This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

Welcome to the world's leading forum on Multiple Sclerosis research, support, and knowledge. For over 10 years, This is MS has provided an unbiased community dedicated to Multiple Sclerosis patients, caregivers, and affected loved ones.
It is currently Mon May 20, 2013 11:31 pm


All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: propaganda from Lancet?
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:58 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:00 pm
Posts: 2564
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 11:10 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 412
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: bet
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 11:12 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:00 pm
Posts: 2564
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 11:17 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:00 pm
Posts: 823
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 ...next 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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:02 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:00 pm
Posts: 4676
Location: southern California
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-
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/inf ... 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?

cheer

_________________
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
dual stents placed 5/09
CCSVI in MS


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Tin Foil Hats
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:50 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 225
Location: Yehud, Israel
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Tin Foil Hats
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:56 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 979
Location: Ucluluet, BC
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:26 pm 
Offline
Family Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 3:00 pm
Posts: 37
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Reply to Comment Piece
PostPosted: Sat May 01, 2010 4:44 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:00 pm
Posts: 1052
Location: Oxfordshire, England
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,
MarkW

_________________
Mark Walker - Oxfordshire, England. Registered Pharmacist (UK). 10 years of study around MS.
Mark's CCSVI Report 7-Mar-11:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8359854/MS-experts-in-Britain-have-to-open-their-minds.html


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Related topics
 Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Lancet Article

[ Go to pageGo to page: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

patientx

46

4806

Mon May 03, 2010 6:41 am

MarkW View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Lancet Neurology: Two new reviews on vascular connection

cheerleader

5

1304

Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:22 pm

MrSuccess View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. New editorial by Dr. Lorne Brandes

cheerleader

4

1164

Sat May 08, 2010 6:59 am

eric593 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. CMAJ Editorial... the good and the bad

fiddler

10

1539

Thu Jul 01, 2010 1:58 am

eric593 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Haacke CCSVI Editorial

Shayk

5

1127

Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:53 pm

cheerleader View the latest post

 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: