A viewer asks: “According to ChatGPT, risks of topical chelation are minimal with small areas and short use but could lower calcium or magnesium if used extensively (EDTA binds calcium, magnesium, zinc, and iron, potentially lowering levels) and that rare but serious complications include mineral depletion, hypotension, fatigue, or strain on kidneys or liver. Would using low concentrations (1–5%), avoiding chelation if there are kidney, liver, or metabolic issues and limiting duration and frequency (e.g., once daily, 5–7 days per cycle), and limiting the treated area to a small area of the body (≤20–25% of surface), while taking a daily multivitamin/multimineral supplement be a sound safety protocol?” What is Creator’s perspective?

As far as it goes, we would give a yes answer to this question, but that does not balance the issue of need and what would be efficacious while still maintaining a good safety margin. In most cases, the critical thing is to use the approach and not avoid it simply because there is not a well-established, universally agreed on protocol with robust clinical data to support it. So even if one errs on the side of caution and goes slow to ensure safety, progress will still be made. So over enough time the same gains will be achievable. The risk is, people might give up if there is no sign of improvement in those who have an advanced medical condition and are seeking relief and signs of improvement in order to believe in what would, in this case, be a less well-established strategy given that it is heavily suppressed because it can indeed work. So the interlopers, as always, will throw a wrench in the works to discourage those things that are helpful and encourage those things that are irrelevant or even contain a poison pill of some kind intended to backfire over time.