School of Advanced Nutritional and Medical Research

More ACAM Discussion Regarding Dr. Cranton's Position
Dr. Heumer's Comments

Dr. Heumer
As the Associate Editor of CPAM at the time Dr. Gordon's article came in, I had the opportunity to observe the peer-review process at first hand. The process worked as it is supposed to. Reviewers either liked the article or hated it, and expressed their opinions as they are supposed to. With reviewers equally divided, the Editor (Lonsdale) cast the deciding vote, as he is supposed to. Dr. Gordon's article got published. So what's he griping about? That some conservatively minded doctors didn't agree with him? That happens a lot with novel ideas submitted to peer-reviewed journals. In fact, I recall that an old professor told his student not to guard his ideas so secretively. "If your ideas are any good at all, you'll have to cram them down people's throats!" So, what else is new? Anyhow, I look forward to Garry's forthcoming attempt to express his thoughts in as few as 2500 words. Richard Huemer,MD, MD (H)

Dr. Gordon Responds to Dr. Huemer's comments:

My article was a REVIEW ARTICLE, providing references that ACAM has refused to provide to its membership. Ignorance about those published articles means that ACAM doctors cannot provide a true informed consent when advising patients about oral chelation.

To have 6 doctors vote against providing valid published references about EDTA that ACAM is not teaching means we came within a single tie breaking vote of never getting any honesty into the oral chelation question in the ACAM journal.

It is fear about the proven effectiveness of ORAL EDTA that led one reviewer to tell Lonsdale, in an effort to convince him NOT to publish my article, that publishing my REVIEW article would mean the end of ACAM. It is very distressing to me to have devoted nearly 15 years of my life to building ACAM only to find that it becomes as dangerously political and, thus to me corrupt, as the AMA.

In my mind, ACAM continues today to try to suppress published information in an attempt to discredit the use of ORAL EDTA in a world toxic with low level lead levels. Remember, I cannot patent oral EDTA for lead poisoning and retire. This powder is as SAFE, and costs about the same, as another weak organic acid we call Vitamin C.

I cannot see anyone getting rich but it would be nice to live in a healthier, less lead toxic America. Low-level lead has been documented to tie, not just to IQ but also, to worker productivity. Why not openly embrace it and, thus, help to simply detoxify America.

Abstracts of many of those 504 references are on my website, each reference has the actual abstract behind the reference. All you have to do is CLICK on the name of the reference to read the abstract and see the article for yourself. This way you will read the reports that document, in multiple studies, that ORAL CALCIUM EDTA enhances lead excretion 5-10 fold in children and, in many adults, produces commonly up to 60% of the value seen with IV EDTA!

Yet, ACAM tries to keep its member doctors from knowing this so that they can comfortably stick to the nonsense that only IV EDTA is safe or effective for anything. That is WHY I AM mad and anyone needs to know that if you spend 15 years of your life building an organization based on truth, you hate to see it decide to suppress truth in a misguided effort to maintain status quo for its members. The new IV chelation combined with oxidative therapies is getting patients well MUCH faster, and the proof is just to test yourself. See how much lead YOU get in a 6-hour provocation with the old 3-hour, and then try the push. Then, IF you think lowering lead MAY be a useful thing for some of YOUR patients, YOU may join the fun we are having in getting results better and faster than ever before.