Moreover, I think that it's important to take into consideration the results of the Kuwaiti study in addition to BNAC, Zamboni, et al.
Of course the term "organized medicine" is a general and uncertain term but I haven't heard and would be interested in what organized medicine thinks of the results released from Kuwait so far.
Personally, I'm far from an expert but it seems to me to be the equivalent of what we usually consider an initial safety study, which is fine, but really is more geared to determine blatant unsafe situations on a small number and isn't designed to test efficacy and data may only hint at possible efficacy
They had only clinical assessment, without, a proper neurological assessment i.e. Document of severity of MS symptoms before and after the procedure with EDSS-FSS- and MSIS.
I've looked and looked and can't find where their information states specific procedures used on controls. If venous catheter hadn't been used on the controls this info is just the same hash on a different plate in addition to sharing the other shortcomings of an initial, small study designed, at best, to hopefully
show a tendency towards efficacy.
Others can and will do what they want but, for me, a suitable American comparison is that a friend of mine did a small (5 MS patients, no controls) safety study using swine whipworm ova against MS. Before even starting he told me that if it didn't prove safe or didn't tend to show efficacy he wasn't going to waste the time or money on a phase II.
Point being that in this case of whom I know to be a responsible researcher, initial results tending to show a possible trend towards efficacy and isn't really the kind of information you would broadcast from rooftops.
If the point is nothing more than the Kuwaiti information supports the need for further efficacy studies, I'll agree with that. Reason for high fives, probably not.