Chelation Therapy (EDTA and Phosphatidyl Choline or Plaquex)
I use chelation therapy for selected patients – those with cardiovascular disease – in my office. Chelation involves an intravenous infusion of EDTA (defined below) and other nutrients, given over a 2-1/2 to three hour period, weekly for 20 weeks, then once every two weeks for three months, then usually monthly. Chelation has been used for a myriad of diseases, but as you will see if you peruse the Web, it is controversial. The primary reason I employ if for cardiovascular disease is that patients are able to see and measure the benefit of this therapy by evaluating the effect on their symptoms. Patients, for example, who have angina (chest pain caused by inadequate blood flow to the heart) can tell when the frequency of the pain decreases or stops, or when they can perform certain activities without having their chest pain.
I have recently begun the use of Plaquex (phosphatidyl choline) for cardiovascular problems, generally in conjunction with EDTA. The properties of this material are extraordinary. Phosphatidyl choline is essential for the function of all cell membranes in the body, and supplementation with phosphatidyl choline increases the level and activity of HDL (“good” cholesterol – the one that effectively removes the “bad” cholesterol components from arteries and other areas of deposition). Phosphatidyl choline also enhances liver function, brain and CNS function, and that of many other organs. I am excited about this addition to our treatment regimens! For more information, visit www.Plaquex.com.
I know chelation works for cardiovascular disease and I can prove it by the effects it has on my patients, primarily by their relief of cardiovascular symptoms.. I have not had much experience using it to treat other problems, so I employ chelation for patients who have symptoms I know chelation can reverse.
Since chelation therapy is a highly charged topic, you may find the following material helpful.
The American College for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM) Position Paper on Chelation Therapy
It is ACAM’s position, as more fully explained in the discussion that ensues, that chelation therapy is a valid and proper course of treatment, based upon scientific rationale, supported by many published clinical studies, and consistent with sound medical practice. Restricting its use by qualified physicians would amount to a wholly unneeded restraint upon the practice of medicine that would adversely affect the standard of medical care available to patients. Such restriction would be contrary to law and a disservice to the public.
Therapeutic History of Chelation Therapy
Clinical experience with EDTA chelation therapy has convinced substantial numbers of licensed physicians in North America that it is a safe and effective treatment for atherosclerotic vascular disease, as it consistently improves blood flow and relieves symptoms associated with the disease in greater than 80% of the patients treated. As members of the medical profession are generally aware, the pathogenesis of atherosclerotic disease is extraordinarily complex. The scientific principles underlying the efficacy of EDTA chelation therapy in impeding each step of the disease process are beyond the scope of this position paper, but they are elaborated upon in the many published clinical studies and research papers available.
In its simplest terms, the rationale for its efficacy is that EDTA, in binding ionic metal catalysts and removing them from the body, reduces subsequent abnormal production of oxygen free radical reactive molecules and molecular fragments which react destructively with other molecules. See, E. M. Cranton, J. P. Frackelton, Free Radical Pathology in Age-Associated Diseases: Treatment with EDTA Chelation, Nutrition, and Antioxidants, Journal of Advancement in Medicine, Vol. 2, Nos. 1, 2, Spring/Summer, 1989.1
There is now widespread agreement that EDTA removes metallic catalysts which cause excessive oxygen free radical proliferation, thereby reducing pathological lipid peroxidation of cell membranes, DNA, enzyme systems and lipoproteins and allowing the body’s natural healing mechanisms to halt and often reverse the disease process.
Steinberg, et al., state in the April 6, 1989, New England Journal of Medicine, 1989; 320(14):915-924, concerning Modifications of Low-density Lipoprotein That Increase Its Atherogenicity through free radical peroxidation, “oxidative modification is absolutely dependent on low concentrations of copper or iron in the medium and is therefore completely inhibited by ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA).”2
Chelation therapy is considered by the licensed physicians who utilize it to be an effective first step alternative to surgical treatment for atherosclerotic vascular disease in most cases. In the instances where a licensed physician believes that bypass surgery or the interventional cardiac catheterization techniques of thrombolysis and balloon angioplasty are more appropriate, he or she will refer those patients out. These alternatives to chelation therapy though are not without their respective detractors and attendant risks.
In September 1978 the Office of Technology Assessment (“OTA”), a branch of the United States Congress, aided by an advisory board composed of leading medical and university school faculty, published a report entitled Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies. One portion of that report discussed the efficacy and safety of surgery for coronary artery disease, concluding as follows:
The importance of this analysis is its recognition, though over 70,000 operations were performed in 1977, that the benefits of such surgery have yet to be demonstrated.4
A more recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine (March 22, 1984) reported upon myocardial infarction and mortality in the coronary artery surgery study (CASS) randomized trial, and summarized as follows in the Abstract:
The necessity of heart surgery and the scheduling of such surgery has undergone substantial criticism of late by many in the medical community. Despite this criticism, in 1981 an estimated 110,000 patients underwent bypass surgery. By 1983 the annual number of operations had increased to 191,000, and by 1989 the number had soared to over 368,000.6
As stated by Dr. Thomas A. Preston, professor of cardiology at the University of Washington School of Medicine and chief of cardiology at Pacific Medical Center:
In an article entitled The Appropriateness of Performing Coronary Artery By-Pass Surgery published by the American Medical Association in JAMA 1988, 260:505-509, the authors report the results of a randomized study conducted to determine the level of judiciousness currently being applied by physicians in performing coronary artery bypass surgery. The authors report that only fifty-six percent (56%) of the surgeries were performed for appropriate reasons. As stated in the abstract to this article, “eliminating the performance of [such] inappropriate procedures may lead to reductions in health care expenditures or to improved patient outcomes.”
Balloon angioplasty is an alternative to venous grafting which is enjoying increased popularity among vascular surgeons. Experience with this technique, though, has shown that serious complications, including permanent renal failure, occur in up to 8% of cases and that technical failure rates for iliac and femoral angioplasties occur in up to 50% of cases.7 Moreover, it must be remembered that both this technique and venous grafting are very point specific, in distinct contrast to chelation therapy, which benefits the entire vascular system. Furthermore, the costs associated with the various treatment modalities are widely disparate. A typical bypass surgery costs the patient in excess of $30,000.00, the usual balloon angioplasty over $12,000.00, and an average course of chelation treatments $3,000.00 to $5,000.00, including ancillary costs.
The scientific rationale of chelation therapy is demonstrated in the before noted article of E. M. Cranton, M.D. and J. P. Frackelton, M.D. As stated in the Abstract:
Chelation therapy, like bypass surgery and angioplasty, is based upon a scientific rationale and is of measurable benefit to patients. There is no reason why surgery should be condoned, while chelation therapy is often condemned simply because it has not heretofore undergone large-scale, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.
As elaborated upon in the OTA report, only 10 to 20 percent of all procedures currently used in medical practices have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial.8
The efficacy of chelation therapy has been clinically demonstrated to thousands of doctors through positive results in hundreds of thousands of cases where this treatment was utilized. One pilot double blind study has already been completed with strongly favorable results.9
The safety of this therapy, when properly administered, is not an issue. It is estimated that over 500,000 patients nationally have been safely treated with this therapy by physicians utilizing the protocol developed by the American College for Advancement in Medicine.10 No reported fatalities have occurred in the United States when the ACAM protocol has been followed. Whenever chelation is used in its widely-accepted role to combat lead poisoning, the dosages given even to children are administered much more rapidly than those administered to adults under this protocol. The risks associated with surgical procedures are far greater by comparison. The Food and Drug Administration determined that EDTA chelation therapy was safe prior to approving the Investigational New Drug protocol for the ongoing double-blind placebo-controlled studies.
It is the treating, clinical physician who is best acquainted with the patient’s medical history, examination results, condition and needs. It is the attending physician who is in the best position to assess the condition (medical, socioeconomic, and psychological) of the patient as well as what constitutes the best treatment for the patient. Despite criticism in the form of opinions from physicians who characteristically have never utilized the treatment modality, not a single valid study has ever been shown to support or warrant such distraction.
Physician use of Innovative Therapies
When a physician becomes licensed by the state, the physician is recognized by the state as capable of the diagnosis and treatment of any human disease, pain, injury, deformity or other physical or mental condition.
Such a licensed physician has the right, and indeed, the ethical duty, to treat a patient as he or she thinks best, within the parameters of his or her professional judgment and with the highest regard for the health and welfare of the public.
It has long been held that deference must be given to the state of advancement of the profession at the time of treatment. Whether or not a particular therapy should be undertaken is a decision which should be made by the treating physician, who is in the best position to determine whether EDTA chelation therapy is indicated for a particular patient.
In Stuart v. Wilson, 211 F. Supp. 700 (D.C. 1963), aff’d, 371 U.S. 576, it was noted that “the requirements of learning, skill and examination provided by the Texas Medical Practices Act for obtaining a license to practice medicine bear a direct, substantial and reasonable relation to the practice of medicine.” It seems incongruous that having demonstrated the required learning and skill, and having passed the examination and obtained a license, a physician should not be permitted to exercise the judgment developed from his experience.
Moreover, as one court has described the healing arts, medicine is an inexact science, and eminently qualified physicians may legitimately diverge in their beliefs as to what constitutes the best treatment. However, such a difference does not amount to unprofessional conduct. See Fitzgerald v. Manning, 679 F.2d 341, 347 (4th Cir. 1982).
This does not mean that the State is required to give credence to every peculiar theory or school of medicine. “Without doubt, it is reasonable for the State to outlaw witch doctors, voodoo queens, bee-stingers and various other cults, which no reasonably intelligent man would choose for the treatment of his ills.” England vs. Bd. of Medical Examiners, 259 F.2d 626, 627 (5th Cir. 1958). Asking rhetorically, “Just where is the dividing line?” The England court held:
The critical question, therefore, is whether or not EDTA chelation therapy is a reasonable choice of treatment modality. Given the fact alone that ACAM’s membership of hundreds of doctors nationwide have successfully treated hundreds of thousands of patients with EDTA chelation therapy, it is difficult to fathom how anyone could assert that this treatment is not a reasonable choice of therapy.
Merely because a particular method of treatment is not the method which is “prevailing” does not support a proposition that the method is ineffective or deceitful. A review of all of the available medical articles discloses that chelation therapy is firmly based upon accepted scientific principles and that both current professional theory and practice have demonstrated the efficacy of this treatment.
An enlightening article entitled The Tomato Effect-Rejection of Highly Efficacious Therapies was published by the American Medical Association in JAMA, 1984; 251:2387-2390. In this article, Drs. James S. Goodwin and Jean M. Goodwin describe the tomato effect in medicine:
In an age when nearly half of the coronary artery bypass surgeries conducted in the United States are recognized as being conducted for inappropriate reasons and the efficacy of such surgery has been frequently called into question, in contrast to the successful experience physicians have had with chelation, it appears that the “tomato effect” has indeed taken place with chelation therapy. The efficacious use of this therapy in treating arteriosclerosis has been demonstrated in patients world-wide. It is only in recent years that the scientific rationale to explain the benefits of chelation therapy has been elucidated in published research on free radical pathology.
In Rogers v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 371 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. App. 1979) aff’d, 387 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 1980), the court discussed the right of the State Board of Medical Examiners to prohibit a physician from administering chelation therapy. Acting Chief Judge Boyer noted that provisions of the Constitution grant a person certain inalienable rights, from which derive the right of a patient to receive, pursuant to a voluntary election, chelation therapy, and in the absence of unlawfulness, harm, fraud, coercion of misrepresentation, the Board was without authority to prohibit the physician from administering such therapy. Id, at 1041.
Utilization of a therapy which is different is not unprofessional or unethical conduct. The converse would also hold true. General acceptance of a therapy does not mean that utilization of that therapy is necessarily professional or competent. Many therapies and treatments thought to be “proper” have now been abandoned as barbaric. The use of alternative means of treatment should not arbitrarily be deemed incompetent care.
Time and time again, especially in the field of medicine, experience has taught us that the orthodox view is not necessarily the correct view. As noted by Justice Boyer, and in the concurrence, Justices Melvin and Mills in Rogers, supra:
Any restriction on the use of chelation therapy beyond prescribing conformity with the ACAM protocol is entirely unwarranted. EDTA chelation therapy has long been recognized by a substantial, respected minority of physicians as an acceptable method of treatment, provided that it is administered properly and adheres to the accepted standard of practice.
One should not confuse the clear distinction existing between innovative therapy and experimentation. Experimentation has been defined as a procedure with no therapeutic intent, designed to test a hypothesis and/or to develop new knowledge. However, innovative therapy is one which is designed to benefit the individual patient and to manage or solve a particular clinical problem. EDTA has been utilized for nearly 50 years by physicians in this country for various symptoms and ailments. Physicians utilizing EDTA for vascular and other diseases are not intending to generate new knowledge but, rather, to treat the particular needs of the patient with the therapy he or she believes is most appropriate.
The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, established by Congress in 1974, has identified innovative therapies as those designed solely to enhance the well-being of an individual patient, even if such therapies are not approved by a peer group agency. See, DHEW Pub. No. (05)77-0004, 1977. A significant fear in allowing the use of innovative therapies concerns alleged risks to the patient. This is where the physician’s intent comes into play. The intent to treat the individual patient’s symptoms and needs, not advance the personal goals of the physician, allows the physician to determine the risk-benefit ratios involved. It also causes the physician to follow established protocols in the use of the innovative therapy, which will also protect the needs of the patient.
While experimental research involving humans is subject to federal regulations, the use of innovative therapy is not. There is presently no regulation existing which prohibits or restricts the use of innovative therapies. If every innovative therapy needed prior institutional review board approval, an impossible case load would be created and needed therapies would be delayed to the detriment of the patient. It is for the individual physician to determine whether the risks of a certain therapy are too great for the patient. This decision is to be made in light of alternative therapies and upon review of all relevant studies and literature.
There is substantial objective evidence that EDTA chelation therapy is beneficial in the treatment of occlusive arterial disease as well as other diseases. Physicians using EDTA chelation therapy have determined that it is a safe and effective alternative to bypass surgery and other treatments, as demonstrated by the results from independent studies relating to blood flow.
An excellent composite of numerous studies dealing with chelation therapy is EDTA Chelation Therapy: A Retrospective Study of 2,870 Patients, found in the Text.11 The authors here chronicle the successful treatment of thousands of patients with chelation therapy. In their conclusion they state “the results of this retrospective analysis suggest that chelation therapy with disodium magnesium EDTA was useful in the therapy of several thousand patients with chronic degenerative, especially cardiovascular, diseases.”
Section II of the Text contains a series of clinical studies and analyses of other clinical studies that are original publications or republications, all of which are strongly supportive of chelation therapy.12 Clinical studies, scientifically conducted by licensed physicians, must naturally be respected and relied upon in a pioneering area of treatment. It is ACAM’s position that the efficacy of chelation therapy is supported better by clinical studies than even bypass surgery.
Restriction to FDA Package Insert Guidelines is Inappropriate
United States v. Evers, supra, 643 F.2d at 1048, quoting 37 Fed. Reg. 16503 (1972).
The Alabama District Court explained a physician’s freedom to utilize drugs in a manner not set forth upon the package insert as follows:
The drug-package insert only sets up guidelines, not parameters, for the use of medication. Many drugs are commonly used in a way not specifically listed on the drug enclosure. It is the physician, not the insert, that decides upon the method of treatment, for it is the physician and not the FDA who is treating the patient. The inserts are meant to impart information, not restrict the practice of medicine by those qualified to practice.
Dr. John D. Archer of the American Medical Association, in a JAMA editorial, makes a similar observation:
Furthermore, the Forward to the Physicians Desk Reference states in pertinent part as follows:
Constitutional Considerations in Restricting Choice in Medical Treatments
Patients are increasingly asserting their right to be intimately involved in the decision-making process. As stated by J. Cardozo in Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 211 N.Y. 125, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (1914), “every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body.” Through its adoption of the doctrine of informed consent, the judicial system has embraced the trend towards respecting the personal convictions and values of the individual. This fact was recited as a truism by the Court in Andrews v. Ballard, 498 F. Supp. 1038, 1048, which stated:
It is now well settled that American law generally protects the patient’s right to choose among licensed practitioners to treat illnesses and, correspondingly, the right of licensed practitioners to determine within the scope of their licenses the appropriate treatment. In the early case of Union Pacific Ry. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Supreme Court recognized the right of the individual to control his own body in stating:
It has subsequently been held, as a matter not only of state common law but also of Federal constitutional law, that the special nature of the doctor-patient relationship precludes unjustifiable State intrusion with patients’ rights to decide independently, with the advice of a physician, to obtain or reject medical treatment. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). See also, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2806 (1992), which provides:
This judicial maxim derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates most of the Bill of Rights against the States. Id. at 2804.
It is firmly established that the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 483 (1965). In Griswold, the Court held that the right to privacy was “no less important than any other right carefully and particularly reserved to the people” and that “a government purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to State regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly, and thereby invade the areas of protected freedoms.” Id. at 485.
In Andrews v. Ballard, 498 F. Supp. 1038 (S.D. Tex. 1980), the Court expounded on the right of privacy in dealing specifically within the context of patients’ rights to alternative medical treatments. After reviewing the Supreme Court jurisprudence, this court determined that two criteria must be met in order to identify those “decisions which will be recognized as among those that an individual may make without unjustified government interference.” Id. at 1046. The court explained “first, they must be personal decisions that must primarily involve one’s self or one’s family. Second, they must be important decisions.” Id. (citations omitted). In deciding if health care decisions among alternative medical therapies satisfied these criteria, the court elaborated:
The Florida Supreme Court has specifically and unanimously upheld chelation therapy as a valid exercise of a physician’s right to practice medicine. In State Board of Medical Examiners of Florida v. Rogers, 387 So. 2nd 937 (Fla. 1980) aff’g., 371 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. App. 1979), the Court held that the State Board of Medical Examiners was without authority to deprive a licensed physician’s patients of the voluntary election to receive chelation therapy, as the State had not shown the therapy to be harmful. The fact that the therapy was not endorsed by the majority of the medical profession was unpersuasive. The Court observed:
Some states are taking affirmative legislative steps to explicitly safeguard and provide substantial deference to the treating physician’s clinical judgment where patient harm is not an issue. In Alaska Code Annotated, Title 8, Chapter 64, Article 2, at Section 08.64.326, it expressly provides in pertinent part:
Both the House and the Senate of the State of Washington supported a bill proposed by the House Committee on Health Care allowing the use of non-traditional treatment. This bill became law in June 1991. In its House Bill Report, the House Committee stated:
Of note is that the Washington State Medical Association also supported the enactment of this bill.
Similarly, North Carolina amended its medical practice act effective in June 1993 to add the following language:
In recent years, the trend in federal constitutional law is clearly toward greater recognition that the patient’s right to a choice of treatment is a fundamental right of privacy. Roe v. Wade, supra; Doe v. Bolton, supra; Planned Parenthood v. Casey, supra; and Andrews v. Ballard, supra. Considerable deference is accorded the patient’s determination of what course of treatment to pursue, and there is judicial concern that decisions about personal health care be made by the patient in consultation with his or her physician, free from state regulation.
The developments in both state and federal law recognize a “right to be let alone;” i.e., that the final decision among alternative medical treatments – or between treatment and no treatment – belongs to the treated. See, Olmsted v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928).
First Amendment Protection of Commercial Speech
“Commercial speech” is defined as that which proposes a commercial transaction. Bd. of Trustees of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox, 109 S. Ct. 3028, 3031 (1989). Although the question of whether Justice Holmes’ “marketplace of ideas” postulation on free speech extended to the commercial arena was debated for some time, that question was “squarely before” the Court in Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 760 (1976); 96 S. Ct. 1817, 1825. In concluding that commercial speech was entitled to protection under the First Amendment, the Court began its analysis with a review of several propositions that were already “settled or beyond serious dispute.” It was clear that paid advertisement constituted protected speech. Likewise, speech was protected even though it was carried in a form that was “sold” for profit “and even though it may involve a solicitation to purchase or otherwise pay or contribute money.” Id. at 1825.
In concluding that commercial speech was entitled to First Amendment protection, the Court reasoned that:
Subsequent decisions have affirmed these principles. See Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Com’n of N.Y., 447 US 557, 100 S. Ct. 2343, 2349 (1980) (“commercial expression not only serves the economic interest of the speaker, but also assists consumers and furthers the societal interest in the fullest possible dissemination of information”); Discovery Network, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, 946 F. 2d 464, 469 (6th Cir. 1991), aff’d Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 113 S.Ct. 1505, 123 L.Ed. 2d 99 (1993) (“commercial advertising is essential because it conveys information that permits each person to decide which trades and economic decisions are best for that person… As such, commercial speech also has a high value to the society as well”).
It is thus unequivocal that commercial speech is protected under the First Amendment. This protection even applies when the speech communicates only an incomplete version of the relevant facts. “The First Amendment presumes that some accurate information is better than no information at all.” Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 US 350, 97 S. Ct. 2691, 2704 (1977).
No serious argument can be made that the practice of medicine does not involve commerce, consumers, marketing and money. The medical profession clearly involves numerous commercial transactions. Commercial speech is likewise inherently intertwined in the doctor-patient relationship. So long as such speech is not misleading, any state regulation affecting such speech is subject to judicial scrutiny.
In Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Com’n of N.Y. (1980), 447 US 562, 564; 100 S. Ct. 2343, 2350, the Court held that if a commercial speech communication “is neither misleading nor related to unlawful activity,” a government regulation burdening such speech must satisfy the following test:
The Central Hudson Court explained that the careful design requirement on such limitations “recognizes that the First Amendment mandates that speech restrictions be “narrowly drawn.” Id. at 2351. The Court also pointed out that speech restrictions that posed no danger to the asserted state interest or merely “conditional and remote eventualities” could not justify suppressive regulation. Id. at 2351, 2353. The Court also noted that regulations completely suppressing commercial speech were reviewed with “special care” and that “in recent years this Court has not approved a blanket ban on commercial speech unless the expression itself was flawed in some way, either because it was deceptive or related to unlawful activity. Id. at 2351, n. 9.
The narrow tailoring requirement of the Central Hudson Test was further elaborated upon by the Supreme Court in Bd. of Trustees of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox (1989), 109 S. Ct. 3028. In Fox , the Court stated that the regulation must not “burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interest.” Id. at 3034. The Court then explained that:
Thus, while the protection of the public health is concededly a substantial interest, the State bears the burden of demonstrating affirmatively that chelation therapy is inefficacious or unsafe if it intends to burden commercial speech on the matter. It is respectively posited that the State cannot succeed in this endeavor, given the safe and tremendously successful experience physicians have had in utilizing this therapy with their patients.
Just as with the doctrine of the right of privacy, the underlying rationale with the commercial speech doctrine is simply a recognition that reasonable people are quite capable of deciding for themselves what is best for them. In responding to the Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the need to protect the public, the Supreme Court in Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizen’s Consumer Counsel, Inc., 96 S.Ct, 1817, 1829 (1976) summarily stated:
Under the common law, the State may not deny an individual the right to exercise a reasonable choice in medical care, nor the correlative right of licensed practitioners to provide such care, and the United States Constitution precludes unfair burdening of choice in treatment decisions. Under both the Doctrine of the Right of Privacy and the Commercial Speech Doctrine, substantial deference is given to the individual to make important decisions regarding his own body. As recently reiterated by the Supreme Court, “At the heart of [protected] liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Planned Parenthood v. Casey, supra, 112 S.Ct. at 2807.
ACAM’s position as set forth herein is adopted not only for the medical profession, but more importantly, for the individual patients who can benefit from this treatment.
*ACAM gratefully acknowledges the special contribution of its counsel, Gregory D. Seeley, Esq., of Seeley, Savidge & Ausem in developing this position paper.
Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919)