This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

Please check out:

http://ccsviclinic.ca/?p=622

To some extent, this is why I am a "believer" in the theory of CCSVI - when someone who is apparently a "respected neuro, researcher and educator" can so totally oppose this common sense hypothesis, when this "respected neuro etc" turns out to be an adviser to several pharma companies, and when this "respected neuro etc" can happily state that "new drugs carry significant health risks at the moment", well I am
no longer into believing in respected neuro's, researchers and educators.

As a Board Member of the National MS Society, one would think that he should be open minded to a theory that shows some promise, he may well indeed want to see more research and trial results, but to "slam" the CCSVI theory the way he has, to my mind this neuro, researcher and educator should no longer be "respected".

His mantra must be ... "The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it's still on the list", just my opinion !!!!!!!

let it be him and i bet he would be changeing his tune!!

He's retired from private practice now, but up until last year Dr. Schapiro was the head of the clinic I go to here in MN. I've always had respect for him, he has accomplished a lot. I guess I will excuse him on this one. It's hard to change one's way of thinking. I doubt he has seriously looked into the vascular research on CCSVI and MS, it's kneejerk dismissal, but he's still one of the good guys, just not one of our good guys.

Shapiro can foam at the mouth about CCSVI all he wants .

While it is great news that oral MS treatment has arrived .......

it strikes me as one last ditch effort to get pwMS thinking the solution to MS is medication .... and medication only ....

There is of course ...... no need for this ...... as Dr. Zamboni has stressed that pwMS should stay with their MS medications ..... including Mrs Zamboni .

At this point ...... I think the MS medications will help with lessions ..... and CCSVI will treat stenosis' ..... it might require this teamwork to CONTROL .... MS.

Note I say ... control .... NOT ..... cure.

The medical establishment has not yet cured the common cold ......

lot's of $$$$$ being made with that failure !!!!!

All things said ...... the oral MS treatments are truly major discovery.


But CCSVI has the potential to surpass it .....



Mr. Success

Well at least he's consistant....

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/726825?src=rss

I have to believe that the Dr has not read the research....

look, over there, it's Dr. Freedman!

(run Dr. Schapiro!)

No, I don't get the sense that he's read the research.

The intense specialization, as if the brain is not a part of the body as a whole, has done some damage, perhaps.

Well he certainly has a sense of humour:

Dr Shapiro went on to say that “the Zamboni theory only works when it’s used for cleaning hockey rinks.” LOL, good one.

“I put this treatment in the same category as ‘bee-sting’ or ‘pregnant cow’s milk’ therapy and it (CCSVI) is something that we will have totally forgotten about three years from now”.

Dr. Schapiro went on to say that he was strongly opposed to funding upcoming clinical trials of CCSVI by either the government or the MS Society and that “the money invested in these trials could certainly be put to better use where MS research is concerned.”

_________________
Diagnosed with Transverse Myelitis in December 2008. Inflammatory demyelination of the spinal cord (c3-c5). No MS, but still CCSVI.

He compares CCSVI with bee sting etc. without really countering with anything substantial. Its not for nothing that top notch researchers are studying to try and make sense of ccsvi.

So ... we should know what weight his viewpoints really carry ...

_________________
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

I thought that if a person was involved in research that they should have an open mind. Apparently it is not needed for his research.

Shapiro was a friend of mine's mother's neuro - when I was diagnosed he told me that Shapiro was VERY into throwing drugs at her for both her MS itself, symptoms of the MS, and side effects of the initial drugs ...

(sadly, she died of complications of MS last year after years of being unable to speak or swallow. Of course I don't think this decline and death was his fault, but certainly the pharma options didn't help her much.)

Does anyone know whyDr. Schapiro made those statements? What about CCSVI makes him dismiss this theory? I was just curious if anyone knew.

Is there one neuro out there that does have an open mind about CCSVI?

There are plenty of neuros with an open mind you just don't hear about them here, e.g. there are 4 neuros at the clinic I go to all with an open mind.

\
Yeah, I've seen some speak and be quite intrigued (the proper attitude at this point). It is not proven, although evidence albeit antedotal evidence is pilling up, and importantly it is in a field that the neuro's are not expert or trained up in handling. Before they can be dismissive, persuasively, they have to talk with equal expertise about the physiciology involved, and unfortunately it is much easier to be dismissive as "bunk" than to really understand it and say why it is not correct.

Comparing it to other off-the-wall theories and making fun of the researcher's name are childish and not really worthy of an intellegent scientific professional. (Zamboni is only a funny name to hockey fans. In Italy, and everywhere before Mr. Zamboni inventend his very useful ice machine, it is quite respected. Making fun of something by making fun of the originators name was shameful by Jr. Hi.)

Maybe they do not accept CCSVI because of the knowledge they have accumulated though years of schooling,private practice, and research? It would have been nice if he would of laid out some specific reasons he chose to say what he did so that we could discuus those points instead of arguing about the intentions of neurologists.