Dr. Ashton Embry, on National MS Societies & CCSVI

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

Dr. Ashton Embry, on National MS Societies & CCSVI

Postby Chrystal » Mon Aug 30, 2010 8:38 pm

"Why National MS Societies are not acting in the best interests of persons with MS"

By Ashton Embry

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_i ... 668&ref=mf
User avatar
Chrystal
Family Elder
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:00 pm

Advertisement

Postby Chrystal » Mon Aug 30, 2010 8:52 pm

Here is Dr. Embry's Analysis...

Why National MS Societies Are Not Acting in the Best Interests of Persons with MS

by DIRECT-MS


Introduction
With the advent of CCSVI as a major factor in multiple sclerosis, it has become painfully apparent that national MS societies do not have the best interests of persons with MS as their highest priority. This has taken many people by surprise because most people are under the assumption that the main concern of national MS societies is the well being of persons with MS. This assumption is not, and has never been, true. Perhaps one more benefit of the discovery of CCSVI as an important causal factor of MS, has been to expose the myth the national MS societies have people with MS as their #1 priority.

The Groups of the MS Societies
To understand the priorities of national MS societies, it is essential to understand the various groups which compose their structure. These groups are the scientific advisors, the staff members, the board members, and the members of the society who are mainly persons affected by MS. Each of these groups plays a very specific role in how a given national MS society functions.

The most important and influential group is the scientific advisors who determine the type of information the society provides to the members and to the public at large. They also determine what research will be done and what overall policies will be followed when it comes to lobbying efforts to influence government decisions. The scientific advisors are clinical neurologists who specialize in multiple sclerosis. Many of them also carry out research activities in addition to their clinical work.

The next important group is the paid staff of the society and, in the case of a large society, they can number in the hundreds. Their salary and benefit packages are on par with workers in similar jobs in both the private and public sectors. Importantly, the staff, for the most part, puts into action the policies and plans of the scientific advisors, that is, the neurologists. There is a very strict adherence to this and no deviation or independent thinking is tolerated. The staff members are like soldiers who do what they are told and are not expected to contribute to the scientific or public policies of the society. They are simply the “go-betweens”, the neurologists and the all those seeking information from the society. Notably, most staff members are not affected by MS.

By far the greatest responsibility of the staff is to raise money by running various fund raising projects. Most of staff time in spent on this critical activity which is understandable given the majority of the money raised goes to pay staff salaries and benefits. Staff members also arrange some programs for people with MS in terms of education but this activity is rather minor in terms of actual time and effort expended. The staff also fields questions from persons with MS and, as noted previously, the provided information is only that sanctioned by the scientific advisors (neurologists).

The board of directors of a given national society is most often composed of people who usually have good connections for fund raising from corporations or who have strong political connections. Usually a few persons with MS are included on a board but, in most cases, the majority of board members are not affected by MS. One or more staff members also usually are part of the board.

Most board members have at best a rudimentary understanding of science in general and the science of MS in specific. They have very little influence on any major policies of the society and, in most cases, simply rubber stamp the scientific and political policies determined by the neurologists and implemented by the staff. Their main responsibility seems to be ensuring that the society is on a firm financial footing and discussing the merits of proposed fund raising campaigns.

The final group in a national MS society consists of the members themselves and they, for the most part, are persons affected by MS. They are the consumers of the products of the society which consist mainly of information dictated by the neurologists and packaged by the staff. Such information is both hard copy and web-based. Some members act as volunteers and volunteer activities are related to both money raising activities and to helping other people with MS. The members essentially have no say in terms of the main policies of the society although on a local level they can help to get new member services initiated.

In summary, a national MS society spends most of its time raising money which is used to pay fund-raising costs, the salaries and benefits of the staff members, and substantial administrative expenses. Such expenses require about 80-85% of all money collected. The amount left over is mainly used to fund research projects approved by the scientific advisors (neurologists) and, not surprisingly, projects of former and current advisors usually are well funded. Proposals from “outsiders” don’t fare so well.

Past Situation
In the past, everything went along rather smoothly with the society advertising the need to raise money to cure MS, with such a cure being attainable through the research activities funded by the society. Given the severe disabilities sometimes associated with MS, the need for finding a cure for MS is not a hard sell, and the large MS societies raise tens of millions of dollars every year. In the 60 years this routine has been going on, the research funded by the societies has not brought us anywhere even remotely near the prospect of developing an effective treatment for MS. This impressive failure has only led to louder calls for more money for more research.

The scientific and medical information provided by a national MS society is entirely centred on drug therapies that have been approved for use. The staff members strongly advocate the use of such drug therapies and almost all other proposed therapies are ignored, discouraged and/or denigrated. The main government lobby efforts of the societies usually are to fight for the approved use of the drugs.

It is imperative to appreciate that most (often all) of the scientific advisors of the societies and the societies themselves have strong financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies which manufacture and market the approved drug therapies for MS. The most blatant of such ties is that of the NMSS of the United States. It partners with drug companies and gives substantial grants to them.

The existence of such financial ties readily accounts for the policy that only drug therapies are advocated and that the value of such therapies is never, ever remotely questioned. These financial ties also create a serious conflict of interest for the neurologists and MS societies when it comes to any proposed, non-drug therapy and that is one, big reason why non-drug therapies are ignored or downplayed by the societies.

There can be no doubt that the national MS societies are there mainly for the benefit of the neurologists (scientific advisors) in that they provides them much needed research funding. The societies also provide an excellent vehicle for promoting drug therapies which are financially very important for the neurologists. Of course the societies are also there for the benefit of the staff members who make a good living from keeping everything running smoothly and ensuring the information from the neurologists reaches the desired destinations.

Before the advent of CCSVI, the drug therapies were the only conventional medical therapies available. By advocating such therapies, the societies could easily claim to be acting in the best interests of persons with MS even though such advocacy was driven mainly by the best interests of the neurologists and the societies themselves. Whether or not the use of the current drugs is really in the best interests of persons with MS is a completely separate issue and will be explored in a separate document.

CCSVI Rocks the Boat
The sudden emergence of CCSVI as an important factor in MS, and the great promise of CCSVI treatment for slowing and perhaps even halting MS disease progression for many, have caused a great problem for MS societies around the world. Given all that we now know about CCSVI and its treatment, the national MS societies would best serve the interests of persons with MS by immediately funding a major, comprehensive research program which definitively tests the effectiveness of CCSVI relief in the next few years. Furthermore, it would also be in the best interests of persons with MS if the MS societies lobbied to have CCSVI treatment available as soon as possible given the health problems associated with having impaired venous drainage from the brain and the many hundreds of credible, experiential accounts of very significant positive changes following CCSVI treatment.

The MS societies have studiously avoided funding any clinical trial studies for CCSVI treatment as was clearly demonstrated by the rejection of proposals from top CCSVI researchers by North American national MS societies. (e.g. University of Buffalo, Stanford University, McMaster University). Notably, those who got their proposals accepted seem to have either very strong ties to the pharmaceutical industry (e.g. Wolinsky at U of Texas) or do not know what they are doing. A fine example of this latter category is Dr Kathleen Knox at the University of Saskatchewan who recently was quoted as saying “The biggest difficulty her team faces, is that they don’t know how to test patients to see if they have the blocked veins”. This is a stunning admission of incompetence and shows the type of researchers favoured by the national MS societies when it comes to CCSVI “research.

Some national MS societies are actively lobbying their respective government NOT to allow CCSVI treatment. A fine example of this is a recent letter the director of the Ontario division of the MS Society of Canada wrote to the Ontario Health Minister emphasizing that the province should not fund any CCSVI testing or treatment. The notice on the website of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada says it all - “the MS Society does not recommend that people with MS be examined or treated for CCSVI outside of an established research protocol”. All in all, any thought that MS societies are acting in the best interests of persons of MS must be abandoned. So who’s best interests are they serving with their actions?

When it comes to CCSVI, the interests of the neurologists and the societies are best served by having CCSVI marginalized, by not funding any CCSVI treatment research, and by lobbying the government to not allow any treatment of impaired venous drainage in persons with MS despite the obvious health hazard such a condition represents. The reasons for such actions are straightforward.

If CCSVI treatment by venous angioplasty turns out to be far more effective than the current drug treatments, and there is every reason to expect it will be, then MS drug revenues will plummet precipitously. Such a huge loss of revenue will have a devastating effect on the financial well being of MS neurologists and the national MS societies themselves. Furthermore, persons with MS will be treated primarily by interventional radiologists, thus adding to the financial losses of the neurologists. There is no question that any activity which helps to bring the implementation of CCSVI treatment forward is not in the best interests of the neurologists and the national MS societies that they control and everyone is well aware of this indisputable but somewhat awkward fact.

Because of the advent of CCSVI, we now have an unprecedented situation of conflicting interests. What is in the best interests of persons with MS is clearly not in the best interests of both the neurologists who provide the scientific guidance for the MS societies and the staff of the societies who put into effect the policies of the neurologists.

The Current Reality
Not surprisingly, the best interests of the neurologists and the society staff members will always trump the best interests of the persons with MS. Thus the policies and actions of the national MS societies have been to avoid any funding of proposed CCSVI treatment studies and to lobby government bodies not to provide any CCSVI treatment. They also advise persons with MS not be tested or treated for CCSVI despite the obvious medical need for such treatment (blocked veins are hazardous to one’s health).

The neurologists and the MS societies also have instituted a policy of casting doubt on the validity of the CCSVI concept and on the safety of CCSVI treatment. This has even gone as far as blatant fear-mongering when it comes to having venous angioplasty to relieve CCSVI. One good example of this recently appeared in a governmental health report written by MS neurologists. The writers claimed that the only venous blockages that exist in persons with MS are clots caused by angioplasty and the only results of venous angioplasty are injuries to the vein. This is of course sheer nonsense but, as they say, truth is the first casualty in any war.

The current actions of the national MS societies regarding CCSVI are entirely rational once the structure of the societies is understood. The societies are acting in the best interests of the neurologists and staff members as they always have and always will. Unfortunately, when it comes to CCSVI, such actions are not in the best interests of persons with MS. However, it is the false perception that the national MS societies are there primarily to serve the best interests of persons with MS that has created the shock and disappointment with the current actions of the societies in regards to CCSVI. When it comes to the policies and actions of the national MS societies, persons with MS must fully realize that they are lower in priority than the neurologists and staff members. The CCSVI issue has clearly demonstrated this beyond any reasonable doubt.

Consequences of the Actions of the National MS societies
We now have sufficient data to say that, each day a person with MS suffers the consequences of impaired venous drainage, they are doing harm to themselves and such a reality has to be clearly understood. It has been said, “MS Never Sleeps” and one of the main reasons for this is that impaired venous drainage never sleeps and this serious pathology is causing problems every day for persons with MS. Thus it logically follows that every dollar the national MS societies raise is potentially doing harm to persons with MS because that dollar is potentially contributing to actions that are designed to delay the availability of CCSVI treatment for all persons with MS.

Given the above, it is clear that the interests of persons with MS would be best served by halting any support of national MS societies and by supporting groups which are actively promoting the need for CCSVI treatment research and government support for the availability of CCSVI treatment as soon as possible.

Summary
The advent of CCSVI has revealed the highest priorities of the national MS societies. These are actions and policies that are in the best interests of neurologists and society staff members. The interests of persons with MS are a distant third in this contest of competing interests. Continued support for national MS societies is potentially harmful for persons with MS because of the societies’ deliberate lack of appropriate and much needed actions regarding CCSVI. All persons affected by MS should be supporting organizations which are funding clinical trials to test the effectiveness of CCSVI treatment and which are lobbying governments to make CCSVI treatment widely available in the near future.
User avatar
Chrystal
Family Elder
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby MrSuccess » Mon Aug 30, 2010 9:58 pm

well said . spot on .

Time to end the MS Society charade . :twisted:

Good work Ashton ..... as usual.



Mr. Success
User avatar
MrSuccess
Family Elder
 
Posts: 883
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:00 pm

Postby val57gal » Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:40 pm

Great article. I am forwarding it to my friends who keep reading anti-CCSVI stuff from similar sources.

Does anyone know the back story of why JK Rowling withdrew most of her support from the MS Society of Scotland? Is it something to do with the mixed-up (that's the polite term) priorities of these societies as pointed out in this article?

PS Harry Potter readers--did you ever notice that there are no debilitating diseases in Harry Potter's world? JK Rowling created a world where we can't be sick, in memory of her mother who died from MS. Too bad we're all muggles.
User avatar
val57gal
Family Member
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:00 pm

Postby marcstck » Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:12 am

Well, here I go making another post that will probably win me no friends, but I've never been afraid to speak truth to Caesar, and I'm not about to start now.

While I greatly admire Mr. Embry's passion, intellect, and writing skills, quite often his papers wear those passions on their sleeves, and whether intentionally or not, veer dangerously close to the realm of propaganda.

This piece in particular makes several assertions and sites some statistics that stray a considerable distance from the truth.

I can't speak to the motivations of the extreme upper echelons of the MS societies, as I don't have any personal contact or knowledge with or of these people. Certainly, some of their motivations are open to question. Their initial actions in regards to CCSVI were reprehensible, but they have made strides to make amends. In particular, the live webinar on CCSVI organized by the NMSS at this year's AAN meetings was quite valuable.

In the above treatise, Mr. Embry states of MS Society staff members that "Their salary and benefit packages are on par with workers in similar jobs in both the private and public sectors." This is categorically untrue, and I take personal umbrage at this statement, as my wife has in the past worked for several nonprofits at considerable sacrifice to her potential income. The folks staffing the MS societies could in almost all instances make lots more money in the public or private sectors, which is precisely why my wife no longer works for nonprofits.

Even the higher-ups work for considerably less than they could make in the private sector. Joyce Nelson, president of the US NMSS, receives a salary of slightly under $500,000 per year. Certainly nothing to sneeze at, but a CEO running an organization of similar size and scope in the private sector could easily make 3 to 4 times as much money in base salary, before bonuses and stock option packages kick in. Here in New York, mid-level managers at Wall Street firms (and there are thousands of them) would turn their noses up at such a "paltry" salary. Similarly, scads of lawyers bring in higher annual earnings. When I was still able to work, I was employed by one of the major entertainment companies, and at least 100 people in the building where I worked made salaries in excess of that earned by Ms. Nelson. I'm not defending such exorbitant pay in the private sector, as a matter of fact I find it extremely nauseating. I'm simply pointing out that somebody with Ms. Nelson's experience and skill set could make far more money in the private sector than she currently makes working at the MS Society.

Furthermore, Mr. Embry asserts that "The staff members are like soldiers who do what they are told and are not expected to contribute to the scientific or public policies of the society. They are simply the “go-betweens”, the neurologists and the all those seeking information from the society. Notably, most staff members are not affected by MS. ". Again, based on personal experience, this statement rings of extreme bias, and is certainly not true of the majority of those working for the MS Society, who, as I talked about above, could make more money working elsewhere. I know several NMSS staff members personally, and have found them to be compassionate human beings, who have considerable leeway for creative thinking and input into the workings of the society. Many of them have been personally touched by the scourge of MS. Do they contribute scientifically? Of course not, they're not scientists. As an example of one of these "go-betweens… not affected by MS", I'd direct you to the post entitled "Grand Larceny" on my Wheelchair Kamikaze blog that includes a profile of a staffer at the NMSS's Denver office whose mother was stricken with MS when the staffer was 10 years old, and is now completely bedridden and in a nursing home. She made an extremely emotional video tribute to her mother, which is included in the post, which you can find here:

http://www.wheelchairkamikaze.com/2010/ ... rceny.html

As for Mr. Embry's assertion that 80% to 85% of donated funds go to the payment of "fund-raising costs, the salaries and benefits of the staff members, and substantial administrative expenses", this number is way off the mark. According to the Charity Navigator site, the US NMSS spends approximately 15% of their revenue on such expenses, as can be found here:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c ... orgid=4189

That same number is also backed up by the Better Business Bureau, here:

http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/nati ... ork-ny-597

the Canadian MS society does spend quite a bit on similar functions, about 48%, still a far cry from the numbers cited by Mr. Embry. You can find the accurate number here:

http://www.moneysense.ca/2009/12/21/can ... charities/

One must also keep in mind that in addition to funding research, the MS societies provide many valuable services to MS patients, including support groups for both patients and caregivers, government advocacy, MS education, financial assistance, scholarships for those living with MS or their children, employment resources, and help with procuring assistive devices.

Would I like to see the NMSS stop taking all funding from pharmaceutical companies (which, according to public documents, accounts for less than 5% of their funding)? Absolutely. Would I like to see the MS societies take a more aggressive stance on CCSVI research, and immediately fund treatment studies? Again, absolutely. Do I believe that changes need to be made in the hierarchy of the societies, starting with their board members? Once again, absolutely.

The societies also do need to take a multidisciplinary approach to staffing their scientific advisoy boards, now that it has become clear that MS is much more than a neurologic disease.

There is plenty that needs to be changed about the MS societies as they are now constituted, but attacking the many decent people who work diligently on behalf of MS patients (though the organization they work for may be misguided), and citing inaccurate numbers in support of an obvious agenda, makes that agenda, however legitimate and ultimately well-meaning it might be, much too easy to dismiss.

A man of Mr. Embry's immense intellect and talent could certainly make his points without resorting to personal attacks and dubious statistics.
User avatar
marcstck
Family Elder
 
Posts: 560
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:00 pm

Postby PCakes » Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:45 am

brave and articulate... honourable traits they be..

I would like to highlight, if I may, what I see as a key comment and one that should be included in all NMSS/ MSSC correspondence...

The societies also do need to take a multidisciplinary approach to staffing their scientific advisoy boards, now that it has become clear that MS is much more than a neurologic disease.
User avatar
PCakes
Family Elder
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Canada

Postby marcstck » Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:57 am

Just wanted to add that I do agree with Mr. Embry that CCSVI issue has exposed many of the flaws in the MS societies. They obviously were caught offguard by the CCSVI storm, and I've no doubt that the private interests of many of their benefactors and advisers were and are threatened.

I simply object to the condemnation of the vast majority of well-meaning individuals who truly believe they are doing good by working for the societies. Whether or not that belief can be substantiated is certainly open to debate, but the conviction itself is not.
User avatar
marcstck
Family Elder
 
Posts: 560
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:00 pm

Postby PCakes » Tue Aug 31, 2010 9:10 am

he may have had prior knowledge of this announcement when he put pen to paper..

http://www.healthzone.ca/health/newsfea ... ms-therapy
User avatar
PCakes
Family Elder
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Canada

Postby HappyPoet » Tue Aug 31, 2010 9:16 am

Perfect, Marc.
User avatar
HappyPoet
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1401
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:00 pm

Dr. Embry, MS Societies, Wheelchair Kamikaze

Postby msrelly » Tue Aug 31, 2010 9:31 am

Thank you Marc for your continued intelligent, probing and balanced take on things. Nothing in this world is black and white and its important that we all take a deep breath.

I am a volunteer Board member with the MS Society (a local chapter). I chose the MS Society because it was more grass-roots than other charities I had worked with in the past. And by grass-roots, I mean doing actual things for people living with MS in our community. Like helping with $$ for groceries, mobility equipment, legal aid and disability insurance help, programs for kids whose parents have MS, awareness in our community.

Our very large chapter has a small paid staff (and to tell you the truth, I wouldn't work for the small sums they are paid--definitely below market value) who are dedicated and go above and beyond. I guess what I am saying is that the MS societies are not the enemy and we are truly a group of people who have or love someone with MS and who are dedicated to helping.

Fundraising for MS is hard enough (its not front and centre like breast cancer, heart & stroke, cancer) and our dollars are put to excellent use. To crucify the MS Societies and encourage people to abandon them will result in many, many people not getting the help they need with every day life and challenges.

I support research into CCSVI, but I also support my neighbour getting a much-needed wheelchair ramp, my friend getting the opportunity to sail in a modified craft, a local person with MS getting legal help in fighting for the disability insurance she deserves, the self-help groups getting a grant each year so that they can pay for their montly meeting places.. This won't happen if the MS Societies are abandoned.
User avatar
msrelly
Getting to Know You...
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby cheerleader » Tue Aug 31, 2010 9:57 am

Marc--
Dr. Embry wrote that essay knowing what was going to be announced today regarding the Canadian Institutes of Health Research decision to not fund any treatment trials in Canada.

http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/42382.html

The collusion between the MS specialists who advise the Canadian MS Society and the status quo/biomedical world is apparent.

It has nothing to do with all of the very conscientious human beings who work for the MS Societies...it has everything to do with the desire to maintain the autoimmune theory and the status quo.

Dr. Embry just came back from Poland, where his son was treated for severe bilateral jugular vein occlusion. He's seen the evidence. As someone else who knows what it feels like to see your precious loved one with a malformed venous system---I understand his passion and righteous anger.
Joan
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
http://ccsviinms.blogspot.com
User avatar
cheerleader
Family Elder
 
Posts: 5015
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: southern California

Recent announcment by Canada

Postby Gordon » Tue Aug 31, 2010 10:03 am

Shocked and dismayed.

They will look back in Great shame. They will go to Jail. They will be held accountable, all of them.

The MS society, has infested the world. There may be some great people working in the lower ranks, but I urge each and everyone to resign their position, and get their pension out as soon as possible.


Gord
User avatar
Gordon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby rssugg » Tue Aug 31, 2010 10:20 am

well, if we can get CCSVI legalized, we wont need NMSS money for wheelchair ramps, etc. Even so, they can get the money from teh drug companies to provide these services (if they are still in business hocking drugs in 5 years).

I printed this letter off and dropped it in teh mail to the US NMSS execs and local chapter leaders. Its time they are brought down to our level.
User avatar
rssugg
Family Elder
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:00 pm

Postby marcstck » Tue Aug 31, 2010 10:28 am

cheerleader wrote:Marc--
Dr. Embry wrote that essay knowing what was going to be announced today regarding the Canadian Institutes of Health Research decision to not fund any treatment trials in Canada.

http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/42382.html

The collusion between the MS specialists who advise the Canadian MS Society and the status quo/biomedical world is apparent.

It has nothing to do with all of the very conscientious human beings who work for the MS Societies...it has everything to do with the desire to maintain the autoimmune theory and the status quo.

Dr. Embry just came back from Poland, where his son was treated for severe bilateral jugular vein occlusion. He's seen the evidence. As someone else who knows what it feels like to see your precious loved one with a malformed venous system---I understand his passion and righteous anger.
Joan


I'm sure all of that is very true, and I share his anger and dismay at the decision made in Canada.

Likewise, I'm sure there is collusion at the highest levels to maintain the status quo.

However, Mr. Embry goes out of his way to single out the staffers who work at the MS Society, and uses inaccurate and inflammatory statistics in an attempt to drive his point home. Both totally unnecessary, given all of the legitimate ammunition and targets at which to aim that he has to work with.

Righteous anger is not an excuse to disparage people who don't deserve disparaging, or to resort to trumped up statistics to back your claims.

Having said that, I wish only the best to Dr. Embry and to his son, who I of course hope sees tremendous improvement after his liberation in Poland…

Don't forget, I too have a precious loved one with a malformed venous system, namely myself. I don't use that as an excuse to lash out at those who don't deserve to be the recipients of wrath or fury. He'd do better to single out the bastards behind the decision-making process by name, rather than casting so wide a net that it entangles far too many of the innocent, thereby lessening the impact of his otherwise well-crafted words.
User avatar
marcstck
Family Elder
 
Posts: 560
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:00 pm

Re: Dr. Embry, MS Societies, Wheelchair Kamikaze

Postby sbr487 » Tue Aug 31, 2010 11:06 am

msrelly wrote:Fundraising for MS is hard enough (its not front and centre like breast cancer, heart & stroke, cancer) and our dollars are put to excellent use. To crucify the MS Societies and encourage people to abandon them will result in many, many people not getting the help they need with every day life and challenges.


What about people who die because of their negligence?
What about people who died due to non availability of liberation procedure?
Farell is an example of difference procedure can make.
Who is responsible for all these deaths due to lack of action or due to negative action?

PS; Similar emotional arguments were probably used to save Pfizer
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it
- Max Planck
User avatar
sbr487
Family Elder
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: India

Next

Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users