Thanks for the clarification.

It seems to me that the issue is around this phrase "fundamentally
Naturopathic."

If that is defined as meaning that only those therapies used by Lust et
al are Naturopathic, then certainly chelation using EDTA or DMSO is not
Naturopathic.

If, however, being fundamentally Naturopathic has to do with the
principle of using the least force necessary to serve the overall health
of the patient (as Lust did in his day and as we do in our day), then I
believe that chelation is fundamentally Naturopathic.

If a patient with Addison's is put into an enormously stressful
situation to the point of full blown adrenal failure, then I believe
that prednisone is a fundamentally Naturopathic treatment. Lust didn't
have it available to use in his time, but so far as I know it is the
least force necessary to accomplish the goal.

If my daughter had a confirmed case of spinal meningitis, with all signs
of escalating symptoms, along with everything else I do, I'd be sure I
get her to an ER for IV antibiotics. I believe that is a fundamentally
naturopathic therapy, the least force necessary to accomplish the goal.

I personally don't define "naturopathic" based upon synthetic vs
natural, but upon what I believe to be most protective of a patient's
health. In that calculation, I think the risk of metals sitting in the
body is greater than the risk of chelation (again, applied wisely, using
therapies to mitigate potential problems, etc.).

Regards,

Greg

MaryK Martin Geyer wrote:
> I see that my original question was more poorly articulated that I had
> realized. Let me expound. My question is not whether or not it is in
> our arsenal (as I will point out is mesotherapy and many other
> 'debateable' philosophical topics), or where one might place it in the
> therapeutic order/hierarchy (although, perhaps Drs. Zeff or Snider
> could augment this aspect of the discussion). My
> question is regarding the fundamental foundations of our medicine,
> predating the therapeutic order, predating our "six principles".
>
> Is introducing a foreign substance, that is potentially harmful to the
> patient, fundamentally Naturopathic? If we wanted to put it in the
> context of our six principles, would it fulfil 'first do no
> harm'? While I realize that the most serious adverse effects, such as
> kidney damage with EDTA, that were not uncommon in the beginning of
> its use are now none to rare with safer practices and doses. I've
> also seen it be very rough on patients, and have witnessed it do more
> harm than good. I know that AZ requires a 'crash cart' in our
> practice if doing chelation, because of a potential.
>
> I don't believe that IV nutrients are comparable with IV chelation.
> With IV nutrients, we are adding exactly that, nutrients to build,
> feed, aid our body. Obviously we have to respect and maintain healthy
> osmolarity,drip rates, and always practice safely (this is why we
> trained in accredited naturopathic medical schools).
>
> I can't help but wonder what Lindlahr, Lust, Hahnemann, and the many
> others would say. This is why I turn to all of your brilliant minds.
> I look forward to some of you adding dimensions I have not realized.
>
> Naive, idealistic, and in constant aw of this amazing medicine called
> Naturopathy~ MaryK
>
>
>
> On 4/15/07, *Jennifer Williamson* <dj.williamson@...
> <mailto:dj.williamson@...>> wrote:
>
> Sorry to answer a question with a question, but I'm new to the
> clinic and actually using the therapeutic order. Isn't the first
> step "Remove obstacles to health"? Wouldn't chelation therapy
> fall into this category?
>
> If we avoid chelation therapy because of its potential for harm,
> despite its benefits in patients with heavy metal toxicities, I
> think that we would actually be doing a disservice to the patient
> and causing them more harm by not using something in our arsenal.
> Some botanical medicines are toxic and can cause harm, yet if we
> use them responsibly and when appropriate they are quite beneficial.
>
> Also, if we avoid the first step of the therapeutic order,
> wouldn't any treatment be considered palliation? Isn't the first
> step what differentiates us from the allopaths?
>
> Jennifer Williamson
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Greg Nigh <gnigh2@... <mailto:gnigh2@...> >
> To: NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 8:50:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [NDPhilosophy] Is chelation therapy philosophically
> in line?
>
> Well, I'll weigh in with a few thoughts.
>
> My first thought is that I'm not sure I understand the question.
> It seems to me that it assumes chelation causes harm. If that's
> an accurate reading of the question, then I think it's simply a
> trick question.
>
> Chelation therapy does not, in and of itself, cause harm. It is a
> very useful therapy (yes, I do chelation therapy on occasion)
> that has the *potential* to cause harm. That certainly does not
> make it unique within the naturopathic set of tools. Further, I
> would say that it does something that can't be done with any other
> therapy, at least none that I know of. If someone has a very
> significant amount of mercury (or lead, or cadmium, or arsenic, or
> etc., or more commonly a combination of these) in their body, I
> don't know of any other therapy that will pull it out. In fact,
> any therapy that *does* pull it out is, by definition, chelation
> therapy.
>
> In this light, I believe it follows the principle of using "the
> least force necessary" to accomplish the goal.
>
> I suspect that the intention behind the question was to explore
> where people feel it fits within the therapeutic hierarchy. It
> certainly has a greater potential for harm than, say, homeopathy,
> and I would also say that it's more "invasive" than many other
> therapies we do (invasive is in quotes because not all chelation
> is via IV, but is also done orally).
>
> Given it's greater potential for harm, I think that it falls
> further down the therapeutic order than many other kinds of
> therapy. I also think there is a greater onus of responsibility on
> the practitioner to be competent in its use so that harm isn't
> done. This is no different than, say, physical manipulation, which
> can do very significant and lasting harm if done incompetently.
>
> That's my $.02
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
> MaryK wrote:
>
>> I would love to stir up some deep reflection and thoughts on a topic
>> that I've been adamently questioning for a long time now. Is
>> chelation
>> therapy philosophically in line with our medicine? Does it fall
>> under 'first do no harm'?
>>
>> This was the last conversation I had with Dr. Bill Mitchell, who I
>> deeply respect. I think there are many docs on here, and brilliant
>> questioning students, that might be able to share things that I have
>> not considered previously.
>>
>> Peace and Light
>> MaryK
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
> Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
>
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3o\
DMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM->
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> To be impeccable means to put your life on the line to back up your
> decisions, and then do quite a lot more than your best to realize
> those decisions.
> --Don Juan Matus, The Art of Dreaming
>