Scientific American magazine article on CCSVI

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

Scientific American magazine article on CCSVI

Postby ThisIsMA » Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:00 am

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... utube-cure

The YouTube Cure

Popular demand for an unproved surgical treatment for multiple sclerosis shows the growing power of social media to shape medical practice—for good and ill

By Katie Moisse | January 30, 2011 |

When vascular surgeon Paolo Zamboni reported in December 2009 that inflating a tiny balloon inside twisted veins in the neck provided relief from multiple sclerosis, he created quite a stir.


Read full article at the link above...
DX 6-09 RRMS
User avatar
ThisIsMA
Family Elder
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: USA

Advertisement

Re: Scientific American magazine article on CCSVI

Postby frodo » Sat Jan 22, 2011 5:49 am

ThisIsMA wrote:Read full article at the link above...


Well, they forget to tell that even unproven, it is the most proven treatment to date. All the others medicaments are based in incomplete models that have been proven wrong.

Why don't they complain about the unproven medicines that are besides dangerous for health? (they are known to reduce relapses not to stop nor slow the disease. The manufacturers admit not to have an explanation about how they work)
User avatar
frodo
Family Elder
 
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:00 pm

Re: Scientific American magazine article on CCSVI

Postby concerned » Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:01 am

frodo wrote:
ThisIsMA wrote:Read full article at the link above...


Well, they forget to tell that even unproven, it is the most proven treatment to date. All the others medicaments are based in incomplete models that have been proven wrong.

Why don't they complain about the unproven medicines that are besides dangerous for health? (they are known to reduce relapses not to stop nor slow the disease. The manufacturers admit not to have an explanation about how they work)


I think it's because absolutely no well designed studies of efficacy have been published whatsoever in terms of the "Liberation Treatment", whilst MS drugs undergo vigorous clinical testing.

How do you figure it's the most proven treatment to date?
concerned
 

Re: Scientific American magazine article on CCSVI

Postby HappyPoet » Sat Jan 22, 2011 10:28 am

concerned wrote: whilst MS drugs undergo vigorous clinical testing.

Well, the studies used self-reported data... do you know if any of these studies were properly replicated by outside, unaffiliated entities?
User avatar
HappyPoet
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1401
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:00 pm

Postby Cece » Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:41 pm

"The YouTube Cure"

That's kinda cute!

The cure has to be working, we've cut the number of people with MS from 500,000 to
Regardless, many people with MS, which affects at least 250,000 people in the U.S.,


That's a dramatic halving! At that rate, by this time next year, problem solved....

As Daniel Simon, an interventional radiologist in Edison, N.J., says of the work: “It wasn’t Bob’s Journal of MS and Autobody Repair; it was the premier journal of vascular surgery.”

:D
Patients taking placebo have often reported substantial improvements, according to Mount Sinai’s Miller.

I looked into this. Regression to the mean. A known phenomenon. Drug studies of pwMS deliberately include patients with the highest degree of lesion activity. I would be excluded from these studies. That high degree of lesion activity is unusual and these patients are expected to experience a reduction in lesions even with no intervention, as they normalize or "regress to the mean." This is not a placebo effect.
In the past year, for instance, hospitals in California, New York, Italy and Poland have offered the Zamboni treatment—at a cost of $10,000 or more because it is not covered by insurance.

In one of the ISET medpage articles, it was also stated that CCSVI treatment was not covered by insurance. Are they just assuming this? Or is that shoe about to drop? It's nervous-making.
One thing in favor of Zamboni’s approach is it has a reasonable scientific rationale, which not all potential therapies touted on the Internet have.

At last, I have found the response I'd like to give next time this is compared to frickin bee stings. "What CCSVI has in its favor is that it has a reasonable scientific rationale, unlike all the other alternative treatments that you just named off in a long condescending string." (Maybe I should switch neurologists after all. Thinking about it.)
Popular demand for an unproved surgical treatment for multiple sclerosis shows the growing power of social media to shape medical practice—for good and ill

Social media is a huge part of the story of how this has unraveled. Go TIMS. :D

All in all, the article has a negative slant but, hey, it's CCSVI in a major magazine. I subscribe to DISCOVER, maybe they'll do one better.
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 9024
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Re: Scientific American magazine article on CCSVI

Postby frodo » Sat Jan 22, 2011 4:30 pm

concerned wrote:
How do you figure it's the most proven treatment to date?


First, because there is a small trial about angioplasty while the other treatments have no studies performed at all about their influence in the course of the disease. The studies of drugs have focused about reducing the gadolinium enhanced lesions, which are known to have no connection with the disease evolution.

Second and more important, because we are speaking about MS patients with venous problems comorbidity. The different clinical trials for drugs have not controlled the vein health of the subjects. We can say that we don't know if they are useful in these patients, and they present harmful secondary effects.
User avatar
frodo
Family Elder
 
Posts: 617
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:00 pm

Write Articles for USA media - be proactive

Postby MarkW » Sun Jan 23, 2011 8:39 am

It takes lots of effort to write articles for the media and most of them will get ignored but please do it. If you give an interview prepare a written piece in advance and give it to the interviewer at the end of the interview.
My reflection from across the pond is that North American posters leave all publicity to Cheer and her team, why ?
Its hard with lots of rejection but even my short letter in next month's Multiple Sclerosis Journal is worth it (after 5 rejections from different journals).

MarkW
Mark Walker - Oxfordshire, England. Registered Pharmacist (UK). 11 years of study around MS.
Mark's CCSVI Report 7-Mar-11:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8359854/MS-experts-in-Britain-have-to-open-their-minds.html
User avatar
MarkW
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:00 pm
Location: Oxfordshire, England

Postby HappyPoet » Sun Jan 23, 2011 9:17 am

MarkW, congrats on getting your letter published -- can you share it with us?

I donated to cheer's CCSVI Alliance specifically to help support their mission of the dissemination of accurate information, and I urge others to donate, too. If I could do more than this, I would.
User avatar
HappyPoet
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1401
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:00 pm

Re: Scientific American magazine article on CCSVI

Postby scorpion » Sun Jan 23, 2011 5:37 pm

concerned wrote:
frodo wrote:
ThisIsMA wrote:Read full article at the link above...


Well, they forget to tell that even unproven, it is the most proven treatment to date. All the others medicaments are based in incomplete models that have been proven wrong.

Why don't they complain about the unproven medicines that are besides dangerous for health? (they are known to reduce relapses not to stop nor slow the disease. The manufacturers admit not to have an explanation about how they work)


I think it's because absolutely no well designed studies of efficacy have been published whatsoever in terms of the "Liberation Treatment", whilst MS drugs undergo vigorous clinical testing.

How do you figure it's the most proven treatment to date?


Because people say so. No proof needed.
User avatar
scorpion
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:00 pm

Learned Journals Are Slow

Postby MarkW » Tue Jan 25, 2011 4:11 am

Hello HappyPoet,
My letter to Multiple Sclerosis Journal will probably be available online in March and on paper in April, so I should not circulate it til then.
In the meantime I hope the Daily Telegraph will print a 6 month update on me in the coming weeks.
I realise that writing articles is hard but I really encourage it. We need to increase our profile as patients.

MarkW
Mark Walker - Oxfordshire, England. Registered Pharmacist (UK). 11 years of study around MS.
Mark's CCSVI Report 7-Mar-11:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8359854/MS-experts-in-Britain-have-to-open-their-minds.html
User avatar
MarkW
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1151
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:00 pm
Location: Oxfordshire, England

Re: Scientific American magazine article on CCSVI

Postby erinc14 » Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:24 am

scorpion wrote:
concerned wrote:
frodo wrote:
ThisIsMA wrote:Read full article at the link above...


Well, they forget to tell that even unproven, it is the most proven treatment to date. All the others medicaments are based in incomplete models that have been proven wrong.

Why don't they complain about the unproven medicines that are besides dangerous for health? (they are known to reduce relapses not to stop nor slow the disease. The manufacturers admit not to have an explanation about how they work)


I think it's because absolutely no well designed studies of efficacy have been published whatsoever in terms of the "Liberation Treatment", whilst MS drugs undergo vigorous clinical testing.

How do you figure it's the most proven treatment to date?


Because people say so. No proof needed.



Image
User avatar
erinc14
Family Elder
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Montreal

Postby concerned » Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:04 am

Your emoticons are getting more and more anti-social.
concerned
 

Postby Leonard » Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:31 am

The article from the Medical Director of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society of Australia from 2006:
.... there are two peaks on the age of onset graph at 25-30 and 40-45. This is presumably due to a small number in the intermediate age group 35-40. Since this statistic has not previously been reported, it may simply reflect some non-random feature in the case selection process.

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive ... 01256.html

I have seen the observation that there are two peaks in the age of onset graph before; there must be more evidence because I have seen it! The explanation given here This is presumably due to a ... etc is utterly nonsense. There actually is a double peak.

Why? How is this double peak explained? Young people who get MS have serious stenoses and get MS onset already by 25-30 years of age. Others who have stenoses but less severe do have a low glucose condition of their brain but not enough to suffer from MS yet. At mid age (around 40) the insulin resistance develops in about 8% of the general population where those people who already had a fairly weak glucose condition (due to stenoses in the neck but no MS ref: findings Zivadinov etc.) will then detoriate quickly further until MS shows up.

The explanation is as simple as it is beautiful and it confirms the picture that MS is the result of a low-glucose condition of the brain. It also confirms the picture found by Zivadinon and others that stenoses are not confined to MS only. I believe there is no way around this. The double peak is not fake, it is not invented, it is real and explained by the ccsvi - glucose/insulin concept.

For further info: http://www.thisisms.com/ftopict-15323.html
User avatar
Leonard
Family Elder
 
Posts: 663
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Brussels, Capital of Europe

Postby erinc14 » Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:31 pm

concerned wrote:Your emoticons are getting more and more anti-social.


Image
User avatar
erinc14
Family Elder
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Montreal

Postby Leonard » Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:54 am

erinc14 wrote:
concerned wrote:Your emoticons are getting more and more anti-social.


Image


let the facts speak!
User avatar
Leonard
Family Elder
 
Posts: 663
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Brussels, Capital of Europe


Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Contact us | Terms of Service