This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

The only allegation i can find that Zamboni is not making any money off of the device used for diagnosing CCSVI was on this board or another like it and just consisted of someone saying "he is NOT making any money..." CAPS seem to imply a certain sense of certainty and i was wondering if anybody here knew what made this poster so sure of themselves?

It would be Dr. Zamboni you are asking about "concerned"? I will direct you to where you can ask the question directly to his office in Italy if that would be as close to the source as you could find. It will be a link to his office. It is actually on this site.

Yeah well i can do that on my own, i just thought i remembered someone saying that here and figured i would get a speedier reply here. so thanks....

anyone else?

Yeah, Concerned...it was me. He's not making any money off a device, because it's already been designed and patented. Here's the device--
Esaote Transcranial Doppler--It's how he found CCSVI reflux going into the brains of MS patients.

http://www.biosound.com/products.asp?page=MYLAB30G

There are other transcranial dopplers manufactured by other makers, but Esaote is Italian so that's what Dr. Z uses. GE makes one...just google transcranial doppler, and you'll see it's becoming a standard machine.

He doesn't have pharma sponsorship, is not paid stipends for speaking. He's a vascular surgeon who can no longer practice because he is crippled by an (un-named) neurological disorder, so he mostly does research now. He's the head of the vascular lab at the University of Ferrara.

He is one of the gentlest, kindest, most unassuming men I've ever met in my life. I think Dr. Schelling might be up there, too.

Dr. Sclafani was making the joke that he's paid on salary....not per procedure. I assume Dr. Zamboni is also on salary at the University of Ferrera. Everyone who works with Dr. Z. speaks highly of his professionalism.
If you need to reach him, you can try the University of Ferrara, Italy vascular lab.

Here's another tip: If you want to see who is paying a doctor for what, search their name + disclosures. It tells you if they are on a speakers' bureau, or get money for any outside activities. Dr. Zamboni has no disclosures....

cheer

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

Thanks for closing this post.

Just to show you how the disclosures function works: Here's web MD disclosure page for Paolo Zamboni--



and here is the disclosure page on medscape for Dr. Mark Freedman:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/720673



You can search any doctor you have questions about.
cheer

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

I've never met him (Dr. Z) but from what I see on the news he really looks quite humble.

Cheer, you are so flipping awesome.

_________________
Three veins angioplastied.  One renewed life.  

Belou- Saying someone seems really nice doesn't mean much, especially when you've never met them. Neighbours of serial killers always says "he seemed like such a nice guy!"

Cheer - I've read that Zamboni has a commercial interest in a modified ultra-sound, that wouldn't need to be disclosed. I didn't ask if he worked for big pharma, I asked if he had commercial interest in the modified ultrasound that he says you need to make a proper diagnosis, at least that is what i've read.
He would have to disclose if the ultra-sound company said "here, tell people they need one of these machines and well give you some money!" but not if he had commercial interest in it's production, as a business partner.

So i am trying to find proof on one side or the other ( my mother has SPMS by the way so people can stop treating me like i'm a pawn for "Big Pharma" or I killed JFK or something. I'm on freaking disability and i take care of my mother everyday.)

Even that doctor from the Buffalo study said that Zamboni was commercializing the special equipment.

Also, what about Colin Rose's disclosure. He seems to say "NONE" as well.

How did "big pharma" come into play there?

Concerned, you are doing the right things.

You should question. You should investigate. You should challenge.

I just don't know that you are targeting the right group.

As Cheer stated, reach out to Dr. Zamboni's office and ask. As for Colin Rose, well, read his blog and his notes and come to your own conclusion. But as you challenge, try to think about what answers will satisfy you. If you are looking for anything to tell you to distance yourself from this theory, then Mr. Rose's blog- inaccurate as it largely is- should put you at rest. But if you simply want to ensure that you have all the angles covered, then there is plenty available for you on this blog and elsewhere to become comfortable, in my opinion.

I researched the heck out of this theory before I ever put one post on this board. I will say that I have found nothing that made me question Dr. Zamboni's motives- on the contrary, he invited scrutiny of his theory. On the other hand, we have many examples of others that have used their position and voices to spread inaccurate, highly tainted views on CCSVI- makes you wonder why.

I trust you will come to whatever conclusion suits you, but Cheer gave you some great places to look. Google will give you even more.

_________________
Three veins angioplastied.  One renewed life.  

None of those places seem to indicate whether or not he has stock or stake in the device. that was all i've been looking for here.

I have read over the past six months plenty of things about ccsvi, but nothing about Real Scientific Evidence. That kind of evidence is arrived at by using the "scientific method", otherwise it's just people waving around instruments in what Richard Feynman called a "Cargo Cult of Science" (we're waving these tools around and wearing a labcoat, now our god science will bless us!)

Why doesn't a radiologist here send data from 100 ms patients and 100 controls to zamboni and see if he could tell which patient had ms and which didn't without seeing the patients themselves. That would be a step on the right way toward proving or disproving this, as all the published reports indicate, highly theoretical position. Jamming a cathater into a person with MS and then saying "You have MS" is not science.

_________________
Three veins angioplastied.  One renewed life.  

What if he had comercial interests in this? Does it make his work less valid? In fact, even the IR (that everybody loves here) have financial interest in CCSVI. But I agree with you, it is a good question. For your other comment, I'll watch my back not to be murdered by my neighbor... We never know