This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

Elsewhere on this board are discussions about the earliest pioneers of the venous theory of MS. Dr Tracy Putnam is one of them. Here is a link to a book about Dr Putnam. I haven't read it yet, but I wanted to let you all know about it. When the dust has settled on CCSVI and MS, Putnam's name will be invoked as well as Franz Schelling's as early proponents of what led to Dr Zamboni's amazing discovery :

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195379527?tag=openlibr-20

ozarkcanoer

Another TIMS thread discussing Putnam :

http://www.thisisms.com/ftopict-9669-putnam.html

ozarkcanoer

if ccsvi proves true putnam is a great case studies of voices unheard that knew the answer

http://www.thisisms.com/ftopict-10040-putnam.html

I know people are trying like crazy to believe in CCSVI as the cause of MS, but statements like these are wrong, and are the problem with only reading excerpts or abstracts. I was able to obtain copies of Dr. Putnams's paper on his dog experiments, as well as literature on his treatment approach to MS. I don't have the energy right now to re-post them, but in another thread I quoted passages from one of his papers. He injected various fats back into the cerebral veins of the dogs, causing thrombosis in the veins. This is not the same as CCSVI. Though the some of the dogs did develop brain lesions, none showed clinical signs similar to MS. His belief that thrombosis caused MS is why he treated patients with anti-coagulants, which did not produce great results.

And looking at Putnams's experiments, they do not seem to be difficult or costly. So, despite all the conspiracy theories as to why his work is not better known, possibly the simple answer is that his experiments did not produce results worth further study.

I haven't read Putnam's papers or the biography. IF CCSVI is at some point accepted as a valid theory with respect to MS, THEN perhaps Putnam's early work MIGHT be regarded with some interest. If CCSVI is NEVER accepted as a valid theory his early work may still be regarded with some interest. In any case, the book looks like an interesting read.

ozarkcanoer

this is the first paragraph of the paper

I agree that the title is the best part. It still talks about occlusions which means blockages though. Its just they are made in ways that are highly subject to weirdness. It's a weird way to cause the blockages and can easily be dismissed as bad science. But it was an important path and the fact it wasnt followed up (until zamboni) says more about blockages in the group mind of science, than anything