Detoxing Chemicals and Pollutants for Optimal Health By Jeff Morris Are your patients toxic? The answer increasingly
appears to be yes—and your job, in order to maintain optimal health and reduce
the incidence of the diseases of aging, is to detoxify them. That conclusion is
one being reached by more and more anti-aging practitioners, and achieves
particular resonance with Rashid O. Buttar, D.O. of Cornelius, NC, and Robert
A. Nash, M.D. of Virginia Beach, VA. “I can now very comfortably and definitively state
to you,” says Dr. Buttar, “that, in my opinion, based on the evidence, every
single chronic insidious disease process is related to one word: toxicity. You
cannot address the issues of aging unless you address detoxification.” Dr.
Buttar, board certified and a diplomat in preventive medicine and clinical
metal toxicology, and Vice-Chairman of the American Board of Clinical Metal
Toxicology, contends that he only recently arrived at this conclusion. “Five
years ago I wouldn’t have said this, even a year ago I wouldn’t have said it.
But the more success we’ve had, the clearer it has become: All chronic
disease is toxicity. You get rid of the toxicity and you put out the fire.
You may need to rebuild afterward, but you must put the fire out. Conventional
medicine is just covering your eyes so you don’t see the fire.” Dr. Nash, who is board certified in neurology,
pain medicine, and chelation therapy and is Chairman of the American Board of
Clinical Metal Toxicology, concurs, though perhaps not 100 percent. “Most of
the diseases of aging—vascular, most cancers, arthritis and others—have been
shown to be associated with toxic metals and persistent organic pollutants.
Vascular diseases, stroke, heart attack, plus most of the cancers and macular
degeneration, have been directly linked to lead. That’s just lead,”
notes Dr. Nash. And “just lead” is but a minor fraction of the
toxic soup in which we have all come to stew. As Walter J. Crinnion, N.D.,
chairman of the department of environmental medicine at Southwest College of
Naturopathic Medicine, Phoenix, wrote six years ago, “Chemical compounds
ubiquitous in our food, air, and water are now found in every person. The
bioaccumulation of these compounds in some individuals can lead to a variety of
metabolic and systemic dysfunctions, and in some cases outright disease states.”
(Altern Med Rev 2000;5(1):52-63) Dr. Crinnion wrote that some individuals
appear to be less able to clear the daily chemical exposure from the body than
others, leading to a total load of toxins that exceeds the ability of the body
to adapt; at that point, damage to certain organ systems can occur. “The
systems most affected by these xenobiotic compounds include the immune,
neurological, and endocrine systems.” Immunotoxicity, according to Dr. Crinnion,
may be the major factor in the increasing rates of asthma, allergies, cancers,
and chronic viral infections. But the effects are widespread: “Neurological
toxicity can affect cognition, mood, and cause chronic neurological illnesses.
Endocrine toxicity can affect reproduction, menses, libido, metabolism,
stress-handling ability, glucose regulation, and other important functions.” A 2003 U.S. study by the Centers for Disease
Control revealed the presence of 116 chemicals—some of them banned for more
than two decades because of toxicity—in people of all ages. In July 2005, the
CDC released the third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental
Chemicals, which the organization stated was “the most extensive
assessment ever made of the exposure of the U.S. population to chemicals in our
environment.” CDC claims that its Environmental Health Laboratory at the
National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), using “advanced laboratory
science and innovative techniques,” has been in the forefront of efforts to
assess people's exposure to environmental chemicals. “CDC's highly trained
laboratory scientists have built on more than three decades of experience in
measuring chemicals directly in people's blood or urine, a process known as
biomonitoring.” While presenting first-time exposure information for 38 of the
148 chemicals included, the CDC makes clear that “the measurement of an
environmental chemical in a person’s blood or urine does not by itself mean
that the chemical causes disease … separate studies of varying exposure levels
and health effects are needed to determine which blood or urine levels result
in disease.” However, according to Dr. Buttar, “the number one concern among
scientists at CDC, which they cannot say publicly, is mercury; number two is
arsenic.” The CDC report also makes an important
distinction: that the level of chemicals found within the body is a result of
the cumulative impact of many different types of exposure. “Concentrations of
environmental chemicals in blood or urine are not the same as those in air,
water, food, soil, or dust. For example, a chemical concentration of 10 ìg/L in
water does not produce a level of 10 ìg/L in blood or urine. Blood or urine
levels may reflect exposure from one or more sources, including air, water,
food, soil, and dust. Levels of a chemical in blood and urine are determined by
how much of the chemical has entered the body through all routes of exposure,
including ingestion, inhalation, or dermal absorption, and how the chemical is
distributed in body tissues, transformed into metabolites, and eliminated from
the body.” Not only does this reinforce the concept that environmental
pollutants are ubiquitous in our environment, it also makes the findings more
useful from a health standpoint: “Biomonitoring measurements are the most The implications of multiple-source exposure are
disturbing. Britain’s Environmental Toxins Foundation (ETF) states that “more and
more research [is] pointing towards mounting evidence of structural and genetic
damage, potentially caused to the human morphology, through the huge influx of
chemical agents found in the air, soil and water today… As more and more people
are made aware of the implications from the accumulation of varying levels of
different chemicals in our bodies, the need to monitor and curb the influx of
these agents permeating into our daily lives, becomes seemingly obvious. An
influx of agents absorbed, ingested and inhaled from the food we eat, the water
we drink and from the air we breath… this very crucial issue of: chronic
sub-lethal poisoning to our bodies from the: inhalation, ingestion and
absorption of heavy metals, inorganic and organic
chemical compounds which are increasingly prevalent in our modern environment.”
In a paper published in Alternative Therapies,
July/August 2005, “Metals in Medicine,” Dr. Nash sums up recent developments in
his specialty, metal toxicity: “During the past five years, the understanding
of vascular disease has changed. Vulnerable plaque has replaced stenotic lesion
as the main cause of vascular problems. Questions about the long-term benefits
of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery have been raised. Metals have
been implicated in many of the diseases of aging as well as in
neurodevelopmental diseases and autism spectrum disorders. The American Board
of Chelation Therapy (ABCT) has formally changed its name to the American Board
of Clinical Metal Toxicology (ABCMT) because of the new scientific association
of toxicant metals with multiple diseases.” Dr. Nash also explains that with
the advent of the industrial revolution, the presence of many metals, such as
lead and mercury, in the environment has increased. “Tobacco, which tends to
bio-concentrate cadmium, is a major producer of metal. Arsenic has been used in
the past in agriculture. Forest fires release metals, especially mercury, from
stable seleno-mercurial compounds that are extraordinary stable in the tree
during its life. Volcanoes also spew out copious amounts of mercury. One study
done with ice core drilling from a glacier in northwest Wyoming collated every
major volcanic eruption with a heavy level of mercury. Nature acts as our best
filter, with plant life and trees trapping many toxins, including toxicant
metals. Between nature and man, we have polluted the planet. Man’s pollution is
by far the most toxic. We are now paying a price for our environmental neglect.
That price appears to be the increasing diseases of aging, such as vascular
disease, congestive heart failure, and cancers.” Evidence of the role of environmental toxins in
disease continues to pile up. A report detailing new links between
environmental toxicants and breast cancer, “State of the Evidence 2004: What Is
the Connection Between the Environment and Breast Cancer?” concluded that
exposure to synthetic chemicals and radiation has contributed more than
previously thought to the rising incidence of breast cancer. The report was
jointly released October 7, 2004 by the Breast Cancer Fund, a non-profit
environmental health organization, and Breast Cancer Action, a non-profit
national education and advocacy organization. It contained new evidence from 21
research studies published since February 2003 adding to existing evidence
linking toxicants in the environment to breast cancer, and was peer-reviewed by
six leading scientists, including a noted scientist from the International
Agency for Research on Cancer, a division of the World Health Organization.
According to the report, in the past 50 years, a woman's lifetime risk of
breast cancer more than tripled in the United States, to one in seven today.
This trend parallels a staggering increase of chemicals in the environment: the
report says that “compelling scientific evidence” points to some of the 85,000
synthetic chemicals in use today as contributing to breast cancer by altering
hormone function or gene expression. Fewer than one in 10 cases of breast
cancer occurs in women born with a genetic predisposition for the disease. As
many as 50 percent of breast cancer cases remain unexplained by personal
characteristics and other traditionally accepted risk factors; epidemiologists
and other scientists increasingly believe many cases are linked to environmental
factors. “This [is] the clearest evidence yet that the rise in
breast cancer incidence is linked to exposure to radiation and toxic
chemicals,” said Nancy Evans, a health science consultant for the Breast Cancer
Fund and the editor of the report. “Medical X-rays, pesticides, household
cleaning products, personal care products and some pharmaceuticals—these are
just a few of the multiple and chronic exposures contributing to this
epidemic.” Other studies continue in an attempt to determine
whether endometriosis, a source of chronic pelvic pain in women, may be caused
by environmental agents, including exposure to man-made chemicals such as
dioxin and PCBs. As far back as 1992, research showed that endometriosis in
monkeys could be caused by exposure to dioxin. Lynn Tondat Carter, Ph.D., whose doctorate is in
physiological psychology and is Professor of Psychology at the University of
Massachusetts, writes in The Celestine Journal that toxins that
directly affect the nervous system, called neurotoxins, also affect our immune
functions, since the nervous system is intricately connected to the immune
system. “Thus, our very ability to think and feel normally can be drastically
affected by exposure to toxins. It does not take a giant leap of logic to realize
that we could soon be in such a state of toxic poisoning that we would be
unable to ‘problem-solve’ our way out.” Continues Dr. Carter: “In 1989 alone, EPA estimates, in
its Toxic Release Inventory National Report, that 1.9 billion pounds of
chemical were dumped into our nation's water systems. In that same year, 2.4
billion pounds of chemicals were released into the atmosphere; with the total
chemical attack on the environment estimated at 5.7 billion pounds. This is
only in one year. According to a recent report by the National Research
Council, 70,000 of the chemicals in commercial use today have not even been
tested for neurotoxic effects. Known neurotoxins that we are
most commonly exposed to are lead, mercury, cadmium and pesticides. Most of
these toxins are colorless and odorless, making sensory detection impossible.
While sudden poisoning can result in immediate reactions that are traceable to
the source, the symptoms of poisoning from today's pollution may come on more
slowly due to a gradual build-up. Here is just a partial list of
common sub-clinical symptoms of toxicity: fatigue, lethargy, depression,
headaches, allergies, chronic infection, frequent colds, nervousness, sudden
anger, sensitivity to perfume/odors, memory loss and joint pains. Because so
many of these symptoms could stem from a multitude of other causes, often
toxicity is not readily suspected. With continued exposure, neurotoxins may
trigger the expression of a disease for which one has a genetic predisposition.
In general, it is thought that toxins pose the most dangerous risk for our
children.” Dr. Buttar points to a July 2005 paper, released
by the Environmental Working Group (www.ewg.org), that confirms the worst fear:
that the average person does not need to spend years being exposed to
environmental pollutants to be affected—nor does the average child. In “Body
Burden—The Pollution in Newborns,” EWG reports, “Not long ago scientists
thought that the placenta shielded cord blood—and the developing baby—from most
chemicals and pollutants in the environment. But now we know that at this
critical time when organs, vessels, membranes and systems are knit together
from single cells to finished form in a span of weeks, the umbilical cord
carries not only the building blocks of life, but also a steady stream of
industrial chemicals, pollutants and pesticides that cross the placenta as
readily as residues from cigarettes and alcohol…” Specifically, says the
EWG: “In a study spearheaded by the
Environmental Working Group in collaboration with Commonweal, researchers at
two major laboratories found an average of 200 industrial chemicals and
pollutants in umbilical cord blood from 10 babies born in August and September
of 2004 in U.S. hospitals. Tests revealed a total of 287 chemicals in the
group. The umbilical cord blood of these 10 children, collected by Red Cross
after the cord was cut, harbored pesticides, consumer product ingredients, and
wastes from burning coal, gasoline, and garbage. Of the 287 chemicals we detected
in umbilical cord blood, we know that 180 cause cancer in humans or animals,
217 are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 208 cause birth defects or
abnormal development in animal tests. The dangers of pre- or post-natal
exposure to this complex mixture of carcinogens, developmental toxins and
neurotoxins have never been studied.” EWG goes on to explain why the presence of these
substances in umbilical cord blood has such profound and long-lasting
implications: Chemical exposures in the womb or
during infancy can be dramatically more harmful than exposures later in life.
Substantial scientific evidence demonstrates that children face amplified risks
from their body burden of pollution; the findings are particularly strong for
many of the chemicals found in this study, including mercury, PCBs and dioxins.
Children's vulnerability derives from both rapid development and incomplete
defense systems:
Most disturbing about these findings to Dr. Buttar
is that in every case, mercury was found. The presence of mercury is attributed
to pollution from coal-fired power plants, mercury-containing products, and
certain industrial processes. It accumulates in seafood. And, though you might
think the mercury problem has been abated, Dr. Nash cites a November 17, 2004 Wall
Street Journal article by Matt Pottinger, Steve Stecklow and John J.
Fialka describing the high levels of mercury that are now being spread,
particularly by massive industrial development in China. As the article states,
“Mercury and other pollutants from China's more than 2,000 coal-fired power
plants soar high into the atmosphere and around the globe on what has become a
transcontinental conveyor belt of bad air. North America and Europe add their
own dirty loads to the belt. But Asia, pulsating with the economic rebirth of
China and India, is the largest contributor.” It further explains: Scientists long assumed mercury
settled into the ground or water soon after it spewed forth as a gas from
smokestacks. But using satellites, airplanes and supercomputers, scientists are
now tracking air pollution with unprecedented precision, discovering plumes of
soot, ozone, sulfates and mercury that drift eastward across oceans and
continents…The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently reported that a
third of the country's lakes and nearly a quarter of its rivers are now so
polluted with mercury that children and pregnant women are advised to limit or
avoid eating fish caught there. Warnings about mercury, a highly toxic metal
used in things ranging from dental fillings to watch batteries, have been
issued by 45 states and cover four of the five Great Lakes. Some scientists now
say 30% or more of the mercury settling into U.S. ground soil and waterways
comes from other countries – in particular, China…Mining, waste incineration
and coal combustion emit the metal in the form of an invisible gas. After it
rains down and seeps into wetlands, rivers and lakes, microbes convert it into
methylmercury, a compound that works its way up the food chain into fish and
eventually people. The EWG report states, “Methylmercury exposure in
the womb causes measurable declines in brain function in children exposed to
levels corresponding to 58 parts per billion in maternal blood (NAS 2000b).
Researchers in the Netherlands found a doubling in the risk of heart attacks
and death from coronary heart disease at methylmercury hair levels of 2 mg/kg,
which corresponds to about one fifth the assumed safe maternal blood level
(Salonen, et al. 1995). Increased diastolic and systolic blood pressure and
decreased heart rate variability in developmentally exposed children have also
been observed at doses below what the EPA considers a safe maternal blood level
(NAS 2000b, Sorensen et al. 1999).” The Wall Street Journal reinforces
this: “The dangers of significant methylmercury exposure to the nervous system
are well documented, particularly in fetuses and children. Permanent harm to
children can range from subtle deficits in memory and attention span to mental
retardation. In January [2004], EPA scientists released research indicating
that 630,000 U.S. babies born during a 12-month period in 1999-2000 had
potentially unsafe levels of mercury in their blood – about twice as many
babies as previously estimated.” Among the possible implications of mercury and
other toxins cited by EWG: Major nervous system
disorders. Several recent studies have determined that the reported
incidence of autism is increasing, and is now almost 10 times higher than in
the mid-1980's (Byrd 2002, Chakrabarti and Fombonne 2001). The number of
children being diagnosed and treated for attention deficit disorder (ADD) and
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has also increased dramatically
in the past decade (Robison et al. 1999, Robison et al. 2002, Zito et al.
2000). The causes are largely unexplained, but environmental factors, including
chemical exposures, are considered a likely contributor. Environmental factors
have also been increasingly linked with Parkinson's disease (Checkoway and
Nelson 1999, Engel et al. 2001). In “Metals in Medicine,” Dr. Nash goes into more
detail: Mercury is known to affect the
brain and has been associated with the causation or exacerbation of
degenerative diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Alzheimer’s
disease, multiple sclerosis, and Parkinson’s disease... mercury is associated
with autism, the degenerative diseases of the brain mentioned above,
neurodevelopmental diseases, vascular diseases, nephrotoxicity, and cancer.
[Clarkson TW, Magos L, Myers GJ. The toxicology of mercury—current exposures
and clinical manifestations.N Engl J Med. 2003;349(18):1731-1737] points out
that “the fetal brain is more susceptible than the adult brain to mercury
induced damage.” Specifically, methylmercury “inhibits the division and
migration of neuronal cells” and “disrupts the cytoarchitecture of the
developing brain.” Recent studies have correlated the explosive increase of
autism with thimerosal, an additive to many vaccines that contains 50% ethyl
mercury. This issue of a connection between thimerosal and
autism has been of particular concern to both Dr. Buttar and Dr. Nash. As we
reported in the June 14, 2005 issue of the e-Journal, Dr. Buttar
testified in 2004 before a congressional subcommittee hearing sponsored by Rep.
Dan Burton (R-IN) about the connection between heavy metals—particularly
mercury—and autism. Dr. Buttar discussed the chelation therapy he had offered
his own son, who had a profound developmental delay and is now an example of
how autism can be fully and permanently reversed in some children. Dr. Nash was
one of a number of experts who joined with Rep. Burton’s House Government
Reform Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness to refute the findings
published in the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Immunization Safety Review
Committee's Vaccines and Autism report of May 18, 2004. In that
report, the eighth and final in a series designed to examine the safety of
vaccines that contain thimerosal, the IOM Committee concluded, "The body
of epidemiological evidence favors the rejection of a causal relationship
between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism,” even though the Committee
had in a 2001 report called such a causal relationship, “biologically
plausible.” The Committee based its final conclusions on their review of
approximately 10 previously conducted epidemiological studies. Of those roughly
10 studies, 5 reported probable links between thimerosal-containing vaccines
and autism, yet those 5 were summarily dismissed because the Committee
determined the manner in which they were conducted was flawed. At that time,
Rep. Burton stated, “I believe the [IOM] findings are heavily biased, and
unrepresentative of all the available scientific and medical research. I think
it is highly irresponsible for the IOM Immunization Safety Review Committee to
purport definitive findings to the American public, which are based on
selective scientific studies that are greatly flawed to begin with.” The NIH describes chelation is a chemical process
in which a substance is used to bind molecules, such as metals or minerals, and
hold them tightly so that they can be removed from a system, such as the body.
In medicine, says the NIH, chelation has been scientifically proven to rid the
body of excess or toxic metals. For example, a person who has lead poisoning
may be given chelation therapy in order to bind and remove excess lead from the
body before it can cause damage. Chelation therapy has been a keystone of Dr.
Buttar’s treatment program, with which he has reported great success in
improving the prospects for autistic children. His Advanced Concepts in
Medicine clinic specializes in treating cancer, heart disease and other chronic
conditions in patients refractory to conventional treatments, with a special
emphasis on the interrelationship between metal toxicity and insidious disease
processes. With his newfound conviction that every chronic disease is related
to toxicity, Dr. Buttar’s treatment philosophy is likely to take on even
greater significance. As he puts it, “These aren’t my theories, these things
have been out there. What we have done is taken that hypothesis and figured out
how to remove those toxins. The problem is the simplicity of it makes most
people say it can’t be—it’s more complicated.” Dr. Buttar does not limit
toxicity to only metal and chemical pollutants, however. He categorizes toxins
into five groups, of which the first three, he says, are measurable, with the
last two being “more esoteric”: 1. Metals – The CDC list of metal pollutants
includes 2. Organic pollutants – benzines, hydrocarbons,
etc. 3. Opportunistics – bacteria, virus, yeast; these
need an opportunity to set up house, and find it in immune systems damaged from
toxicity groups 1 and 2. 4. Energy – electromagnetics cause a disruption in
our resonance; microwaves are the most dangerous. 5. Spiritual, psychological, emotional – someone
who is not “whole,” lacking something. Explains Dr. Buttar, “We’ve gotten
cancer patients to the point that everything is fine, but their ‘time is up’;
patients who on autopsy show no evidence of cancer, but still died.” Dr. Nash noted in “Metals in Medicine” that the
effects of toxicant metals on human health have been reported in peer-reviewed
literature with increasing frequency; they are present in many diseases of
aging, especially vascular diseases. And though historical experience of
toxicologists who treated individuals poisoned by acutely toxicant metals is
waning—very few of these cases have been reported during the past 30 years in
the U.S.—researchers with a special interest in clinical metal toxicology have
noticed a clinical correlation between metal detoxification by chelation
therapy and clinical improvement of vascular diseases. In 2002, the National Center for Complementary and
Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
(NHLBI), both components of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), announced
the Trial To Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT). TACT is the first large-scale,
multicenter study to determine the safety and efficacy of EDTA chelation
therapy for individuals with coronary artery disease (CAD), the most common
form of heart disease. The principal investigator for the trial is Gervasio A.
Lamas, M.D., director of cardiovascular research and academic affairs at Mount
Sinai Medical Center-Miami Heart Institute, Miami Beach, a board-certified
cardiologist and an associate professor of medicine at University of Miami
School of Medicine. Dr. Nash is serving on the NIH Data and Safety Management
Board of the study—“I am one of seven on the panel to oversee this study, for
safety reasons,” he says. Investigators enrolled the first participants in
September 2003. The study will take approximately five years to complete. Dr. Nash says he can only speak with authority on
metal detoxification, but in his view, the “big 4” metal toxins are lead,
mercury, arsenic, and cadmium. “All four are easily detected by provoked urine
testing,” says Dr. Nash. “We’re finding in excess of 95 percent of the
population over 50 has large amounts of toxic metals in the body when provoked
urine testing is performed.” The treatment he recommends is to detoxify the
body of these metals. Dr. Nash hopes the group of professionals to which he
belongs, called clinical metal toxicologists, can provide better disease
management by using a new standard of preventive care. “Look at the cost of
treatment. Most of the cost—up to 60 percent of Medicare—goes to heroic efforts
during the last six months of life. Most of us feel that money should be spent
on true diagnosis as well as better disease management. We feel that we need to
detoxify as best we can, and provide patients with adequate micro and macro
dietary intake to provide building blocks to build up their own immune
systems.” Of particular concern to those treating the
diseases of aging is the possible connection between mercury and Alzheimer’s
disease. Dr. Nash notes, “Some of the [mercurous] vapors [from dental amalgams]
reach the brain via the ethmoid sinuses. Is it coincidental that Alzheimer’s
disease has shown degenerative tracts often following the olfactory connections?…There
is increasing evidence of mercury associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Dr. Boyd
Haley, Chairman of the Department of Biochemistry, University of Kentucky, has
published multiple papers on his research since the late 1980s. He has successfully
reproduced the changes seen in Alzheimer’s disease in the brain homogenate of
normal brains with the addition of mercury, in the form of both mercury
chloride and thimerosal.” Some people hypothesize that mercury may contribute
to autism on one end of the lifespan and Alzheimer’s on the other end, Dr. Nash
told us. “I’m not convinced that mercury is the sole cause, but other factors
may be involved. It could be a genetic thing. It appears there is a third of
the people who are genetically prone to not getting rid of the metals, who may
be most susceptible for Alzheimer’s disease.” In his article, Dr. Nash goes on
to conclude, “The work of Haley, Aposhian, Godfrey, and others makes a strong
case that mercury may cause or at the very least exacerbate Alzheimer’s
disease. Studies looking at toxic metals, especially mercury, as a possible
cause for Alzheimer’s disease need to be conducted. The clinical metal
toxicologists have clinical experience that early metal detoxification will
often stabilize and even reverse early Alzheimer’s disease. More research is
needed.” As with other integrative practitioners, Dr. Nash
sees the necessity for a fundamental change in the way medicine approaches
disease. “We need to find out what is causative of diseases of aging. This will
take time, but we have not had an adequate prevention of diseases. Most
patients who see doctors do not have diseases, they have symptoms. Doctors know
symptoms don’t kill folks, but they placate patients with medications to ease
symptoms. The mechanism is straightforward; in the clinical setting you can
shift the physician’s mindset from only treating the symptoms of disease, to
understand that these diseases have correlates that we have never recognized.”
Dr. Nash believes that recognition of causative factors of disease is a trend
that is spreading worldwide. In “Metals in Medicine” he concludes, “Toxicant metals are increasingly
being associated with multiple disease states…The Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS) have authorized payment for in-office, intravenous
metals detoxification in the District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, Texas,
and Virginia, as well as the Indian Health Service. This is a great opportunity
to collect meaningful data directly from patients. It is known that dialysis
can be delayed at least two or three years by repeated in-office, intravenous
metals detoxification; it is hoped that all prospective dialysis patients would
be tested for toxicant metals and treated appropriately. If detoxification of
toxicant metals can become the standard in time, our health may improve
markedly. Could toxicant metals be a diagnosable and treatable risk factor in
many of the diseases affecting this nation? The clinical metal toxicologists
are the experts in low-dose, chronic accumulation of toxicant metals and the
symptomatic reversal observed with treatment. Many clinical metal toxicologists
are participating in the NIH’s TACT study. More research is needed in the basic
science mechanisms of toxicant metals and common diseases. Additional clinical
research, besides the TACT study, is also needed.” “I believe toxicant metals and their detection and
detoxification will be one of the exciting new fields in medicine. I have great
hope for the future of medicine,” adds Dr. Nash. |
|---|