I was recently talking to my mother (age 71) and she told me about
this treatment she was receiving, allegedly to help with pain in
her legs which is apparently attributed to high cholesterol levels.  
The whole thing sounded to me much like a scam, a rather lucrative one
too, so I would like to find something else out about it.  

This treatment is intravenous chelation therapy.  She has received
a series of 30 intravenous treatments which are supposed to (I found
out later) remove the calcium in artheroscl{*filter*} plaque, breaking it
up to allow {*filter*} to flow more easily.  Each of these treatments costs
over $100 (which means a total of $3000 so far), and are not covered
by Canadian medical plans (that sounds suspicious, as does the idea
that the cholesterol level relates to leg pains).  In addition, she has to
get various vitamin treatments along with this (I don't know what or
why) and calcium as well (to replenish that removed as an unintended
byproduct of the chelation).  These items are "conveniently" available
for purchase at the same location she goes to for the chelation.  This
sounds suspicious also.

All that I could find out about this so far was contained in one brief
article in Science News from 1985, and although it supports my suspicions,
I would like to know more.  I could find nothing in Medline except
articles about the original usage of chelation therapy for other
purposes (specifically treating heavy metal poisoning).  

I would appreciate it if anyone having information about chelation therapy
could send it to me (and post it too, if they think that is warranted).
I am also concerned about the potential harmfulness of such treatments,
aside from the fact they may simply be a waste of money.  If they are
not harmful, but also not helpful, would it be better to say nothing
about it or would it be better to point this out to those receiving
the treatments and who seem to think they really are helpful?

--

For any medical therapy, the patient should fully understand the possible
benefits, possible risks, and the certainty (or uncertainty) with which
each of those is known.

As long as unconventional therapies are fairly presented by the
practitioner, and the patient understands what's going on, I don't see
a problem.  (If your mother can't or won't understand what's going on,
perhaps she needs an advocate (you or somebody else) to take that
responsibilty for her.)

OTOH, a practitioner who doesn't present the knowns and unknowns
fairly to a patient is a quack, and I wouldn't trust anybody's health
to them -- irregardless of whether the therapy is conventional or
unconventional.

Pete

It's supposed to relieve symptoms of claudication, which occur when
people develop severe pain in their legs after walking for a few
minutes. The pain is caused by fatty plaques that block {*filter*} flow
in the legs. These plaques may also contain calcium.

Some doctors inject chelating chemicals into the veins of their
patients to unclog the vessels. Chelating chemicals bind to calcium
that binds to the fatty plaques, and it may remove the calcium.
But since calcium deposits are the result of artery damage, and not
the cause, removing the calcium deposits is an ineffective treatment.

There is no evidence that chelation therapy is effective in
preventing strokes and heart attacks, either.

J. of Internal Medicine, 1992;231
Mirkin Report, Dec. 1992