In-Depth Analysis of the “Summary Report - CIHR Summary

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

In-Depth Analysis of the “Summary Report - CIHR Summary

Postby Direct-MS » Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:45 am

An In-Depth Analysis of the “Summary Report - CIHR
and MS Society of Canada Joint Invitational Meeting on
Multiple Sclerosis Research

The full In Depth Analysis is at!/note ... 4264692081

Executive Summary
A detailed analysis of the recently released CIHR/MSSOC Report on CCSVI and
Multiple Sclerosis (Beaudet Report) has found that the report contains many
scientific errors and unsupported opinions. The serious scientific failings which
permeate the Beaudet Report are painstakingly documented in over nine pages
of text in the In-Depth Analysis.
An even larger and more serious problem with the Beaudet Report are the overt
and most disconcerting ethical breeches. These ethical breeches include:
1. The committee organizers used an incredibly biased committee member
selection process such that that no scientists or practitioners with
expertise, knowledge and/or experience with CCSVI and MS were allowed
on the Beaudet Committee
2. The majority of the Committee members (13/23) have an obvious conflict
of interest when it comes to evaluating the need for a clinical trial to test
the efficacy of a non-drug therapy for MS such as CCSVI treatment. Such
a conflict of interest takes the form of close ties, often financial, with the
pharmaceutical companies that manufacture and market the drugs that
are currently used for MS. Such ties are meticulously documented in the
Appendix of the In-Depth Analysis.
3. The conflicts of interest were not declared or even alluded to in the
Beaudet Report
4. The committee members with a conflict of interest did not recuse
themselves when it became obvious that CCSVI and the question of a
CCSVI treatment clinical trial were going to dominate the discussions by
the Committee. In fact, the compromised individuals strongly influenced
the final recommendations of the committee.
The highly flawed science, in combination with the serious ethical breeches of
the Beaudet Report, completely invalidates its recommendations. Given the
above the Federal Health Ministry needs to:
1. Convene a new expert committee to examine and make recommendations
on the need for a clinical trial to test the efficacy of CCSVI treatment for
MS. The committee should be populated by both scientists and
practitioners with expertise and experience with CCSVI and MS and
scientists with experience in related topics such as venous angioplasty in
other conditions, the neurovascular system, neuro-imaging and MS
disease pathogenesis. Every effort should be made to exclude individuals
with a clear conflict of interest related to past and/or present relationships
with the pharmaceutical industry.
2. Launch an investigation into the ethical breeches of the Beaudet Report
and determine how such a scientifically inappropriate and ethically
challenged committee came into existence in the first place.
3. Review the appropriateness of having Alain Beaudet lead the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research. Canadians need to have confidence in their
health leaders and Beaudet’s credibility has been destroyed by the
scientific failings and the ethical breeches of the committee he formed and
the report he wrote on a most important health issue.
User avatar
Family Member
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:00 pm


Postby Rokkit » Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:05 am

The work of the committee may indeed be flawed, but it would sure help if someone would get a blinded diagnostic study published supporting Zamboni. For some reason this hasn't happened.
Family Elder
Posts: 669
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 2:00 pm

Postby ozarkcanoer » Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:06 am

Rokkit... I think there will be some papers published from BNAC by January. Unfortunately these things cannot go any faster.

User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 1273
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:00 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

Postby David1949 » Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:50 am

I think DirectMS nailed it. Too often government decisions are influenced by powerful individuals and corporations who put their own interests ahead of the people.
Family Elder
Posts: 654
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 2:00 pm

Postby Rokkit » Mon Sep 13, 2010 11:13 am

ozarkcanoer wrote:Rokkit... I think there will be some papers published from BNAC by January. Unfortunately these things cannot go any faster.

I know I've run out of patience. Someone could have done a small catheter venogram study months ago. It wouldn't be impressively large like the BNAC study, but it would be something to compare with the Germans and Swedes. Might have made it much harder for the CIHR committee to railroad their agenda. Oh well, that's life.
Family Elder
Posts: 669
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 2:00 pm

Postby garyak » Mon Sep 13, 2010 11:58 am

Some unbiased investigational reporter should have a field day with this BS. I have sent a few of them some fuel hopefully one will bite and expose these goofs
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 2:00 pm
Location: grande prairie , alberta,canada

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