Placebo?
Placebo?
This is not scientific in any way. Just yet another testimonial:
A friend of mine went for angiography after having been diagnosed with CCSVI using ultrasound. The angiography came up clear. No obstructions.
Strange? Well, it is. But that is half the story. My friend went back home and the following days started having some strange feelings of heat in his arms, less fatigue and less brain fog.
A few days later, he went back to hospital to finalize some paperwork. He told the surgeon about these positive feelings. The surgeon, very inexperienced at that time, told him that he found it quite difficult to enter the IJVs with the catheter. He speculated that there could be some membranes which were broken when the catheter entered the veins.
This speculation was, later, confirmed by ultrasound. The venous insufficiency was a lot better and some pieces of the membranes were now clearly seen moving as the blood flowed.
My friend, without knowing that he was liberated, felt immediately some positive changes. This is interesting because it can't be due to a placebo effect.
I just wanted to share it with all of you.
A friend of mine went for angiography after having been diagnosed with CCSVI using ultrasound. The angiography came up clear. No obstructions.
Strange? Well, it is. But that is half the story. My friend went back home and the following days started having some strange feelings of heat in his arms, less fatigue and less brain fog.
A few days later, he went back to hospital to finalize some paperwork. He told the surgeon about these positive feelings. The surgeon, very inexperienced at that time, told him that he found it quite difficult to enter the IJVs with the catheter. He speculated that there could be some membranes which were broken when the catheter entered the veins.
This speculation was, later, confirmed by ultrasound. The venous insufficiency was a lot better and some pieces of the membranes were now clearly seen moving as the blood flowed.
My friend, without knowing that he was liberated, felt immediately some positive changes. This is interesting because it can't be due to a placebo effect.
I just wanted to share it with all of you.
Re: Placebo?
No obstructions yet ultrasound confirmed what? huh?sou wrote:This is not scientific in any way. Just yet another testimonial:
A friend of mine went for angiography after having been diagnosed with CCSVI using ultrasound. The angiography came up clear. No obstructions.
Strange? Well, it is. But that is half the story. My friend went back home and the following days started having some strange feelings of heat in his arms, less fatigue and less brain fog.
A few days later, he went back to hospital to finalize some paperwork. He told the surgeon about these positive feelings. The surgeon, very inexperienced at that time, told him that he found it quite difficult to enter the IJVs with the catheter. He speculated that there could be some membranes which were broken when the catheter entered the veins.
This speculation was, later, confirmed by ultrasound. The venous insufficiency was a lot better and some pieces of the membranes were now clearly seen moving as the blood flowed.
My friend, without knowing that he was liberated, felt immediately some positive changes. This is interesting because it can't be due to a placebo effect.
I just wanted to share it with all of you.
Yes, it did. Since no more equipment and tools were used, my friend was charged a simple venogram. Nevertheless, he will have to properly clear up the veins sometime in the future.David1949 wrote:Does an accidental liberation cost less than a deliberate one?
Cece and JL, that's exactly what happened. My apologies for my English.
- MegansMom
- Family Elder
- Posts: 200
- Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:00 pm
- Location: Central FL ( near Ocala)
- Contact:
This is a very interesting and it corresponds with what my daughter's IR found in his patients so far.
I asked him that now that he has done a fairly good number of patients, what was his success rate. Was he seeing many patients improve?
He said that in the patients that he has done venograms on 80% had lesions that he could identify.
But he further stated that oddly enough, most of the other 20% (the ones without identified lesions) have shown clinical improvement too.
He at first thought that this was placebo but now he thinks that maybe they had paritial obstructions that could be missed. He says he inflates the balloon anyway.
Some of these improvements have been objective and measurable.....
strength, vison etc. Not just subjective improvements.
I asked him what he thought was the cause, he said perhaps fine webs but honestly shrugged and said he didn't know.
I guess tha bottom line is.......improvements are great even if the exact vessel lesion & cause eludes identification.
I am wondering if some of the "sham" study patients that are in the sham part 1/3 will see improvements due to the catheter wire or dye opening up the vessel enough to improve venous flow?
I asked him that now that he has done a fairly good number of patients, what was his success rate. Was he seeing many patients improve?
He said that in the patients that he has done venograms on 80% had lesions that he could identify.
But he further stated that oddly enough, most of the other 20% (the ones without identified lesions) have shown clinical improvement too.
He at first thought that this was placebo but now he thinks that maybe they had paritial obstructions that could be missed. He says he inflates the balloon anyway.
Some of these improvements have been objective and measurable.....
strength, vison etc. Not just subjective improvements.
I asked him what he thought was the cause, he said perhaps fine webs but honestly shrugged and said he didn't know.
I guess tha bottom line is.......improvements are great even if the exact vessel lesion & cause eludes identification.
I am wondering if some of the "sham" study patients that are in the sham part 1/3 will see improvements due to the catheter wire or dye opening up the vessel enough to improve venous flow?
Cat (Catherine Somerville on FB)
MegansMom
My 35 yo daughter is newly dx 8/19/10 (had 12 symptoms)
Dx with Type A CCSVI- 1 IJV & double "candy wrapper" appearance of her Azygos
Venoplasty done Sept 21, 2010
Doing extremely well-
MegansMom
My 35 yo daughter is newly dx 8/19/10 (had 12 symptoms)
Dx with Type A CCSVI- 1 IJV & double "candy wrapper" appearance of her Azygos
Venoplasty done Sept 21, 2010
Doing extremely well-
This would really mess up the benefits attributed to the placebo group and erroneously inflate the placebo effect instead of acknowledging an actual benefit that resulted from removal of an unobserved obstruction. That would be unfortunate.MegansMom wrote:This is a very interesting and it corresponds with what my daughter's IR found in his patients so far.
I asked him that now that he has done a fairly good number of patients, what was his success rate. Was he seeing many patients improve?
He said that in the patients that he has done venograms on 80% had lesions that he could identify.
But he further stated that oddly enough, most of the other 20% (the ones without identified lesions) have shown clinical improvement too.
He at first thought that this was placebo but now he thinks that maybe they had paritial obstructions that could be missed. He says he inflates the balloon anyway.
Some of these improvements have been objective and measurable.....
strength, vison etc. Not just subjective improvements.
I asked him what he thought was the cause, he said perhaps fine webs but honestly shrugged and said he didn't know.
I guess tha bottom line is.......improvements are great even if the exact vessel lesion & cause eludes identification.
I am wondering if some of the "sham" study patients that are in the sham part 1/3 will see improvements due to the catheter wire or dye opening up the vessel enough to improve venous flow?
Very unfortunate. It's been discussed here before without any solutions. But what percentage of CCSVI are membranous sorts of things that could break with just a catheter going through? We don't have the numbers yet. Maybe it is too few to be a factor.eric593 wrote:This would really mess up the benefits attributed to the placebo group and erroneously inflate the placebo effect instead of acknowledging an actual benefit that resulted from removal of an unobserved obstruction. That would be unfortunate.MegansMom wrote:I am wondering if some of the "sham" study patients that are in the sham part 1/3 will see improvements due to the catheter wire or dye opening up the vessel enough to improve venous flow?
And maybe this is why Dr. Sclafani is right... too soon for double blinded studies in this. The doctors have more to learn before we're ready to cover their eyes.Cece wrote:Very unfortunate. It's been discussed here before without any solutions. But what percentage of CCSVI are membranous sorts of things that could break with just a catheter going through? We don't have the numbers yet. Maybe it is too few to be a factor.
- MarkW
- Family Elder
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:00 pm
- Location: Oxfordshire, England
- Contact:
Double blind studies are possible ?
I am with Prof Sclafani on this. Double blind studies are stupid at this stage as a validated diagnosis method is not agreed. I cannot get my head around how a double blind study would be designed. Anyone try to explain what the study design would be.
Kind regards,
MarkW
Kind regards,
MarkW
Mark Walker - Oxfordshire, England. Retired Industrial Pharmacist. 24 years of study about MS.
CCSVI Comments:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/8359854/MS-experts-in-Britain-have-to-open-their-minds.html
CCSVI Comments:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/8359854/MS-experts-in-Britain-have-to-open-their-minds.html