The term "Chelation" has been misinterpreted over many decades. Because of its apparent benefit to the vascular system and the difficulty of proving its efficacy for this purpose through double blind studies, its use remains controversial for that purpose. Conversely, the use of chelating agents for the removal of heavy metals remains unquestioned.

My questions:

• If acute toxicity of these contaminants has been proven, why would the slow accumulation of these same substances not be of concern?
• If the removal of these substances improves the health of those acutely poisoned, would the removal of these substances from those chronically exposed have any health benefit?

In the case of autism, for which the outcomes voiced by parents are tabulated by the Autism Research Institute, it is the use of chelating agents to remove multiple metals which is most highly rated.

www.autismresearchinstitute.com

First, we identify those levels of physiologic dysfunction that need the most immediate attention. For example, when participating in an acute resuscitation attempt, it is the airway that gets foremost attention. In dealing with chronic conditions, it is often the liver. Inactivation of enzyme systems involving many essential chemical activities makes chronic metal toxicity a major consideration when dealing with complex metabolic, immunologic and physiologic dysfunction.