I've gone through 55 IV chelation treatments, and experienced not a single c

[Guest guest]

John,

 

Did you take " Statin " type drugs, at any time, prior to the IV

chelation treatments?

 

The reason why I ask, is that I once read that the statin drugs cause the

arterial plaque to set up, very hard like concrete, which would inhibit later

removal.

 

In fact I think that was one of the ways that they spun the " benefits " of taking

statins. The side effect was promoted by saying that statins caused the arterial

plaque to become " stable " (hard) as opposed to, what they used to generate fear

" unstable " (heart attack), if you didn't take them.

 

Frank

 

 

, " John Polifronio "

<counterpnt wrote:

 

>

> Hi JoAnn

 

> I've gone through 55 IV chelation treatments, and experienced not a

single clear benefit. Before I engaged in these treatments, I was on

the verge of submitting to some sort of surgery, because I was close

to a heart attack, and feeling my worst. Though I experienced not one

tangible benefit, at the end of the 55 treatments I didn't feel this

vulnerability any longer, which may or may not have been the result of

the chelation, since lke many heart patients, we're constantly making

changes in our lives, attempting to save our lives, making it

impossible to say whether this or that factor had this or that

outcome. In the course of receiving these treatments, I was told by

the doctor that prescribed them, that oral chelation was of very

little or no value, which was why it was imperative that I continue

the IV treatments. He said that he thought that people should have

" lots of " chelation treatments. Along the way, driving 60 miles on

hazardous freeways, near death, dizzy and fighting

> unconciousness, to get the therapy, spending large amounts of money

on the vitamins he said I must have, experiencing many cases of

hematomas because of blood thinners he gave me, etc., and taking note

of the fact that I never once saw this doctor again (nurses did all

the work), until the end, when he requested that I have taped, my

feelings about the treatments, I gave him the rosy answers he wanted,

because long before this point I had come to feel used and

maniuplated. This " chelation doctor " is well known and respected by

his patients, though I fail to see why. I went to a lecture he gave,

together with 2 other chelation doctors, during which these doctors

spoke of what a miraculous thing chelation was, and during which a man

arose at the lecture, and in front of 30 people, accused this doctor

of being a liar and a hustler, and that he had taken advantage of

numerous people in his practice.

>

> Prior to this experience, I went to another chelation " doctor " that

was demonstrably such a crook, that I never went near him again. This

man actually had a chelation needle inserted in his arm when he had a

consultation with me, and had a timer set for 15 min. clicking behind

him, to insure that he didn't give me more time than I deserved,

though I saw no other patients waiting to see him. After this

experience, I happened to chance on some information that was

published by the State, concerning doctors that had been censured for

criminal complaints made by their patents, and his name appeared on

their lists.

>

> A third chelation doctor I went to, has left me with no memory of

the experience, except that during the visit with him, he asked that I

find and give him a book I'd red that was favorable to chelation

therapy, because he " needied to have such books around. " I never saw

him again, clearly because he didn't arouse the tiniest confidence in

his integrity.

>

> This is merely my experience. I'm delighted that your sister had a

positive outcome, but felt that I should be honest about what I've

been through.

>

> best wishes.

> jp

 

>

[Guest guest]

Frank

My chelation treatments commenced, about 2 years after arteriosclerosis

diagnosis at age 55 , at Kaiser. I declined surgery, even refusing an

angiogram, and have contiued to decline any kiind of surgery or other orthodox

approach for nearly 13 years, in spite of a serious angina problem. I've never

consented to take any medication, except for hypertension, which 13 years ago,

was around 180/110. Currently my blood pressure is lablile between 130 to 150

systolic, over 65 to 80 diastolic, (I've taken the drug Lo Pressor for 8 years

now), and have never taken Statins, though my family physician constantly urges

me to take them (my cardiologist has given up on me). I might add that I also

received 50 EECP treatments, a modality initially accepted by orthodox medicine

(Kaiser actually had the EECP machines, but had stored them away, having found

them ineffective), and had zero luck with this treatment as well.

 

These refusals to use statin drugs, have been an ongoing problem for me, with my

doctor at Kaiser. He's a pleasant fellow, bright and accomodating, to a degree,

to alfternative medicine; but has never stopped insisting that I take the

statins. But the truth is, I fear these drugs. I'm baffled by these demands

that I take the statin drugs, since my total cholesterol is currently 147.

Apparently they feel that people should take the serious risks with these

medicaitons, for the perceived benefits they provide.

jp

-

califpacific

Friday, March 31, 2006 9:49 AM

Re: I've gone through 55 IV chelation

treatments, and experienced not a single c

 

 

John,

 

Did you take " Statin " type drugs, at any time, prior to the IV

chelation treatments?

 

The reason why I ask, is that I once read that the statin drugs cause the

arterial plaque to set up, very hard like concrete, which would inhibit later

removal.

(snip)

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

John,

 

I have come to believe, in my personal opinion, that plaque is not the

big bugaboo that the allopaths would have us believe. I am not saying

that it is a completly positive thing, but I have come to believe that

the body's reactions are usually not mistakes. Most often any changes,

are usually, the body trying to achieve homeostasis, protect itself in

some way, or tries to extend or protects it's life in some way.

 

I think that when there is plaque in the arteries, the body is trying

to compansate for something in a manner to heal, mitigate the problem or extend

life.

 

I think that the arteries are subject to many things and, no matter how hard

they try to convince us with mumbo jumbo, most do not require a rocket scientist

to figure out.

 

I think that the arteries are subject to hardening and lose

flexibility because of a defeciency of nutrients.

 

I believe that arteries are subject to damage from chemicals being

taken internally or being produced internally by some germ, bug, etc.,

and so the body lays down plaque on the inner walls to protect them.

 

I believe that the arteries are subject to direct attack by invaders, whether

they be viral, bacterial, fungal, parasitical, etc. and will lay down plaque to

protect the inner walls.

 

I think that the body will lay down plaque to strengthen and reinforce

the inner walls whenever there is a physical weakness in the structure

of the wall. This can be caused by physical wear and damage, especially for

thinning at curves and junctures, in the arteial system. This plaque

reinforcement prevents rupture of the arterial wall.

 

So, over all, I have come to see the plaque buildup as the body's

defense against something that could be dangerous or fatal. Not as an

allopathic " disease " at all. It is too bad that conventional medicine doesn't

try and diagnos what is the reason ( there probably are only a few more than

noted above that the body needs to compensate for), identify the problem and

treat that, instead of trying to treat the symptom of the body trying to heal or

compensate in some way. Despite most doctors not being aware of it, curing

disease is not the end objective of allopathic medicine. Treatment and payment

are the real objectives of the ones who design and monitor the system.

 

It is like when the allopaths, in treating a patient, concentrated on treating

fever, diaheria, vomiting, headache, etc. when those were not the disease, but

just the symptoms or healing reactions of the body trying to expel or kill

whatever was making it sick and trying to protect or heal itself.

 

Those idiots would treat the healing reaction instead of treating the

cause of why the body was reacting.

 

Of course all they did when stopping the healing reaction was to

prevent the body from healing. Their treatment left the patient sicker

and poorer. And the sicker he got, the poorer he got.

 

And that, outside of trauma care and some treatment for killing a few

invaders, is pretty much the story of allopathic traetment.

 

Chronic health problems stay chronic and the big money wheel just

keeps rolling along. As a method of treatment, allopathic care is a

bad joke, but as an economic sales and marketing system it is so

perect it is without parallel.

 

As a scam onto the unsuspecting public it is probably the biggest scam

ever perpetrated in the history of the world. The problem is that we

have been so subjected to the allopathic propaganda for so long a time, that it

is very hard to not allow some of it to color our thinking.

 

So, I am suggesting tthat it would be more beneficial for you to concetrate on

why the arteries have plaque rather than focusing on the plaque itself or trying

to figure out ways to remove it without first identifying why (in all likelyhood

whatever the allopathis say will have almost nothing to do with it) and then

treating the problem and after that and only then trying to do something about

the " plaque problem " .

 

Frank

 

 

 

 

, " John Polifronio "

<counterpnt wrote:

 

>

> Frank

> My chelation treatments commenced, about 2 years after

arteriosclerosis diagnosis at age 55 , at Kaiser. I declined surgery,

even refusing an angiogram, and have contiued to decline any kiind of

surgery or other orthodox approach for nearly 13 years, in spite of a

serious angina problem. I've never consented to take any medication,

except for hypertension, which 13 years ago, was around 180/110.

Currently my blood pressure is lablile between 130 to 150 systolic,

over 65 to 80 diastolic, (I've taken the drug Lo Pressor for 8 years

now), and have never taken Statins, though my family physician

constantly urges me to take them (my cardiologist has given up on me).

I might add that I also received 50 EECP treatments, a modality

initially accepted by orthodox medicine (Kaiser actually had the EECP

machines, but had stored them away, having found them ineffective),

and had zero luck with this treatment as well.

>

> These refusals to use statin drugs, have been an ongoing problem for

me, with my doctor at Kaiser. He's a pleasant fellow, bright and

accomodating, to a degree, to alfternative medicine; but has never

stopped insisting that I take the statins. But the truth is, I fear

these drugs. I'm baffled by these demands that I take the statin

drugs, since my total cholesterol is currently 147. Apparently they

feel that people should take the serious risks with these medicaitons,

for the perceived benefits they provide.

> jp

> -

> califpacific

>

> Friday, March 31, 2006 9:49 AM

> Re: I've gone through 55 IV

chelation treatments, and experienced not a single c

>

>

> John,

>

> Did you take " Statin " type drugs, at any time, prior to the IV

> chelation treatments?

>

> The reason why I ask, is that I once read that the statin drugs

cause the arterial plaque to set up, very hard like concrete, which

would inhibit later removal.

> (snip)

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I forgot to add one other thing affects arteries and is that some things that we

take in, for economic reasons are classified as foods, but when in reality they

should be classified as nonfoods. Maybe industiral products.

 

Especially some of the oils or fats. Margerine or shortening such as

Crisco ( halfway between a food and a plastic) , hydrogenated fats bottled cheap

oils like canola (rapeseed), cottonseed, etc, genetically modified oils,

especially soy bean, in my opinion, should not be classified as foods at all.

 

They are sources of cheap industrial oil which have been modified in some way to

be sold to an unsuspecting public and in doing so that some major corporation

can make a few bucks, although at the expense the ruined health of the

consumers.

 

But since that 1% who control things also has major interests in agriculture,

chemicals, pharmacueticals, petroleum, etc. it all just becomes more profit

centers of opportunity.

 

The petroleum companies gave birth to the chemical companies, who gave birth to

both the agricultural chemical companies and the pharmacuetical companies. The

Big Buck Boys are involved in them all and have always been so from the start.

 

Frank

 

 

 

, " califpacific "

<califpacific wrote:

>

> John,

>

> I have come to believe, in my personal opinion, that plaque is not the

> big bugaboo that the allopaths would have us believe. I am not saying

> that it is a completly positive thing, but I have come to believe that

> the body's reactions are usually not mistakes. Most often any changes,

> are usually, the body trying to achieve homeostasis, protect itself in

> some way, or tries to extend or protects it's life in some way.

>

> I think that when there is plaque in the arteries, the body is trying

> to compansate for something in a manner to heal, mitigate the

problem or extend life.

>

> I think that the arteries are subject to many things and, no matter

how hard they try to convince us with mumbo jumbo, most do not require

a rocket scientist to figure out.

>

> I think that the arteries are subject to hardening and lose

> flexibility because of a defeciency of nutrients.

>

> I believe that arteries are subject to damage from chemicals being

> taken internally or being produced internally by some germ, bug, etc.,

> and so the body lays down plaque on the inner walls to protect them.

>

> I believe that the arteries are subject to direct attack by

invaders, whether they be viral, bacterial, fungal, parasitical, etc.

and will lay down plaque to protect the inner walls.

>

> I think that the body will lay down plaque to strengthen and reinforce

> the inner walls whenever there is a physical weakness in the structure

> of the wall. This can be caused by physical wear and damage,

especially for thinning at curves and junctures, in the arteial

system. This plaque reinforcement prevents rupture of the arterial wall.

>

> So, over all, I have come to see the plaque buildup as the body's

> defense against something that could be dangerous or fatal. Not as

an allopathic " disease " at all. It is too bad that conventional

medicine doesn't try and diagnos what is the reason ( there probably

are only a few more than noted above that the body needs to compensate

for), identify the problem and treat that, instead of trying to treat

the symptom of the body trying to heal or compensate in some way.

Despite most doctors not being aware of it, curing disease is not the

end objective of allopathic medicine. Treatment and payment are the

real objectives of the ones who design and monitor the system.

>

> It is like when the allopaths, in treating a patient, concentrated

on treating fever, diaheria, vomiting, headache, etc. when those were

not the disease, but just the symptoms or healing reactions of the

body trying to expel or kill whatever was making it sick and trying to

protect or heal itself.

>

> Those idiots would treat the healing reaction instead of treating the

> cause of why the body was reacting.

>

> Of course all they did when stopping the healing reaction was to

> prevent the body from healing. Their treatment left the patient sicker

> and poorer. And the sicker he got, the poorer he got.

>

> And that, outside of trauma care and some treatment for killing a few

> invaders, is pretty much the story of allopathic traetment.

>

> Chronic health problems stay chronic and the big money wheel just

> keeps rolling along. As a method of treatment, allopathic care is a

> bad joke, but as an economic sales and marketing system it is so

> perect it is without parallel.

>

> As a scam onto the unsuspecting public it is probably the biggest scam

> ever perpetrated in the history of the world. The problem is that we

> have been so subjected to the allopathic propaganda for so long a

time, that it is very hard to not allow some of it to color our thinking.

>

> So, I am suggesting tthat it would be more beneficial for you to

concetrate on why the arteries have plaque rather than focusing on the

plaque itself or trying to figure out ways to remove it without first

identifying why (in all likelyhood whatever the allopathis say will

have almost nothing to do with it) and then treating the problem and

after that and only then trying to do something about the " plaque

problem " .

>

> Frank

>

>

>

>

> , " John Polifronio "

> <counterpnt@> wrote:

>

> >

> > Frank

> > My chelation treatments commenced, about 2 years after

> arteriosclerosis diagnosis at age 55 , at Kaiser. I declined surgery,

> even refusing an angiogram, and have contiued to decline any kiind of

> surgery or other orthodox approach for nearly 13 years, in spite of a

> serious angina problem. I've never consented to take any medication,

> except for hypertension, which 13 years ago, was around 180/110.

> Currently my blood pressure is lablile between 130 to 150 systolic,

> over 65 to 80 diastolic, (I've taken the drug Lo Pressor for 8 years

> now), and have never taken Statins, though my family physician

> constantly urges me to take them (my cardiologist has given up on me).

> I might add that I also received 50 EECP treatments, a modality

> initially accepted by orthodox medicine (Kaiser actually had the EECP

> machines, but had stored them away, having found them ineffective),

> and had zero luck with this treatment as well.

> >

> > These refusals to use statin drugs, have been an ongoing problem for

> me, with my doctor at Kaiser. He's a pleasant fellow, bright and

> accomodating, to a degree, to alfternative medicine; but has never

> stopped insisting that I take the statins. But the truth is, I fear

> these drugs. I'm baffled by these demands that I take the statin

> drugs, since my total cholesterol is currently 147. Apparently they

> feel that people should take the serious risks with these medicaitons,

> for the perceived benefits they provide.

> > jp

> > -

> > califpacific

> >

> > Friday, March 31, 2006 9:49 AM

> > Re: I've gone through 55 IV

> chelation treatments, and experienced not a single c

> >

> >

> > John,

> >

> > Did you take " Statin " type drugs, at any time, prior to the IV

> > chelation treatments?

> >

> > The reason why I ask, is that I once read that the statin drugs

> cause the arterial plaque to set up, very hard like concrete, which

> would inhibit later removal.

> > (snip)

> >

> >

> >

> >