patient, "I have your blood test results back, your known exposure to lead because you were restoring an old house and sanding back the old paint which turned out to have lead in it, and you inhaled it - your blood levels of lead three times the safe level and you need to have chelation treatment to try and get these levels down before your health is damaged any further," IS responsible. The doctor should then say, "This is much safer than it used to be but is still not without risks. The risks are... and the risks of not having the treatment are... You need to make up your own mind."
Some people believe that autism is connected to mercury in childhood immunisations. This is still open to debate, but if for any reason a parent suspects their child has high levels of heavy metals, AND THE BLOOD TESTS DO NOT SHOW IT, t hen any heavy metal damage has been done. Chelation, when there is no heavy metal present any more (as evidenced by the blood test results showing no metal levels) WILL DO NOTHING.
It's like expecting the summer thaw will instantly heal the leg that was broken, slipping on the ice. Sorry, a different process has to happen now. It's called, "healing" and it takes time.
I've known a lot of patients who have had various forms of chelation therapy. I've talked to them before and after. Many of them were no better, when checked months later. I've also talked to a number of doctors, both sceptics and enthusiasts. I've attended conferences and nothing has convinced me to adopt a "let's pour it in to the patient and see what happens" approach.
We had a TV program in Australia the other night, discussing the research on the Dore program. They were claiming that the research done showed that this program led to an increase in literacy skills for children on a trial. But no controls were in place. When you assess children over a period of 18 months or more, they get older and wiser, as well as more skilled in literacy, purely from tuition. There actually was no work done to show that the program led to an improvement in children, above and beyond what improvement would be shown anyway. It would be like saying that the program caused the children's feet to grow, because by the time the trial was over, the children almost all had needed to buy new shoes, having outgrown the old ones. Or that it caused the children to grow taller - as children are wont to do anyway.
I'm not equating chelation with Dore, just using the TV show I saw as an example. Dore is an entirely different topic.
Here is a Wikipedia link for info on the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelation_therapy
Marg