A lot of the articles are not even written or only written in a very rudimentary format. The article on chelation is not very good. For example, it states:

"While it is certainly true that EDTA and other chelating agents can bind to metals much of the rest of the theory lacks evidence to back it up. When it comes to the use of chelation therapy with respect to heart disease the idea is that EDTA will form a complex with the calcium in the walls of arteries. The problem with this theory is that EDTA can’t penetrate the cell walls in the arteries so it can’t get at the calcium."

Actually, that's not the real problem with the concept of chelation therapy, as it probably wouldn't be necessary for EDTA to penetrate cell walls to remove calcium, most of which is extracellular in atherosclerotic plaques. The main problem is pharmacological and pathophysiological, as calcium deposition is a very late occurrence in the formation of an atherosclerotic plaque and the doses of EDTA used is stoichiometrically insufficient to do what its proponents claim.
Orac | Homepage | 11.01.05 - 9:23 am | #

Wikipedia is very popular because it is free, but as a source, you get what you pay for. Experts on the subject should review the articles before they are available to guarantee accuracy and extent of its information. Your illustration shows very well why.
Anne | Homepage | 11.02.05 - 4:21 pm | #

` Yeah, you just have to hope the Learned Few of a subject do a good job with their article.
S E E Quine | Homepage | 11.06.05 - 3:36 am | #