Is the only difference between, say, oral Captomer and
IV DMSA, for example, both of which are used to chelate patients, the
fact that a needle is inserted into the vein directly with the IV DMSA,
vs. the Captomer being absorbed into the portal vein post ingestion?  
Are you saying it's the actual insertion of the needle that violates
the Vital Force, vs. essentially the same medicine being absorbed
orally, which is why you are okay with oral chelation medicine?  On
that same line, then,  is a monthly injection of B12 for a person with
pernicious anemia then a violation of the Vital Force vs. using a
sublingual tablet?   Please clarify these points for me with your
unending wisdom!

Dear Mona,

 

Again, this is my opinion.  THe difference between IV DMSA and oral DMSA is how it gets in to the blood.  I am not saying one is evil and the other is good.  I am simply saying that one you inject something directly into the blood you bypass the body mechanism for determining what is in the blood.  This increases the "force" component and the potehtial "harm" component of the treatment or procedure.  For example, there was recently an incident here in Oregon where a patient allegedly died from IV colchicine administered by an ND.  The problem likely was that the preparation was overly concentrated by the manufacturer, at least that is what we are being told.  Yes, it is possible to kill someone by oral colchicine, but it is harder.  The very nature of IV work makes it more dangerous.  This is not the last patient who will die due to IV work.  I think IV work is important.  It is also a higher force intervention, with a greater level of potential risk or harm. 

 

It is not that I am OK with oral chelation and not OK with IV chelation.  I prefer oral work because it is less risky and I don;t have to be as smart or as careful to avoid harming my patient.

 

There are times when IV administration, or IM, or subQ, or parental, is superior, for a variety of reasons.  I do IM injections of B12 to Crohn's patients, and those with removed intestines because I think it is the best way to get the B12 into them, and the risk is low, and I don't have to be too smart, and if I make a mistake, I am unlikely to harm or kill the patient.

 

To further clarify, we know that the proper administration of the proper drug results in death in US hospitals at least 100,000 if not more often, annually, according to the recent AMA report.  There is no way that we will anywhere approach these numbers by IV work, but "we" have just "killed" at least 2 patients (a similar case in Washington), due to IV administration of a somewhat dangerous medicine.  There will be more cases, simply do to the nature of the technique.  All I am saying is that IV administration of anything is a higher force intervention than oral administration (with some possible exceptions that my tired brain can not think of at the moment), and with higher force there is higher risk.  So I choose to use lower force interventions when ever I think that will get the job done, even if more slowly.  I personally, at this time, choose  not to do IV work, because it scares me.  I occasionally refer patients to someone like Virginia Osborne when I think they would benefit from Iv administration of something.  Maybe someday I will get the courage to take the course and do IV work.  When I delivered babies, I took IV sets with fluid volume expanders and pitocin to every birth, and I trained myself how to use them.  I participated in annual trainings with other ND Ob's, because I knew I might need to do this and needed to be prepared.  I never had to do it in the field.  I think it is irresponsible to attend a planed birth without that possibility.

 

Does this clarify my opinion?

 

Jared