drsclafani wrote:belsadie wrote:Did I miss it? Did the good doctor get IRB approval??? Does anyone know??
THE GOOD DOCTOR DID NOT GET APPROVED. THE GOOD DOCTOR GOT SHOT DOWN. I HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE OFFICIAL REJECTION BUT AMONG THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED AGSINST MY PROPOSAL WERE
1. AN OBSCURE GERMAN ABSTRACT REPORTING TEN PATIENTS THAT SHOWED NO ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CCSVI AND MS
2. A NEWLETTER OF SOME FORM STATING THAT ONLY RANDOMIZED TRIALS SHOULD BE PERFORMED.
3. THAT RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED STUDIES WERE ALREADY UNDERWAY IN BUFFALO. ANYONE KNOW ABOUT THAT?
4. THAT THE NATIONAL MS SOCIETY RECOMMENDED AGAINST TREATMENTS
5. THAT PATIENTS WERE BEING CHARGED FOR PROCEDURES. AND I HAD NO FUNDING
6. AND OF COURSE, THE WALL STREET JOUIRNAL TALKING ABOUT DAKES COMPLICATION AND DEATH
ANYBODY KNOW OF ANYONE INTERESTED IN INVESTING IN A PROCEDURE SITE?
SORRY TO ALL OF YOU. I AM SO UPSET
One thing the regular readers of this thread understand is how difficult accurate diagnosis of CCSVI is and how important training and proper protocol is. A small study by an inexperienced group in Germany should not be a basis for denial of your efforts, especially since your training and experience is far superior to theirs. We need much work done to determine accurate and proper diagnostic efforts, and a blanket refusal based on the fact that some people have been able to get results different than others is a reason for more studies and treatment, not less. Treatment, frankly, seems more straight forward than diagnosis and should follow a CCSVI finding with no problem since it is NOT a procedure that has ever had any adverse events, unlike stenting, and you proposed only angioplasty if I recall correctly.
Did they even give you an opportunity to revise and try again, or was it a flat rejection with no opportunity to keep trying??
ps. check your pms.