Providing CCSVI treatment now will set a dangerous precedent

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

Providing CCSVI treatment now will set a dangerous precedent

Postby TMrox » Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:21 am

The editor of the Canadian Medical Association Journal warns that allowing the wishes of special interest groups to drive public health care spending sets a dangerous precedent.

Access to treatment for multiple sclerosis must be based on science, not hope

Here the Editor's letter:
<shortened url>

and media coverage:
<shortened url>
User avatar
TMrox
Family Elder
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:00 pm

Advertisement

Postby scotland » Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:48 am

:o

Some of we 20 years msers have lived with , and counted on hope for a long time, we depend on it, its an old friend. Its reliable.
Others count on science, which tends to keep its secrets to itself, over a much longer time, all the while providing a juicy income.

Ya take your pick.
Scotland
User avatar
scotland
Family Member
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:00 pm
Location: ontario

Postby cheerleader » Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:53 am

Thanks for posting the editorial, TMrox---Venous stenosis, reflux and congestion is a known entity. It is treated in other parts of the body. Why should it be different in the brain and spine? Why is venous stenosis considered "science" and treated when it affects the liver, kidneys or legs? Why is it considered "hope" when it affects the brain?

Perhaps the truly hopeful ones are not the patients, but rather the neurologists....maintaining hope that MS will not be reclassified as a vascular disorder.
cheer
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
http://ccsviinms.blogspot.com
User avatar
cheerleader
Family Elder
 
Posts: 5031
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: southern California

Canadians please reply

Postby MarkW » Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:03 pm

I hope that a group of Canadians with MS will reply to this. I would discredit the editor by citing the many papers on ccsvi. Next explain correlation between MS and CCSVI. Then say if real blocks in major veins are found they must be treated immediately as proper care for the patient.
If you can get a treated person to talk to the media that is best. I am too busy with the UK system to join in but GOOD LUCK.
MarkW
Mark Walker - Oxfordshire, England. Registered Pharmacist (UK). 11 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
User avatar
MarkW
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1149
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:00 pm
Location: Oxfordshire, England

Postby Vivianne766 » Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:07 pm

Let them say whatever they want. People are being liberated everyday.
:lol:
User avatar
Vivianne766
Family Elder
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby MrSuccess » Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:16 pm

ho hum . same old same old. :roll:

Please read the whole article. It ends with the disclaimer that this letter is the opinion of the writer and -does not -represent the viewpoint of the CMA.

I would suggest a research background on the author . :idea: :idea:

Take note of the articles research materials. We already know all of that information .

Just another opinion . No Big Deal .

A nice rebuttal to this is in order. :twisted:





They keep trying .... don't they ? :wink:





Mr. Success
User avatar
MrSuccess
Family Elder
 
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:00 pm

Postby Cece » Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:20 pm

Editorials can do real harm, depending on the prestige of the journal, as we saw with Dr. Sclafani's irb accepting an opinion piece based on the strength of the journal.

One thing I notice is that he felt the need to mention not once but twice that people with MS are acting out of desperation.

It demeans us to say we are acting out of desperation. Most of us here understand what a venous occlusion is, we understand its effects on organs in other parts of the body (such as in Budd-Chiari), we understand the risks of angioplasty elsewhere in the body, and we understand what is known of the risks of jugular venoplasty. Most of us here have done the analysis of risk versus benefit. Most of us here would be willing to receive treatment in part of an open-label study if such studies were made widely available. To call us desperate is to demean our ability to understand this.

I also find it offensive that while we have done the legwork to understand CCSVI, we have peppered Dr. Sclafani with our questions, we have read Zamboni's papers, I do not think the author of this editorial has done any of this. Yet he has chosen to write an article that may slow the progress in Canada toward universal treatment of CCSVI.
"However, the truth in science ultimately emerges, although sometimes it takes a very long time," Arthur Silverstein, Autoimmunity: A History of the Early Struggle for Recognition
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 9012
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby Vivianne766 » Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:26 pm

You know what. I changed my mind and I am taking back what I just said. It is not OK. for these so-called editors/ doctors to say whatever they want.
I will be calling the CMAJ and I will give them a piece of my mind.
User avatar
Vivianne766
Family Elder
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby AlmostClever » Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:30 pm

cheerleader wrote:Thanks for posting the editorial, TMrox---Venous stenosis, reflux and congestion is a known entity. It is treated in other parts of the body. Why should it be different in the brain and spine? Why is venous stenosis considered "science" and treated when it affects the liver, kidneys or legs? Why is it considered "hope" when it affects the brain?


cheer


Absolutely 100% dead on! Who said we were attempting to cure MS besides Dr. Stanbrook? We're addressing CCSVI!

Dr. Stanbrook misses the point! Try again, Doc...
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. - Al Einstein
AlmostClever
Family Elder
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Postby MrSuccess » Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:36 pm

Cece - hello ... have you read the disclaimer that followed the article ?

That is very important to understand . The CMA clearly states ... that the articles content does not represent the opinion of the CMA .

Therefore ..... the article only represents the opinion of ONE person ...... NOT the Canadian Medical Association as a group.

We have seen this before. Remember the Lancet joke ???



Don't give this article and it's author any weight ..... I have already shot this goose out of the sky ......... :wink:


Next ? Colin Rose ....... Bob ?? :wink:


Sleep tight Cece ..... the good guy's are gaining ground :lol: :lol:




Mr. Success
User avatar
MrSuccess
Family Elder
 
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:00 pm

Postby PCakes » Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:37 pm

..an eloquent writer, void of facts and reality, perched on a teeter totter.. love how the Helicobacter pylor analogy is used to highlight the challenges to opening the medical mind..sigh
p.s. any word on how Barb Farrell is doing? I pray well. This would be the perfect rebuttal..
User avatar
PCakes
Family Elder
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Canada

Postby TMrox » Mon Jun 28, 2010 1:25 pm

While we get this kind of editorial opinions based in pure hot air, other doctors are more proactive and hands on.

See news about North America's first clinical trial on the "liberation treatment".


http://www.thisisms.com/ftopict-12487.html
User avatar
TMrox
Family Elder
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:00 pm


Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Contact us | Terms of Service