I have no opinion one way or the other. I do not know what Dr Munchauser does or does not think about CCSVI or what his motives are for taking the job at Biogen. I have been told that he no longer works for the University. I am hardly an "insider". I was just asked to clear up this one point.
Thanks for trying to clarify Ozark but as you should know that if there is a conspiracy to be found it will be exposed on this board! Rumor has it there is a top secret conference being held in Kisumu, Kenya to be attended by neurologists, pharma reps., people from the media, and family physicians to rid the world of CCSVI research! Of course the mastermind behind this diabolical scheme is none other than evil incarnate itself, DR COLIN ROSE!!!!!!! Meanwhile 1eye has already begun searching their agenda for grammatical errors which would prove that..well it would prove something!!! Stay tuned!
Come come now. Aren't you stuffing the straw man a wee more than necessary? So if anyone questions anyones motives (which understandably, none of us can truly know), they are summarily dismissed as consipiracy nuts? Multiple billions of dollars and the people who corral those very heaps lead to all kinds of interesting scenarios. Most out of our view of course, not like anyone is going to make flyers of their blueprints and drop from airplanes, but, getting back to KISS, following the money isn't rocket science. Sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes it's not.
People have a tendency to shift their moral values in pursuit of many a thing, not necessarily just money, perhaps title, prestige, recognition, infamy. How they go about that, is of course quite varied. Some like "the evil incarnate C.Rose" propped up straw dude you mention, has his own methods of achieving any and/or all of the above, and deserves to be lambasted for his obvious extreme bias against CCSVI, not for his valid, reasoned, and well thought out critiques, he has very few of those. The part left out of the straw man, was just how dim a view he has of any of us on this board or in the CCSVI world unless we buy into his brand of "slash and burn" tactics hook line and sinker.
Apparently though to call him out for his methods is to be 'rabidly attacking in the name of CCSVI, flinging all concepts of logic and reason aside". BS. Look at his webbie, it's all about the recognition. Maybe not the brand you or I would be lusting after, but there nonetheless. He reminds me of gotcha! journalists.
The rock of Gibraltar that CCSVI is primarily up against, is not this other Kenyan straw man, although that sounds good to put up in all it's ridiculousness, it's well, inertia, plain and simple. Systems be they economic, medical, governmental, have this curious trait that the longer they are entrenched in a partial M.O. or paradigm, the slower they are to change, I think we all pretty much get that. Now I don't think that all the combined efforts of all pharmies, along with the heads of (fill in the blanks) societies, be they neuro, charitable or whatever, can stop CCSVI, if it is valid, but that's obviously not going to happen overnight.
Meanwhile, the organizations, which do not like to be pushed into a spot of having to pivot quickly (witness the MSS initial reactions and statements, and their subsuquent announcements of funding of research a mere few months later), seem to be using some very transparent delay tactics. First, dismiss as outright hogwash (or feign complete ignorance which is even worse). That will last for awhile. Then when more evidence begins to come in, when patients en masse report overall improvements (I mean % wise not categorically), then they "soften their stance", give some possible hints of credence, that's keeps x number of people quiet for awhile, but at some time the issue is going to have to be dealt with head on, no more blanket statements as if that is enough to satisfy people in serious disease states. Talk is cheap as they say.
Then we go North of the border, it's a completely different paradigm, interrelated somewhat, but different. Canadians rely on their government for their health care. All redress must go through the government. The government is the Gibraltar that is slow to move, perhaps with some help from those principally in line with the MSS as a whole, namely the neurologists, hardly takes a Phd to figure out where the source of the resistance is coming from there, as there IS no other medical profession tasked with the research and care of MS patients, so it stands to reason that in this case, they would be the ones guiding the government's decisions when it comes to the research and treatment of CCSVI.
In America, it's totally different, so we have a difficult time relating. If my neuro is not on board, I go find another. Same with my GP. I have the option of "shopping around" until I find someone who agrees with me, or at the least, will agree to prescribe the scans to see if something is there.
I have the option of finding my own IR. I have options, so therefore I have freedoms. Canadians do not have that luxury of private insurance then shop til they find what they want, so they understandably are much more vocal and passionate than those of us in the States. Somehow though that passion gets confused with activism for activism's sake, like to protest against things based upon political views, or being anti big oil or corps or whatever. Far from it, they are pro-getting better. Sounds pretty good to me. Some may go overboard in the positivity department, but it's hard to find fault, as I don't personally live there, I live here, I have options, they do not, they are using the methods at their disposal to effect change. Good for them.
Then the pharmies, pharmies are just another corporation, period. They aren't pro or anti anything, except money, which is why they exist. We've discussed this ad nauseum, no need to go further with the money angle, or what Adam Smith would have to say about it.
However, one thing they do have, similiar to aforementioned governments, socieities and the like, is that same inertia, going in a particular direction, slowly but surely. I worked in a computer chip plant once. They were manufacturing chips that wouldn't even be on the market for another year. While we could sit and argue the merits of their latest product, their inertia was already carrying them far beyond that.
Same with the pharmies, they have, and will have much in the pipeline we haven't even heard of yet, but it's there. The pills have been around a long time, but are just now "hitting the shelves", and unfortunately their debut happened to coincide with the CCSVI explosion. Whether one is adversely affecting the other remains to be seen, I doubt on any large scale at this point, but make no mistake about it, they are factoring things into their projections as we speak. Will they go out of business, fold up the corporation and just go home because of CCSVI? Of course not! But they are hopelessly intertwined with the medical establishment, and that combined inertia is not going to be derailed because of some little itty bitty theory by some Italian guy. It might get slowed up a bit though.
I'm wondering how many MS'ers went in for their neuro appt's in the past 6 months and said, "yeah, pills, that's great, what about CCSVI?". Now I do NOT expect those corporations to just tuck their tails 'tween legs and go home. But they have few weapons at their disposal, after all, we're not force fed the pills. So while I expect some gnashing of teeth, perhaps a bit of dirty politics, which appear clean of course from the outside, in the end there is little they can do but adjust and adapt. There will always be MS'ers on drugs. Always. How many will use those drugs in the future, and the #'s the pharmies are using for their 3, 5, 10 year projections, remain to be seen, but I have a feeling that downtrending is one possibility they have considered.
Then they'll just move on to something else, but inventory needs to be depeleted, adjustments made, and that takes time, and I do think they will do everything they can to put as much time between wherever things are now, and where they are going to be in the future. Soft landing as they say. How they go about doing that, is left to your imagination.
Imagine a day 10 years from now, where high risk individuals and/or those with initial presentations, get screened and treated for vascular disease, and those who are negative, or continue to progress, are then also placed under the care of the neuro/pharma establishment. Imagine screening that flushes out the disease before it gains a substantial foothold, think we all agree that would be a worthwhile goal to reach for. Arrest in tracks vs. nebulous cure for unidentifiable cause of MS. Sounds good to me.
I don't think the Gibraltars cannot be turned, but that is one behemoth that has a very very wide turning radius. Think Lincoln Continental, stretched.