The dose is 50 mg per Kgm body weight so a 70 Kgm person might get up to a 3.5 Gm dose but since it has been documented to provide such profound benefits at the 2-3 gm dosages, we actually rarely give over 3 Gm per person (10 cc); and for long-term maintenance dosages, excellent results are reported in Europe with just 1.5 to 2 Gm (5 - 6.66 cc) when given by this direct IV push method. I tend to try and use the higher permissible dose when doing the provocative test, which should ideally be done on either the first or second treatments. Sometime a small dose of 1.5 Gm on the first visit allays the patient's concerns and then you can do the provocative with the highest permissible dose on the second visit. I generally use the largest permissible dose because I am training Physicians and patients on the first or second IV push to look at this new technique as a provocative test, like looking at the oil dipstick on your car to see how dirty the oil has become. The hair test is useful for screening purposes, but this IV push really uncovers substantial toxicities not seen on hair, as the exposure may have been some time ago.
Subsequently, if, as is the case with a few elderly weak or low body weight patients, they inform you that their first push where you gave the full dose, perhaps 3 Gm., made them a little weak for a few hours, there is no real need to stay at that higher level, so plan to reduce to as little as 1.5 GM. However, as they detoxify over the first 5-30 of these IV pushes, we find that generally they can easily tolerate the higher doses. This, of course, is not to exceed the dose that they are eligible to receive based on the 50 mg per Kgm dose rule, and depending on renal status. Thus, never hesitate to use the lower doses of 1.5 to 2 Gm dosages for ANY Reason, following the first provocative test. We have learned from Dr. Blumer's experience in Switzerland that most of the dramatic LONG-TERM benefits of reduced heart disease and cancer are achieved in his patients with as little as 1.5 to 2 Gm., although he felt somewhat more confident of routinely achieving the full benefits at the 2 Gm dose.
I believe however, that we have become so toxic today, that those whose weight warrants and who clearly tolerate well the dose of 3 Gm, as 98% seem to, should receive that full dose for the extra detoxification effect. I also must report that I have had dramatic success in patients who can not or will not take the IV's and instead of worked with me on higher doses of oral EDTA, such as the over 6 GM daily by mouth I have been on now for 6 + months, and over 2 Gm daily for years (as in 15 Essential Daily Defense).
The parenteral dose of EDTA must be somewhat lower in patients that have known renal insufficiency. I have long ago carefully spelled this out in what is now known as the ABCT/ ACAM protocol, that I originally wrote almost 30 years ago, and has been SAFELY used on over 1 million patients. We know that about 1 in 100 chelation patient may see some decreased renal function with parenteral EDTA chelation, although I am not aware that this has ever been reported with oral EDTA. However, it seems clear that if the lower doses are adhered to, and adequate time between infusions (or pushes) is given, we actually have shown the reversal of renal insufficiency with EDTA so commonly that we have come to virtually routinely expect to document evidence of improving renal function in 99% of cases treated as outlined in the protocol. We have even successfully administered IV EDTA to patients that were on dialysis and some of these patients no longer need dialysis.
Nonetheless, living in a litigious society, good medical practice requires some type of informed consent in treating patients in anyway that is even slightly "off label". In other words, you are now using EDTA for its FDA approved purpose of treating increased body burden of toxic metals as revealed on laboratory tests. However, since the rapid administration was not routine in the US, you need to inform your patients that in the United States, most EDTA has been only administered by slow infusion. I suggest you can explain that this 1 1/2-3 hour treatment has been extremely useful to the over 1 million patients who have received IV Chelation therapy under the old ACAM protocol that I originally wrote, and certainly many physicians may wish to continue to offer that method that we all have become so accustomed to.
However our deteriorating environment along with the increasing recognition of the adverse effects on our health of even the "average" levels of toxic metals that we are all routinely exposed to today, makes me convinced that we now will find even more advantageous for our patients, particularly in many non cardiovascular related conditions, to also offer EDTA using the rapid 1 minute approach. This is because we can readily document vastly augmented detoxification benefits over anything ever seen with the slower 1-3 hour approach, or even with other available, often more toxic and clearly more expensive, chelators. We can prove this in almost any patient by sending a fecal and a 6-hour urine mineral test off after the old method of chelation and then repeating these two tests a few days later using my new oral EDTA product, combined with 1-minute IV EDTA technique. The resulting dramatic increase in toxic metals seen in urine and feces using this protocol will astound and convince you.
This new approach is documenting excretion of toxic heavy metals coming out in levels never seen before with any method of administration or any other chelator currently available anywhere. It still remains to be determined if the 1-3 hour Disodium EDTA Chelation method may still have some superior anti-aging or other benefits. I believe it is possible that it may be somewhat more effective in certain conditions and those doing well with that approach may still see additional benefits if they occasionally do the rapid IV method for its enhanced detoxification effects.
I could theorize that the parathormone induction is very beneficial in some conditions, potentially in osteoporosis. This induction is only possible with the slow IV use of DISODIUM EDTA, which however, is so painful for some patients that many have given up chelation entirely, to their own great detriment. Clearly Disodium EDTA MUST continue to be given slowly, and since many will want to continue because it has helped so many patients, we can look to the outcome of major studies currently planned for Disodium EDTA to help us determine its proper place. I always believed that this slow IV administration method provides enhanced benefits for our patients where we knew we were dealing with various aspects of metastatic and pathologic calcium accumulation. Now, however, the research about nanobacteria and pathologic calcification being treated with rectal suppositories and tetracycline may largely supplant the need for the slow IV drip of Disodium EDTA.
NOTE: I am convinced that rectal administration of CALCIUM EDTA is not better absorbed than orally administered EDTA. Therefore, unless it is artificially prevented from being excreted from the body, rectal suppositories should not be providing any benefits above those obtained with oral and rapid IV Calcium EDTA. It is claimed by some that they are seeing a higher blood level after many hours with their rectal suppositories, however, I prefer to maintain good blood levels of EDTA by taking small more frequent oral doses, so that the heavy metals EDTA attracts are not kept in the body, but are continuously being excreted. Perhaps the main indication for rectal suppositories is when the patient is unable to swallow or has an extremely sensitive stomach.
Unfortunately, since some patients failed to see reversal of their elevated coronary calcification levels as measured on E.B.T. (Electron Beam Tomography) or on coronary ultra fast cat scans with the old chelation technique as adopted by ACAM some 30 years ago, we now find a big interest in more effective approaches and certainly the work with rectal suppositories deserves careful consideration. There is always something more to learn and I prefer to use the oxidative therapies to the rectal suppositories in combination with this protocol, but there is a need to accumulate more data. The inability to reverse some coronary calcifications with the old protocol that I initially wrote, has put pressure on chelating doctors to broaden their approach to Cardiovascular disease and treat every associated risk factor vigorously, whether it is elevations of c-reactive protein, homocysteine of Lpa. This protocol is merely another step in helping to develop new protocols that can save at least some of the best and most predictable of the chelation benefits we have all seen in nearly 1 million patients, most of which I now suspect may have been due to improved NO (Nitric Oxide) induction, and not due to any roto-rooter effect or actual plaque removal.
Obviously with all of these potential considerations, we have to cover at least the relevant aspect of this for our prospective chelation patients planning to receive the rapid I minute IV push. Some of these patients may still be laboring under the belief that any form of chelation works essentially as a form of "Drano" and is cleaning their arteries. It is nice that many patients feel as though this must be happening when they can function so much better after a series of these. But as a procedure that arguably may be considered by some to be experimental, because we are not waiting for full-blown metal poisoning to develop, and therefore we are providing it as an elective procedure and we are giving it more rapidly than is commonly done in this country may well warrant your providing a full informed consent.
I recommend obtaining an informed consent for the protection of all involved, and I believe we must try to inform our patients as accurately as possible the benefits and potential risks. You should explain that detoxification can lead to increased NO and, therefore even though they may soon have more energy and be able to do much more physically, they may still have the 90% obstruction or more, in a major vessel than they started out with. This is confusing for patients who see their marked increase in exercise tolerance, and can not understand how they may at the same time look worse on their next arteriogram or heart scan, and some, particularly those who fail to stay on my effective natural anti-clotting therapies, which I build around oral chelation, may even sustain a heart attack or stroke. There are answers to every problem and we cannot cover all of molecular cardiology here, but for example, calcium pump in endothelial cells can not function effectively to pump calcium out of cells until fully cleared of all toxins. Furthermore, the chronic hidden infections that we all have, like chlamydia, CMV, nanobacteria etc. may require oxidative therapies and my chronic infection protocol.
Furthermore, there is a need to adequately address the subject of renal function and why monitoring is needed. After the successful safe treatment now of over 1 million patients with EDTA, is seems clear that I am not recommending these patients be required to have any creatinine clearance testing, unless there is some abnormality seen in other tests that require further evaluation. I believe in the interests of controlling medical costs, that a simple Urinanalysis provides enough information for monitoring most patients, unless there is a history of some known renal problem or previous abnormal renal function test then an occasional serum bun and creatinine.
We recognize that any renal testing related to chelation therapy, unless it is for DOCUMENTABLE metal poisoning cases, is not considered reimbursable by some insurance companies such as Medicare, since they feel the test is being done to monitor an uncovered experimental therapy. In this case, most of your patients will be choosing ELECTIVE heavy metal detoxification the same as they might choose to have plastic surgery. This logically makes any renal monitoring you order, UNLESS for other reasons, unrelated to their receiving EDTA, which reason must be documented in the chart, a non-reimbursable procedure for most patients.
We do not want to waste patient's precious economic resources on low yield extensive renal tests, but since some forms of renal abnormalities are rampant in the population, good medical practice requires your good judgment on this critical issue. This is particularly in view of the probably somewhat incorrect or slightly misleading admonition in the old protocols that administration of EDTA slowly increased the safety for the kidneys. It now seems on reconsideration of this point, that since we have successfully chelated patients who were already on dialysis, that in fact, patients with compromised renal function automatically take far longer for the EDTA to clear, and the rate of administration is minimally if at all important in safety. Total dose and FREQUENCY of administration however appear to be important factors in potential for renal toxicity.
The new concept that I advocate of NEVER giving parenteral chelation with EDTA without concurrently providing oral EDTA is because oral EDTA is only 5-18% absorbed so the remainder can remain in the intestine where it is able to chelate any toxic metals presented through the bile and through the bowel/capillary interface by the IV EDTA. This oral EDTA then can trap and hold these toxins; largely eliminating the enterohepatic reuptake of these toxins that was apparently an unrecognized aspect of all parenterally administered EDTA. This enterohepatic reuptake was markedly decreasing the detoxification efficiency of all parenterally administered EDTA, now shown by the augmented excretion levels being seen in fecal tests on patients receiving concurrent IV and oral BROAD spectrum chelating agents as found in EDD (Essential Daily Defense). Remember, we seldom have only 1 metal present in excessive amounts and no single chelator adequately binds all the toxic metals that we are routinely finding on the Doctors Data reports.