Dr. Daniel PompaD.C. (Life University, 1995) · not a physician, no active licence · health educator and programme founder
Yes, and it needs a staged protocol
What it rests onHis model is that toxins sit inside the cell and in bile, and that conventional chelation moves them without binding them so they redistribute.
Source: drpompa.com ↗
Giles YeoPhD, MBE, FMedSci · Professor of Molecular Neuroendocrinology, MRC Metabolic Diseases Unit, University of Cambridge
No, you already have two organs for it
What it rests onPhysiology. He offers it as one of seven red flags for spotting weight-loss misinformation, with no elaboration, which is itself the position: he does not treat it as a live question.
Source: sciencefocus.com ↗
Pompa is addressing people with chronic unexplained symptoms who have not been helped by conventional care; Yeo is addressing a general reader evaluating a marketing claim. The asymmetry is real and it does not make the mechanism claim any more or less true.
Almost none, which is unusual and worth saying plainly rather than manufacturing common ground. The nearest thing to it is that both would agree the liver and kidneys clear most xenobiotics; they disagree entirely about whether anything remains for a protocol to do.
Controlled human data showing that a binder protocol reduces a measured body burden and improves an outcome. Pompa's case rests on the mechanism; Yeo's rests on the absence of exactly that data, so what one side would need is precisely what the other side is missing.
You do, and your call is dated, kept, and yours to change. Follow the people you already trust and what they publish turns into a short daily practice.
Free to sign up and use. We do not ask for a card.