Act Acting » Acting Jobs » comparison of costs for holistic vs. conventional?

comparison of costs for holistic vs. conventional?

Question:

Here’s my comparison……. Prenatal visits and childbirth cost almost +ACQ-8,000.00 in the hospital. The OB charged +ACQ-1,800.00. The remainder was the hospital fees. Insurance covered 80+ACU-, I had to pay the other 20+ACU-. (I had 3 hospital births, the figures are from the last birth almost 7 years ago now.) Homebirth with a primary midwife and a back-up midwife who assisted at the birth. Total cost +ACQ-1300.00, of which insurance is reimbursing completely. I had a home birth in 1996, plus another one in July. I personally feel I got much better prenatal care with the midwife and was definitely more comfortable in my home with my family present for the birth. Kay   —  kay   at   http://www.herbcare.com               or   —  slade   at   http://www.pensys.com/pages/slade

Response:

: :      You asked for the death rate.  You didn’t ask for the cure rate. for : those statisitics read "The Chelation Way" by Morton Walker, or "Fit Forever" : by Brecher.  Or call ACAM at 1-800-532-3688. : :      - Kelley Unfortunately our local Library doesn’t have either one. — Carol ….

Response:

:      Anyone who wants to see the value of chelation therapy for cardiovascular : diseases can see for themselves by checking out the book, "The Chelation Way" : by Morton Walker.  They can examine the photos on page 164 or they can read the : entire book. $$$ We ask questions and YOU spam us with someone’s book.  Why not just answer the questions?  Maybe we don’t want to buy these books, we just was brief answers here. : :      So does chelation therapy, only it costs about $2,500 to $5,000 compared : to $50,000 for bypass costs.  Also bypass patients frequently need to go : through the surgery twice ($100,000) or even three times ($150,000.) $$$ This seems to be true.  Many of the people however do NOT follow the Dr’s advice about high fat foods and the need to exercise.  They simply fall back into their old patterns of life that caused the problems in the first place. — Carol …. :      - Kelley :

Response:

So you keep talking about these 2 minerals but still haven’t posted here what they are?  Why?  Are you selling them to Diabetics?  What is the big secret?  Practicing meds without a license?  Why are you keeping these magic minerals all to yourself when there are suffering, uncured diabetics out there spending $100 a month on their meds?  Are you just selfish? Greedy?   — Carol …. : The cost of the minerals I take each month which cured me of type 2 : diabetes is $8.00  as compared t over $l00 a month for insulin, needles, : lancets etc.  That’s just one example. : :

Response:

Another is to do a retrospective study… Are you suggesting that such a study type has no "meaning?" If so, you are throwing out a pretty big pile of epidemiological research.     Indeed.  Self selected groups are not worth very much, because it’s impossible to control for all the variables.

Two rather obvious points. First, the retrospective study is *not* a self- selected study. A researcher sincerely interested in comparing the outcomes of chelation and surgery searches through the medical records of individuals who elect for one or the other treatment. Contrary to your suggestions otherwise, people with heart disease who elect to have chelation are not necessarily acting entirely outside the conventional medical world, and it is quite reasonable to think that many have medical records from visits to MD cardiologists. Our sincere researcher gathers records of chelation receivers and surgery receivers. The records are matched as best as possible. Outcomes are compared. Again, if you think such a study design can tell nothing valuable I would be happy to go through your writings on HIV and AIDS and point out all the studies you reference which were conducted in just this manner. Second, control *all* the variables? Show me the study which can do this. Humans have a funny way of living different places, eating different things for dinner, reacting differently to the different levels of stress they experience at their different jobs, etc. Now want to throw out studies using matched cases because all the variables can’t be matched perfectly. You are certainly whittling away at the number of valid studies ever done.  Such studies suggest avenues for better trials….

The rest of your stuff on this is all smoke. This sort of study is a perfectly valid, common and sensible way to compare the value of two different treatments of a condition. *Of course* the ideal situation is to randomize patients into treatment groups, but that hardly means it is randomization or nothing. Unless, of course, you just *don’t believe* the study could *possibly* show anything different that what you already believe. Too many chelation studies lack the information (from angiography) necessary to begin to analyse them in this way.

I’d appreciate your reference on the lack of information which prohibits an adequate study on chelation. Surely you wouldn’t just make this stuff up. How, exactly, do you know what percentage of those receiving chelation for heart conditions do not have angiography? Please be specific. Nowadays you’d have a hard time getting approval for any prospective trial in which mortality was an endpoint, without having an independent monitor to stop the trial if and when the statistical differences had become significant.

But you see, this isn’t a prospective study. This is retrospective. No ethics. People are already either dead or are still living, they either still have symptoms or they don’t. All the sincere researcher does is match the cases across treatments and find out who is alive and who not.    An ethical study comparing bypass to chelation might be done on people who had pain but not left main coronary or 3-vessel disease with a low ejection fraction, who have not been shown to benefit in terms of life span from by pass.

You refuse to admit the obvious: a retrospective study cannot be unethical, because it isn’t administering or withholding any treatment of any kind. It simply matches heart conditions for two treatments and compares outcomes. You claim that those chosing chelation don’t have angiograms. Says you. If you think that belief should be considered true, then by your standards every other opinion expressed on this group is true as well. Greg

Response:

Ms. Yarrow.  Aren’t you the one who is selfish and greedy charging fees to treat diabetics with insulin, needles etc. when they don’t need it? So you are a licensed quack for you don’t even acknowledge nor even explore the cure.  Does you greed keep you from pursuing the truth?

Response:

: Ms. Yarrow.  Aren’t you the one who is selfish and greedy charging fees : to treat diabetics with insulin, needles etc. when they don’t need it? *** How as I am not a Dr.?  I sell nothing.  I’m also retired for several years. : So you are a licensed quack for you don’t even acknowledge nor even : explore the cure. *** Send us the proof instead of hot air.  You are a seller of MLM trash and are losing money because of people pointing out your schemes.  Send the proof – talk (type) is cheap.  Does you greed keep you from pursuing the truth? *** That doesn’t make any sense – greed?  I’m retired.  You are the greedy one looking to sell your magic Diabetes (MLM mineral) cure to the unwary. If you kill them you couldn’t care less.  Have you killed any yet? — Carol … Corduroy pillows: They’re making headlines! : :

Response:

:      In the last 15 years or so –ever since standards for chelation therapy : were instituted by ACAM — not one person has died from chelation therapy. $$$ So you’re saying that there was an 100% survival and cure rate from chelation therapy and yet it never made the news on TV or the papers? Other treatments are constantly being shown on TV and not just Drug Co. drugs.  How do they manage to hide this 100% cure rate?  In : contrast bi-pass deaths on the table are about 5%, which is not surprising : considering what is being done. $$$ It’s serious surgery and I agree. :      Also, bi-pass corrects 6 inches of the 75 miles of blood vessels in the : body.  How likely is it that the problem that necessitates the surgery is : limited to those six inches? $$$ So why aren’t people cured by chelation on the talk shows and in other ways letting the world know about this 100% safe cure/treatment.  Who has the proof (medical records) of these cures?  Have they been written up in the Medical Journals? — Carol …. :      - Kelley

Response:

The cost of the minerals I take each month which cured me of type 2 diabetes is $8.00  as compared t over $l00 a month for insulin, needles, lancets etc.  That’s just one example.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -(BeWelKel) writes: Anyone know the death rate comparing those having bi-pass and those using chelation instead?     In the last 15 years or so –ever since standards for chelation therapy were instituted by ACAM — not one person has died from chelation therapy.  In contrast bi-pass deaths on the table are about 5%, which is not surprising considering what is being done.

    It’s less than 1% in good institutions.  And if chelation is harmless, so what?   A lot of things which are harmless are also worthless. Nobody has died from homeopathy, either, unless you count people who died because they gave up lifesaving treatment.  Bypass does save lives if patients are carefully selected.  It also helps pain in people with less disease, even when it doesn’t lengthen life.  It’s pretty hard to show it shortens life, on average— though some people do die early so that others can live longer, and still others can be pain free.      Also, bi-pass corrects 6 inches of the 75 miles of blood vessels in the body.  How likely is it that the problem that necessitates the surgery is limited to those six inches?

    Not likely, although atherosclerosis is limited to arteries, which is a pretty small fraction of those 75 miles.  And those 6 inches in the heart are the ones most likely kill you.                                    Steve Harris, M.D.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – writes: Anyone know the death rate comparing those having bi-pass and those using chelation instead?    Nope.  No comparison would be meaningful unless it randomized people from the same group to one or the other.  Nobody has had the guts to do THAT study.  Not the NIH, not the doctors, and certainly not the patients. As you well know, Dr. Harris, there are lots of ways to conduct studies. *One* is to randomize people to different treatments, follow them and measure outcomes. Another is to do a retrospective study, where comparable cases of individuals with heart disease (using a standardized diagnosis) who have chosen either chelation or surgery are compared for their outcomes. Are you suggesting that such a study type has no "meaning?" If so, you are throwing out a pretty big pile of epidemiological research.

    Indeed.  Self selected groups are not worth very much, because it’s impossible to control for all the variables.  Such studies suggest avenues for better trials.  One uses them only if they are all you’ve got, and all you’re going to get (ethical problems).  Also, for reasons explained already, epidemiology is much more useful when trying to rule out causation than when trying to amass evidence for causation.     That being said, I don’t even know of a rigorous study attempting to control for disease severity, done for chelation.  Too many chelation studies lack the information (from angiography) necessary to begin to analyse them in this way.   Besides, about guts: it is amazing how many studies one can find in which those with a given disease, such as cancer, are randomized into various supplement groups, and the supplement group has a significantly lower risk of death. Yet there are no screams from the medical people to supplement everyone due to ethics. In essence *not* halting *any* study which shows a statistically significant lower survival rate for a given therapy is damning some percentage of people to die. It happens all the time.

    It shouldn’t.  Nowadays you’d have a hard time getting approval for any prospective trial in which mortality was an endpoint, without having an independent monitor to stop the trial if and when the statistical differences had become significant.    As for the nutrient thing, I don’t know what you’ve got in mind. I’ve critisized the selenium study in JAMA, but do have to admit that it has potential problems in that the result found was not one the trial was designed to look for.  For this reason, some data may well have fallen through the cracks, and making broad recommendations to the public before a confirming trial has been done, would seen imprudent. One the other hand, this doesn’t prevent the rest of us for arguing for selenium supplementation on the basis that it’s a less than sure thing, but with a large upside and little downside.  So why not?  Pascal’s wager. It has nothing to do with guts, all your melodrama aside. You want to call it guts because it allows you to throw in your bias on what you believe the outcome of that study would be. But that is why studies are done, Dr. Harris: to prevent doctors such as you from allowing personal bias from obscuring reproducable results, is it not? Greg

   No, they are done to find out answers.  One does not ethically randomize people between a treatment which is known already to save lives, and a treatment in which the evidence for effect is lousy (and not just as a lack of evidence– there have been a lot of negative chelation studies).    An ethical study comparing bypass to chelation might be done on people who had pain but not left main coronary or 3-vessel disease with a low ejection fraction, who have not been shown to benefit in terms of life span from by pass.  At worst, even if chelation did not do anything, the worst that would happen to the chelation group would be unnessary pain.  And at best they might get benefit from a less invasive procedure.  If this were properly explained, enough patients might be found for a study.                                              Steve Harris, M.D.

Response:

Anyone know the death rate comparing those having bi-pass and those using chelation instead?     In the last 15 years or so –ever since standards for chelation therapy were instituted by ACAM — not one person has died from chelation therapy.  In contrast bi-pass deaths on the table are about 5%, which is not surprising considering what is being done. $$$ So you’re saying that there was an 100% survival and cure rate from chelation therapy

     You asked for the death rate.  You didn’t ask for the cure rate.  for those statisitics read "The Chelation Way" by Morton Walker, or "Fit Forever" by Brecher.  Or call ACAM at 1-800-532-3688.      - Kelley William Kelley Eidem, author "The Doctor Who Cures Cancer"  To order, go to

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Anyone know the death rate comparing those having bi-pass and those using chelation instead?     In the last 15 years or so –ever since standards for chelation therapy were instituted by ACAM — not one person has died from chelation therapy.  In contrast bi-pass deaths on the table are about 5%, which is not surprising considering what is being done.    It’s less than 1% in good institutions.  

     So, Harris agrees that the overall figure is 5%.  A large factor in achieving the lower percentage involves limiting who gets the surgery.  Combine better surgeons with the practice of cherry picking and you get a lower percentage.  Harris is also admitting that the death reate is higher than 5% at some institutions. And if chelation is harmless, so what?

     The Hippocratic oath says, "First, do no harm."  That’s what!   A lot of things which are harmless are also worthless. Nobody has died from homeopathy, either, unless you count

people who died because they gave up lifesaving treatment.        Anyone who wants to see the value of chelation therapy for cardiovascular diseases can see for themselves by checking out the book, "The Chelation Way" by Morton Walker.  They can examine the photos on page 164 or they can read the entire book.      Anyone who does that will realize that Harris’s generalized comment is irrelevant to the issue of chelation therapy. Bypass does save lives if patients are carefully selected.  

     It also costs people their lives in selected cases.  About 10,000 people a year, maybe more. It also helps pain in people with less disease, even when it doesn’t

lengthen life.        So does chelation therapy, only it costs about $2,500 to $5,000 compared to $50,000 for bypass costs.  Also bypass patients frequently need to go through the surgery twice ($100,000) or even three times ($150,000.) It’s pretty hard to show it shortens life, on average— though some people do die early so that others can live longer, and still others can be pain

free.      Now there is a ringing endorsement! LOL      - Kelley William Kelley Eidem, author "The Doctor Who Cures Cancer"  To order, go to

Response:

Anyone know a source for information comparing the costs of holistic vs conventional treatments? For instance, the cost of bi-pass surgery compared to holistic treatment for the condition using chelation? —

Response:

Anyone know the death rate comparing those having bi-pass and those using chelation instead? — Carol …. "You’re getting old when tying one on means fastening your Medic Alert Bracelet." : Anyone know a source for information comparing the costs of holistic vs : conventional treatments? For instance, the cost of bi-pass surgery : compared to holistic treatment for the condition using chelation?

Response:

For instance, the cost of bi-pass surgery compared to holistic treatment for the condition using chelation?

I always read  the bypass was around $50,000 and a "round of chelation treatments" were around $3000 with a need for monthly followups. Those figures were in some of the books and are  probably outdated.

Response:

writes: Anyone know the death rate comparing those having bi-pass and those using chelation instead?

   Nope.  No comparison would be meaningful unless it randomized people from the same group to one or the other.  Nobody has had the guts to do THAT study.  Not the NIH, not the doctors, and certainly not the patients.                                        Steve Harris, M.D.

Response:

writes: Anyone know the death rate comparing those having bi-pass and those using chelation instead?    Nope.  No comparison would be meaningful unless it randomized people from the same group to one or the other.  Nobody has had the guts to do THAT study.  Not the NIH, not the doctors, and certainly not the patients.

As you well know, Dr. Harris, there are lots of ways to conduct studies. *One* is to randomize people to different treatments, follow them and measure outcomes. Another is to do a retrospective study, where comparable cases of individuals with heart disease (using a standardized diagnosis) who have chosen either chelation or surgery are compared for their outcomes. Are you suggesting that such a study type has no "meaning?" If so, you are throwing out a pretty big pile of epidemiological research. Besides, about guts: it is amazing how many studies one can find in which those with a given disease, such as cancer, are randomized into various supplement groups, and the supplement group has a significantly lower risk of death. Yet there are no screams from the medical people to supplement everyone due to ethics. In essence *not* halting *any* study which shows a statistically significant lower survival rate for a given therapy is damning some percentage of people to die. It happens all the time. It has nothing to do with guts, all your melodrama aside. You want to call it guts because it allows you to throw in your bias on what you believe the outcome of that study would be. But that is why studies are done, Dr. Harris: to prevent doctors such as you from allowing personal bias from obscuring reproducable results, is it not? Greg

Response:

Anyone know the death rate comparing those having bi-pass and those using

chelation instead?      In the last 15 years or so –ever since standards for chelation therapy were instituted by ACAM — not one person has died from chelation therapy.  In contrast bi-pass deaths on the table are about 5%, which is not surprising considering what is being done.      Also, bi-pass corrects 6 inches of the 75 miles of blood vessels in the body.  How likely is it that the problem that necessitates the surgery is limited to those six inches?      - Kelley William Kelley Eidem, author "The Doctor Who Cures Cancer"  To order, go to

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply