The MisterShortcut Approach
EDTA - Natural Chelation
MisterShortcut Approach On Natural Chelation Versus Intravavenous Chelative Therapy - MisterShortcut
Everyone has an opinion. Reviewing hundreds of documents from nearly twenty-five different studies,
it's hard to deny that natural chelation is quite different from invtravenous chelative therapy.
The fact that natural chelation therapy is not invasive, whereas intravenous chelative therapy IS,
the wisest path is to at least begin with the natural chelation therapy for a period of several weeks.
It's easy enough to determine in six to eight weeks whether or not a significant benefit is gained, right?
When you're able to remove the proponderance of toxic heavy metal from your body in a natural, non-invasive manner,
then you know that the genuinely obnoxious protocols required by intravenous chelative therapy are quite unnecessary.
As with everything, the proof is in the pudding. No one can dispute the effective of natural chelation therapy,
because no one ever gets sick or dies from natural chelation therapy, nor is particularly imposed upon.
Intravenous chelation, on the other hand, cannot make the same claim with any legitimacy.
Anyone trying to tell you otherwise has a professional or financial interest.
Let your common sense be your guide. That's the smartest approach of all.
The MisterShortcut Approach On Natural Chelation Versus Intravavenous Chelative Therapy |
|