|
Dr. Gordon's Suggestions Concerning Informed Consent
 
Although I cannot give you the FINAL informed consent that you
will adopt since that would require a license to practice law in
all 50 states, this is an outline of what I feel needs to be covered.
You will have to review whatever you develop as your final consent
form with YOUR advisors who may want more or less. Some of this
could be presented on an audio or videotape with you talking!
CHOICES BY THE NUMBERS
The diagnosis of increased body burden of toxic heavy metals must
be clearly explained to the patient. They should know that the toxins
you see in their report are similar to what we all carry. You will
also, however, discover toxic workplaces and toxic homes and dangerous
occupations where the NUMBERS seen on provocative testing will require
detective work to find and remove the SOURCE of the heavy metal
in order to protect others in that environment. Here, of course,
you will be diagnosing heavy metal toxicity and/or poisoning because
some patients will clearly come back with urine test results that
are far worse than the average toxicity most of us have, and those
cases will involve the potential for INSURANCE reimbursement. For
the bulk of patients, however, this Heavy Metal Detoxification treatment
plan, which you intend to offer, is entirely optional and elective,
and health insurance should not be used.
It may be well for you to mention that "Other physicians may
not be as aware of the adverse effects of low level heavy metal
toxicity as I am because I have taken extra training concerning
this particular subject. Therefore many other doctors would not
bother to treat you for the level of toxic metals we have found
you have from your provocative test, waiting instead for you to
gradually become far more toxic, so that then you might be considered
lead poisoned and might be eligible for insurance reimbursement
for metal poisoning which is not what I believe you have at this
time."
CHOICES OF ADMINISTRATION
Furthermore, we must inform every patient that the American literature
primarily discusses giving this chelating agent using slow intravenous
infusions requiring 1.5 to 3 hours of administration even when the
generally painless form, the Calcium EDTA is given. However, I am
relying on European experiences of more than 30 years, where they
found that the shorter more rapid administration is safe as long
as we watch your kidney function; and, now we are finding that it
is MORE effective in helping rid your body of toxic metals than
the slower administration was. There however may be some still to
be proven advantages to the slow approach in term of anti-aging
effects and in helping lower the level of calcium in some tissues
in your body, IF we use the Magnesium-Disodium form of EDTA, which
has provided tremendous benefits to the over 1 million patients
treated in this country for over 30 years with that approach.
If you (the patient) are worried about potential harm to your kidneys
from the more rapid administration of Calcium EDTA that is finally
becoming widely used in the United States, you are free to elect
to have your chelation administered as slowly as you would like,
because at all times we want you to feel entirely comfortable. However,
not only is the slower administration more time consuming but more
importantly, I have decided to offer this quicker administration
to my patients because there is documentation strongly suggesting
this quicker administration of Calcium EDTA, given in conjunction
with oral chelators, and even adding homeopathic medications to
the treatment, is quite clearly far more effective in removing heavy
metals than the slower method, which I may still offer my patients
who may prefer it. I believe, however, that most of those benefits
were the result of heavy metal detoxification, and now it seems
clear that by combining long term ORAL chelation to prevent the
toxic metals from getting back into your blood vessels, heart, brain,
liver etc, that we can help many more people more conveniently and
more cost-effectively by combining the shorter treatment with oral
chelation.
CHOICES IN BENEFITS
When you ask why there has been such resistance to accepting the
benefits of chelation therapy by mainstream medicine, I think we
need to realize that, to some extent, the attacks against chelation
therapy have been partially a result of the earlier claims about
its benefits. When most chelating physicians, seeing the dramatic
improvements in SYMPTOMS associated with poor circulation and not
knowing about things like NITRIC OXIDE, thought that chelation must
routinely be providing a Roto-Rooter effect. It was those beliefs
and claims that chelation therapy was removing plaque from blood
vessels, which occasionally does occur, but not often enough to
be the main explanation for the dramatic benefits patients enjoyed
even when their blood vessels remained seriously blocked. Since
most chelating physicians no longer claim any Roto-Rooter benefits
but rather focus on their easily proven ability to help detoxify
the body by getting rid of heavy metals, which no one should be
against as long as excessive claims are not made for the benefits
of this use. Fortunately with over 1 million patients documenting
the benefits from chelation, most physicians do not need to make
many claims. In fact, it is obvious to most people that whatever
is bothering them, treatment will work better in a less toxic body!
This use of chelation therapy for ELECTIVE PHYSICIAN SUPERVISED
HEAVY METAL DETOXIFICATION, I believe will no longer raise the level
of concern about chelation therapy that previously existed, especially
since the protocols I am proposing seem to have major benefits for
many conditions at affordable prices. Furthermore, the $29 million
grant from the National Institute of Health to finally start to
study chelation shows that the top scientists in the United States
have largely abandoned their previous objections, where those who
knew NOTHING about it alleged that it was both dangerous and worthless.
Clearly, we are finally over that hurdle!
For more information and suggestions on Informed Consent, go to
Agreement
for the Advanced Metal Toxicology Protocol.
|