My only point is that you seem to be interpreting this study to seem more significant than it truly is. Fighting ignorance and all that.
I swear, every time I attempt to explain what my very expensive PhD has taught me about science to laypeople - for free - all it does is piss them off.
Oh, I’m sorry, you wanted agreement and support, not discussion. My bad. I hope you get what you’re looking for!
I’m well aware of the joys of the double blind controlled study thank you but kudos for trying to educate the unwashed masses.
I actually don’t want anything and would have been perfectly happy if there had been no responses to my post at all. I put this out there for general edification not because I have any sort of agenda. You seem to have difficulty believing that. That however would be your problem, not mine.
Well, unfortunately, that’s not how message boards work. People see posts and respond to them, see, and sometimes those responses aren’t just “I agree.” Sometimes, people will want to discuss the problems or issues raised in the original post. And sometimes, people will point out that in fact, the original post doesn’t really edify, as in this case. You claim that the results of this study are significant, others claim otherwise. And that seems to bother you so much that your responses begin to degenerate into personal insults and tantrum.
In any event, I doubt that the results of this particular part of the larger study will be replicated. If they are, that still doesn’t automatically mean that chelation therapy will be approved for “treatment” of cardiovascular issues in those with diabetes, since an underlying biological mechanism still needs to be identified.
Who are these “others” you keep referring to pray tell. It seems to me that you’re the one who’s desperate to prove something, not me. But thanks for the lecture on message board form and etiquette. After nearly 4k posts here and countless more elsewhere I hadn’t really figured most of that out already. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :smack: :smack: :smack:
<sigh> I’m not the only one who’s said to you, in this thread, that these results are not as significant as you’d like them to be. But by all means, please continue to focus your temper tantrum on me to the exclusion of others. Enjoy yourself.
And by all means, continue to characterize my reactions to your apparent prejudices as “temper tantrums.” I get that a lot so I’m used to it. 
Exactly what was that I said in this thread that was so offensive that it prompted such sneering sarcasm? I’m genuinely baffled here.
Nothing. I apologize. I suppose I was responding to the general tone of the responses I was getting.
As I’ve already said, I understand that chelation therapy, when used for things like cardiovascular disease is generally and rightly considered quackery. However we must always be aware of the limits of our knowledge, which is far more restrictive than we often like to admit. Anyone, even a layperson such as myself, who follows the science press understands how frequently previously held notions of what is unassailable dogma gets turned on its head.
So the point is, remain skeptical, but keep an open mind.
edit: in that regard, here’s an interesting article everyone should read
People often say this, aiming it at scientists - the implication being that science is closeminded and refuses to consider…whatever the person who says this wants them to consider. (By the way, I’m not saying that you are one of these people, or that this is your intent - seeing this comment just reminded me of this general phenomenon) The thing is, science is inherently open-minded. It genuinely is driven by the data. It works very hard to be unbiased and accept anything that is or can be proven.
Science is, but scientists are only human. 
No argument here. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s pretty damn good, and it’s the best we’ve got.
I know. I’m not arguing either, but that doesn’t mean that periodic reminders aren’t warranted and shouldn’t be given serious heed. Kuhn’s book, referenced in the article cited in my edit is testimony to that fact and I’m sure you must be aware of the fact that mini-revolutions get played out in journals every month.
Well - EDTA binds a wide variety of divalent cations, including Ca2+ ions. Ca2+ ions are needed for blood clotting - you can prevent blood from clotting by addition of EDTA. So EDTA should act as a “blood thinner” - It would be interesting to see how chelation terapy compares to more specific blood thinners.
That’s interesting because there’s a new study involving vitamin D to see if it prevents people who are pre-diabetic from progressing to type II and of course one of the many functions of vitamin D is calcium absorption as well asregulating blood levels of calcium.
Since this is a medical thread, moved to IMHO (from MPSIMS).
Very interesting deltasigma, albeit still far from definitive.
I’d wonder about putting it in context of studies which suggest that higher (but still normal range) iron stores may interfer with insulin sensitivity and increase cardiometabolic risk factors and that lowering iron stores with regular blood donation lowers those risks and further that regular blood donation is also associated with dramatically decreased heart disease rates. Chelation also lowers iron stores.
Now none of that is definitive either, far from it, but it does suggest a biologically plausible mechanism, a context in which to place it, and an alternative path to the same place that avoids the known serious risks and cost of chelation therapy with something that both costs nothing other than time and simultaneously serves a pro-social good.
Donate blood regularly. Win-win.
That BMC article was actually reference in a New Scientist article as it happens. It might not be generally accessible but here is the relevant quote.