Follow ups are great, I'm sure Avis or whoever is doing whatever story have the best intentions in mind. No need to come to her aid, she's doing just fine. Anyone that's been on this site for more than a year like myself, is well aware of Avis's contribution to the CCSVI story.
But, along the lines of "be careful what you ask for" or insist on, and keeping in mind I fully understand why Canadians specifically want this particular story at the fore (to bring political pressure to bear for treatment at home, showing the risks patients are taking due to inaction on the governments part), there's potential here of forcing the government to take a stance. The stance they take may not be to one's liking either. Whereas before, the follow up care *may* have had a chance to fly under the radar due to extenuating and emergency circumstances, forcing politicians to make political decisions based on media reports may have the unfortunate blowback of throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.
I'm really really hoping it doesn't come to this, but the ball may have already started rolling:
"It's a real struggle," said Machan, who has turned to the BC College of Physicians and Surgeons for advice. "We're right now seeking clarification."
"Physicians are not,
however, obliged to repeat or redo experimental procedures which were performed outside of ethically approved research protocols."
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/11/ ... z15PXjeQOm
I'm really hoping they aren't forced into casting the above into concrete.
There's been thousands treated overseas, plenty of "bad stent stories" to write and broadcast about. It's November 2010. There's nothing that's just come to light, it's been there all along. It's just that now, with thousands treated, there are more to report. The stories should grow, along with the treated patient population.
"Patients who run into problems are left to seek medical care at home, but some are reporting that Canadian doctors won't treat their "liberation" treatment-related complications. "
"I did not get any help. I specifically did ask one doctor that I see if I could get a referral to a local vascular surgeon just to have someone to talk to about the symptoms I was experiencing. I was given the response. ‘No.' I would not get a referral. "Because I have MS, they are not entitled to be treating me in terms of vascular disease," she said.
While Quebec appears to be doing the right thing for the time being, for those in the rest of the provinces, this is a very dangerous game of chicken being played with the government.
I'd also like to point out there's one verified stent clot, one "presumed based on patient description", and one death with no further info.
While no patient's negative experience should be ignored nor detracted from, I'd like to point out what's NOT being stated in this story, principally that just avoiding stents is not going to guarantee any measure of success, it will just ensure 100% you will not have any stent complications, creating the false impression that "without stents, the CCSVI world will do so much better".
It may, it may not, err on the side of caution. Just be advised that stent avoidance is not going to ensure one is clot free, that there are other considerations that are paramount besides just going "no stents".
Avis and CTV have had all year to report on complications and to sound the alarm, specifically about treating overseas, more so about stents. This problem didn't suddenly arise this week, it's been an ongoing saga. That may have been a better story in March or April when the Liberation War aired. Think of what a war is. It's two sides pitted against each other. Forcing one to choose sides may not be the best strategy right now as it pertains to the government.
For the record, if I were Canadian I would be just as activist right now as anyone else, but I'm not.
However, I consider anyone's personal health a high-stakes game. There's entire families at stake here. I question whether any corporation of any stripe such as news media, is what I would want as my teammate at this point. These are divergent interests, not mutually exclusive, but exclusive enough to warrant caution.
After all, we've already heard 3 different stories just on this website of "that's not what I stated" sub par reporting. Hence my warning, as stated many months ago, and reiterated here. This is no time for the "I told you so" no-stents game. These warnings of overseas travel should have been echoed very strongly by the Canadian media many many months ago, not tacked on to the bottom or as a mere quote of "caution to wait until more studies are in".
Perhaps CTV would have been better to interview Cheerleader last year, so she could look into the camera, and say "go local, and here's why".
I'm also keen to note that no mention is made in the story of any thinner regime, or if was even recommended, or what it may have been, or if it even existed, and why that is a very important consideration for patients to ask about before booking the plane. THAT would have been something I'd like to have seen in the March report, why couldn't we get any of these Dr.s to say, "I know not everyone is going to heed the advice to go local, if you do go, we implore you to ensure at a minimum that you have follow up care in place at whatever cost, and some kind of blood thinner or anti-coagulant regime to mitigate the risks of clotting". Something along those lines.