Floggi;55912 wrote: Though some individuals may experience improvement after a risky treatment like chelation, chelation cannot be considered safe.
It’s like crossing a street without looking. Some safely reach the other side, and they may report they are very happy because the other side of the street is better than the side they came from. But such reports are only voiced by those who survived – you never hear the story of someone who was killed because he crossed the street without looking.
Any health protocol will have its risks and benefits. It is up to the sick person to decide whether or not the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks. Your analogy is a poor one. I spent over 6 months researching this topic before I ultimately started chelating. Looking back, the only thing that I regret is that I waited so long.
Floggi;55912 wrote: Chelation is an accepted medical practice – but only in those cases where the advantages outweigh the risks. Responsible doctors do know about chelation, they know when to apply it, and they also know when not to apply it.
IF you’re mercury toxic THEN you have 2 options:
1) Do nothing, for fear that you may get worse. Remain chronically ill for the rest of your life.
2) Chelate the mercury (and other harmful metals) out in a safe and effective manner (frequent, low-dose chelation). Recover your health.
It’s really not that difficult of a decision.
Floggi, quick question. Are you here on behalf of the ADA or AMA? Or Both?
What are the ADA and the AMA? I do not know those organisations. (But I can guess what they are.)
Anyway, the answer is: no.
Why are you asking, if I may ask?
Floggi, he was accusing you of working for the American Dental Association and/or the American Medical Association. He was asking because, hypothetically speaking, if you were, that would be a huge conflict of interest that the readers of this thread should know about.