The new Lancet editorial

A forum to discuss Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency and its relationship to Multiple Sclerosis.

propaganda from Lancet?

Postby 1eye » Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:58 am

Same old tired lame exploitation of 1 dead person and one whose stent had to be recovered. Article written with their permission?

Seriously, can we get a lawyer to write a bulletproof waiver so all these fraidy-cats commercial, medical and legal will stop this nonsense? Mention the Stanford two, any adverse possibility you can imagine. I'd bet you'll get a lot of signers. And if the stents try to migrate, we'll deport 'em. No illegal alien stents in our operating theaters. And I know coumadin is just a nice name for rat poison, so we'll have to include a you-dirty-rat clause in case somebody tries to rat on us.

These lawyers and researchers and article freelancers oughta getta life.
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 3719
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada


Adverse events only related to stents

Postby fogdweller » Thu Apr 29, 2010 11:10 am

No adverse events, to my knowledge, have been attributed to veinoplasty ("the liberation procedure"). Yet the two adverse events at Stanford, both with stents are thrown up as justification for stopping ALL treatment.

Angioplasty is very safe, has a very long history in the arteries and the periferal veins and elswhere, with very very few adverse events. Can Tysabri say that?

Perhaps stents in the jugular veins need some further study before they become widely available. However lumping stenting and angioplasty (veinoplasty really) together is really ignorant, something vascular surgeons and IR doctors would not do but seemingly no problem for neuros.
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:00 pm


Postby 1eye » Thu Apr 29, 2010 11:12 am

Hey I know! I'll give Dr. Freedman $1, every time a person is unsatisfied with this procedure, if he or the drug company of his choice will give me $2 every time a person is happy they had it. anybody willing to do the counting?
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 3719
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada

Postby MrSuccess » Thu Apr 29, 2010 11:17 am

BELOU- the reference to Mike Moore is not my post . Please reread . :evil:

I will say once again how surprised I am to learn that the Lancet publishes op-ed articles written by non-medical people.

Today Lancet , tomorrow Field&Stream week People !! :!:

Perhaps Lancet would be open to publishing a CCSVI article penned by Ashton Emery ? :?: Just to give some balance. :idea:

We learn as we go ......

Mr. Success
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 922
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:00 pm

Postby cheerleader » Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:02 pm

A friend sent me the link to this paper--
here's the viewpoint of a former medical journal editor and fellow tin hat wearer--

Medical Jourals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies- ... ed.0020138

This recent Lancet piece didn't have any research, any facts, any citations or references--isn't that a bit odd for a medical journal?

Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 5358
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: southern California

Tin Foil Hats

Postby Squeakycat » Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:50 pm

As a former resident of Northern California and someone who reads about the pharmaceutical industry every day, I would say that someone from a company that has a stake in the $9 billion MS drug industry suggested, if not directly paid for this article. There are many examples of this being done, up to creating "medical journals" to protect their turf.

But it is all irrelevant.

It appears to be rather conclusive at this point that most people with MS happen to have a vascular problems with the veins draining the brain and spine.

What neurologists think about that is irrelevant, any more than their thoughts on varicose veins of the legs, or problems with other veins.

CCSVI is not a neurological problem and not something that can be treated by neurologists.

Time to move on and deal with IRs and vascular surgeons and get treatment for CCSVI, not MS.

Maybe they will have an editorial next month in Lancet Neurology on pre-natal care. It will be as irrelevant.
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Yehud, Israel

Re: Tin Foil Hats

Postby Johnson » Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:56 pm

Squeakycat wrote:
Maybe they will have an editorial next month in Lancet Neurology on pre-natal care. It will be as irrelevant.

Ba-da-bing! Touché.
My name is not really Johnson. MSed up since 1993
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Ucluluet, BC

Postby mmcc » Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:26 pm

sofia wrote:The neurologists keep saying that we should remain sceptical, as there has been so many promesing treatments the last 3 decades, and they all turned out to me ineffective when studied further.

I have been ill now for 8 years, and there has not been that many treatments that shows alot of promise, apart from Tysabri, and they are pushing that very hard.

I'm just wondering if anybody knows what treatments they are talking about. LDN has not shown any difference in results then placebo, my neuro is saying, so I suppose that is one possible treatment that has "failed" the test. But what are all the others? Different diets?

I'm not counting beestings, healing, reflexology, snakebites, foot-spas etc. I'm talking about different treatments and idea launched by professors and univerities, and well acknowledged hospitals and researchers around the world. Is there that many that has failed?

There have been several "promising" drugs which didn't make it through the required testing. Check Stu's MS News and Views for names. There are also several in various stages of testing right now which are showing promise.

For example, I am currently taking zenepax. Although I am not part of the clinical trial, so far the results of testing the drug are showing dramatically good results.

My experience, unlike the clinical trials, is anecdotal, but it is a GREAT drug - I have had substantial and sustained improvement. Unfortunately it is not going to be available much longer except for the clinical trials until the trials are completed.

The ABCR's are pretty recent drugs and they certainly have had a positive impact on MS for many people. Novantrone is another MS treatment drug with dramatically good results for many that has not been available for that long.

A friend of mine who died of MS complications a few years ago never had any treatment drugs because none were available. She got MS while in college and worked til normal retirement age, but for all those decades there was no treatment except steroids, which is certainly not a DMD.

Now there are a host of drugs which have been proven effective for at least some people with MS those are all prety recent with many more in various stages of testing. A whole lot of symptom drugs have been developed relatively recently.

Of course we should be skeptical of liberation procedures, but that does not mean we should not consider having the procedure. We are, in effect, acting as guinea pigs, but someone has to try new drugs/procedures, etc. to test efficacy and safety. Even if the procedure doesn't help me, I think having it will further knowledge for everyone about whether it is an effective and safe treatment.

So far taking drugs with risks has served me well. I am better off than I was 11 years ago. Each time I have to change drugs I dramatically backslide, but so far something has come along in time to reverse that decline back to an acceptable level of disability.

Your doctor sound awfully negative - the last 15 years has seen dramatic improvement in treatments for MS and they seem to be accelerating.
User avatar
Family Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 3:00 pm

Reply to Comment Piece

Postby MarkW » Sat May 01, 2010 4:44 am

I have been writing a comment piece for Lancet Neurology over recent days. I am generally regarded as healthcare professional/scientist and have previously written for professional journals. I will declare my interests as required. Readers of the chatroom should be aware of these, even though some of you do not like them.
Kind regards,
Mark Walker - Oxfordshire, England. Retired Pharmacist. 16 years of study about MS.
CCSVI Comments:
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:00 pm
Location: Oxfordshire, England


Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)


  • Related topics
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Contact us | Terms of Service