enough with the US vs THEM already!

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

enough with the US vs THEM already!

Postby codefellow » Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:32 am

Ashton Embry blasted Zidavinov et al in CCSVI Locator this week, which seems to be par for the course when a study comes out where we CCSVI supporters do not like the results or conclusions. Oddly, I seem to remember Cheerleader a while a back identifying Zidavinov as "one of the good ones," as though most neurologistS are bad.

I am one who does NOT believe neurologists are in a giant deliberate conspiracy to keep MS patients sick. ( I DO believe Big Pharma will lie to neurologists to keep them in line and keep selling drugs, but that is a topic for another time.)

I do believe neurologists are going to take a LOT of convincing to think outside the box. Staying inside the box is the very definition of SPECIALTY.

But when a clogged pipe floods your attic and shorts out your wiring, you are going to need BOTH a plumber AND and an electrician to set things right again.

An ideal investigative panel would include say, five neurologists and five vascular specialists to both design and conduct the study and/or trial. They would have to all agree on the parameters and methodology in advance. (On the neurology panel, you could even include Freedman, so long as it also included Hubbard.)

IMO, such a panel is essential to finally reach indisputable conclusions regarding Zamboni's hypothesis.

Unfortunately, such a panel is unlikely as long as an US vs THEM mentality permeates our media and our discussions. We need to put that aside RIGHT NOW.

Neurologists are NOT the enemy. They are just really stubborn friends.
User avatar
codefellow
Family Elder
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:00 pm

Advertisement

Postby 1eye » Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:43 am

I don't think you can generalize from Mr. Embry's paper to neurologists. Personally I get nauseated when people used the term CCSVI as if it were a good thing and to be advocated by those good and true, and not an illness, a disease, or a medical condition. I don't think I will be on Parliament Hill with a baton cheering for CCSVI. I consider it the enemy. For that reason I find it tricky to read papers like Mr. Embry's, when he obviously doesn't like people being "anti-CCSVI".

Of course he means that he thinks that Dr. Zivadinov et. al. are biased; I accept that, and that my own grammatical foibles are my own. I don't extend any of what he said to be a personal or value judgement on Dr. Zivadinov. He has a job to do, and finding out the truth is a big part of that job. I do not take anything Dr. Embry has said as a moral condemnation of any people. We are all trying to find out the truth.

What I took from Dr. Embry was something that seems to be increasingly true: regardless of rigorous analysis, conclusions reached come predominantly from the tone and tenor of what is written, and in this case the clear bias of the writer, because the channel they are distributed through is incapable of seeing through any smokescreens that are used. The Marshall MacLuhan effect writ large.
"Try - Just A Little Bit Harder" - Janis Joplin
CCSVI procedure Albany Aug 2010
'MS' is over - if you want it
Patients sans/without patience
User avatar
1eye
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2929
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada

Postby msrelly » Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:55 am

Hi Codefellow,

An ideal investigative panel would include say, five neurologists and five vascular specialists to both design and conduct the study and/or trial.


the research being undertaken at the University of BC and University of Sask is multi-disciplinary:

"At UBC, UBC Hospital and the University of Saskatchewan City Hospital, a team of interventional radiologists, neurologists and physicists formed with the goal to further investigate these findings"

Also, Macleans magazine has a good article about the reaction to BNAC's research paper - essentially, you read into it what you want to read into it. i.e.Your bias dictates your conclusions.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/18/the-rorshach-test-of-ms-research/#more-185541


I think we are still "early days" in knowing definitively what CCSVI is, how to diagnose it and if/how to treat it. Every research paper will ask and answer one tiny research question. No single research paper will either prove or disprove the CCSVI theory--it will take many studies which is why it is important to continue on with multiple studies into this phenonmenon.
User avatar
msrelly
Getting to Know You...
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby ikulo » Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:59 am

Codefellow - would you mind posting or linking Embry's comments about the Buffalo study? I can't seem to find it on Locator.

By the way, it has been clear for a long time that Dr. Embry left his post as a "concerned scientist" and is now just a full-fledged CCSVI advocate. He has a very narrow minded and myopic vision of treating and caring for MS patients.

I agree with you that the US v. THEM conflict muffles the cries for more research.
User avatar
ikulo
Family Elder
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:00 pm
Location: colorado

Comments from Ashton Embry - Geologist from Canada

Postby MarkW » Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:48 pm

As no one else has posted this missive, here it is. As a CCSVI Syndrome advocate I did not find this helpful.............MarkW

Buffaloed: The anti-CCSVI Bias of the University of Buffalo Researchers and their Unsupported InterPosted by Ashton Embry on April 19, 2011 at 5:08pm

Introduction

Last week researchers from the University of Buffalo published the results of their 2009 research on the prevalence of CCSVI in various groups of people including 289 persons with MS, 21 persons who had experienced a clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) (often a precursor to MS), 163 healthy controls and 26 subjects who were suffering from other neurological diseases. The paper was made available online on the website of the medical journal Neurology (http://www.neurology.org/content/early/ ... e318212a... ) and the University also issued a press release (http://www.buffalo.edu/news/12469) summarizing the main points in the paper. These same results were made public 14 months ago in February, 2010.

In this essay I will demonstrate that in reporting and interpreting these results, the researchers have displayed a clear and strong anti-CCSVI bias. I find this very disturbing because in the past the researchers have portrayed themselves as a neutral group wanting to only determine the “truth”. Because of this neutrality claim, the charity I am associated with (Direct-MS) has provided funding for CCSVI research at the University of Buffalo over the last 16 months. We would not have done so if we had known the researchers had a such a significant anti-CCSVI bias because such a bias cannot help but negatively affect their research effort and their publications as well as the public’s perception of CCSVI.

Direct-MS is interested in funding only scientists who produce reliable results and who objectively interpret such results. Whether such results support or disprove CCSVI is not a concern. We want the real story not a desired one.

It is now painfully clear that the University of Buffalo CCSVI researchers are not capable of producing objective interpretations regarding CCSVI and MS and thus are not interested in the real story. The data they have produced are considered to be reliable but their interpretations of these data are so biased and unsupported that they are inconsequential and have to be ignored.

Anti-CCSVI Bias in Data Reporting

The first obvious anti-CCSVI bias in the paper relates to how the percentage of persons having CCSVI was calculated for each group. For a diagnosis of CCSVI, two of five, blood flow parameters must be detected by Doppler technology. Unfortunately the Doppler technician had a problem with determining parameter 2 in a number of patients and, in 30 of these patients, one other parameter was positive. This created a problem of how to classify such patients (called borderlines) who tested positive for one of four parameters and may well have gotten a diagnosis of CCSVI if the last parameter could have been evaluated.

An anti-CCSVI bias would assign all borderlines to the negative CCSVI category despite the fact that the chance of all 30 borderline subjects being negative for parameter 2 is very remote. An unbiased approach would be either to exclude such borderline subjects from the statistics or to assume half of the borderlines were positive for parameter 2, and thus had CCSVI, and half were not.

The authors offer CCSVI percentages based on both a fair approach (borderlines excluded from the calculations) and an anti-CCSVI bias approach (assumed all borderlines were CCSVI negative). However, in their reporting of CCSVI prevalence throughout their Discussion section, they used only the anti-CCSVI biased numbers. This allowed them to unfairly downgrade CCSVI association percentages. For example, with an unbiased approach, 62% of those with MS have CCSVI whereas with the anti-CCSVI approach only 56% have CCSVI.

Overall, this is a minor point because the key ratio of persons with MS and CCSVI versus healthy controls with CCSVI is essentially unaffected and remains at ~2.5. However, by frequently quoting the biased and unrealistic, lower percentage for CCSVI prevalence in MS, the authors make it seem CCSVI is not as common in MS as it really is. This statistical trick provides the first indication that we are not dealing with objective researchers.

Anti-CCSVI Bias in Discussion of the Results

The largest and most blatant anti-CCSVI biases in the paper are found in the Discussion section. First of all, the authors completely downplay their key finding that CCSVI is far more common in MS patients (62%) than in the general population (26%). The one mention of this major result is at the start of the section where they say “Our findings are consistent with increased prevalence of CCSVI in MS” and then they downplay it even more by adding a “but” statement - “but substantially lower than the originally reported sensitivity/specificity rates in MS”. Given that the main question the research was designed to solve was whether or not CCSVI was significantly more prevalent in those with MS than the general population, such a lack of discussion and trumpeting of a very important, positive finding demonstrates the significant anti-CCSVI bias of the authors..

In the next paragraph of the Discussion, the authors report the percentages of CCSVI in the various groups using the biased percentages (“only 56.1%”) and then claim “These findings point against CCSVI as having a primary causative role in MS”. Such a claim is completely unsupportable. The fact that CCSVI has a much higher association in MS says it may have a causative role but not necessarily. However, association data for other categories cannot possibly be used to argue against (or for) causation.

For a factor to be considered a probable cause, one needs higher association (which the Buffalo data clearly and indisputably demonstrate), the presence of the factor before disease onset (no data presented in paper) and plausible biological mechanisms which link the factor to the disease process (no data presented in paper). The association data for the other groups have absolutely no bearing on whether CCSVI is a causal factor or not for MS. The fact that the authors try to spin the data and claim it argues against causation indicates an incredible anti-CCSVI bias on their part as well as a lack of understanding of how a causal relationship between MS and a given factor can be reasonably determined

In the third paragraph, the authors claim that their association data argue against the published claim that lesions which cause CCSVI are congenital truncular venous malformations. This is false logic given the only way one can determine the origin of the lesions is to image the lesions with selective venography and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). The association data have absolutely nothing to say about the nature of the lesions which are causing CCSVI in the various groups. Notably, selective venography and IVUS have clearly shown that many lesions causing CCSVI are indeed congenital malformations and the authors are well aware of this fact.

Given the above, the authors have exhibited both fervent anti-CCSVI bias and a tendency to ignore established data which do not fit their anti-CCSVI views. I assume the authors included their baseless attack on the existence of congenital lesions in CCSVI because, the established existence of such lesions which are formed before the MS disease process begins, in combination with the high association of CCSVI with MS (confirmed by the authors), and the well accepted, plausible biological mechanisms which link CCSVI to the MS disease process, leave little doubt that CCSVI is indeed a causal factor in many people with MS. It is not hard to understand why anyone with an anti-CCSVI bias wants to try to discredit a key aspect (e.g. lesions are congenital) of the well supported interpretation that CCSVI is very likely a causal factor for MS in many cases.

In paragraph four of the Discussion, the authors try to claim, on the basis of their data, that CCSVI is “a consequence of rather than cause of MS”. They do this on the basis of the data which show CCSVI prevalence becomes higher in more progressive forms. On the basis of these data alone one could say either MS causes CCSVI or that the presence of CCSVI causes more severe MS. The clear anti-CCSVI bias of the authors is unmistakable given the fact they only mentioned the first possibility (argues against CCSVI) and not the second one (argues for CCSVI). Researchers with even a semblance of objectivity would have mentioned both obvious possibilities and perhaps indicated what observations might decide the question of which explanation is more likely.

Notably, available research on the nature of the some lesions involved in CCSVI demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that CCSVI is not caused by MS. Such lesions include webs, septa, inverted valves, malformed valves and external pressure from a bone or artery. It is impossible that such lesion types are caused by the MS disease process and thus any claim that the MS disease process is causing CCSVI has absolutely no support or validity. The fact that the authors completely ignore this obvious fact, which they are well aware of, is of great concern and leaves no doubt as to their complete lack of objectivity.

Press Release

The title and content of the press release which accompanied the publication of the paper were incredibly biased. This is an even more serious problem than the pervasive anti-CCSVI biases in the scientific paper because most public reporting of the research relies solely on the information in the press release.

The title of the press release is “Higher CCSVI Prevalence Confirmed in MS, but Meaning of Findings Remains Unclear”. An unbiased and honest title would have been “Higher CCSVI Prevalence Confirmed in MS”. The solid and indisputable confirmation of significantly increased prevalence of CCSVI in persons with MS is scientifically a big story.

The best they could say about the significantly increased prevalence of CCSVI in persons with MS is “While this may suggest an association between the MS and CCSVI”. Such a complete downplaying of their most important and uncontestable finding, and one which helps to establish CCSVI as a causal factor in MS, again indicates that the authors have a strong anti-CCSVI bias. An objective researcher would have said the results solidly confirm that CCSVI is associated with MS beyond a reasonable doubt and emphasized that this was by far the most important result of their research.

The authors also made sure they included in the press release the completely unsupported statements that “that chronic cerebral venous insufficiency may be the result of multiple sclerosis, not a cause” and that “These findings indicate that CCSVI does not have a primary role in causing MS". It was these inflammatory and entirely false, anti-CCSVI statements that made headlines in papers and on TV news channels in North America and Europe, thus completing a smear job on the concept that CCSVI may well play a key role in MS.

Discussion

There can be little doubt that the CCSVI researchers at the University of Buffalo have a significant, anti-CCSVI bias and want to discredit the concept. The entire neurological community shares the same anti-CCSVI bias. The simplest explanation for such a bias is the fact that if CCSVI treatment replaces drug therapy for MS, the neurologists stand to lose huge sums of money. Notably, the neurologists involved in the University of Buffalo research reported very extensive financial ties to pharmaceutical companies in the disclosure portion of the published article. Thus it is quite understandable that neurologists, including those at the University of Buffalo, are doing what they can to discredit the concept of CCSVI. Very few people would not fight against a concept that has the potential to greatly decrease their earning power.

So why would the University of Buffalo workers undertake such research in the first place. The most obvious and simplest answer to this question is that they were sure that the CCSVI concept had no merit and they wanted to be the researchers which proved there was no association of CCSVI with MS. There is nothing wrong with this motive and science progresses on the desire to falsify concepts. I would have liked to have been there when they realized their research effort clearly showed there was an undeniable association between MS and CCSVI. They must have been very surprised and dismayed that they did not achieve their goal of dispatching CCSVI to the garbage heap.

Notably, after the Buffalo researchers announced the positive results of their research in February, 2010, other research teams lead by neurologists immediately started to do research to prove CCSVI was not associated with MS. The University of Buffalo researchers had failed to get the job done so it was now up to others to save the neurological community from the potential devastation CCSVI might cause. Because of the urgency to discredit CCSVI as a factor in MS, these new studies were quick and dirty and a number of them were published in less than 6 months after the research was started, an unprecedented turnaround. This fact alone suggests a lack of scientific integrity of these studies which predictably found no association of CCSVI and MS. Few people outside of the neurological community have taken these studies seriously.

The University of Buffalo researchers had spent over a year and a great deal of money on their MS/CCSVI association study so they had to publish it. This put them in the dilemma of how to publish a study which was positive in terms of CCSVI and MS when their main goal was to falsify CCSVI. We now know how they solved that problem. In their formal publication and in the all-important press release which accompanied it, they greatly downplayed their main finding that CCSVI was indeed associated with MS. On top of this, they concocted completely unsupportable claims that their data suggested that CCSVI has no causal role in MS and CCSVI is likely an effect rather than a cause of MS.

The bottom line is that their data clearly show that CCSVI is indeed highly associated with MS and their data in no way indicate either that CCSVI is not a cause of MS or that it is an effect of MS. This is the real message their research has delivered.

Reconciling the Buffalo findings with CCSVI testing and treatment findings

About 20,000 persons with MS have been tested for the presence of venous blockages with selective venography and about 90% of them have been found to have significant blockages which required angioplasty to restore normal flow. Furthermore, MRV flow studies (very different from the MRV structural studies done at the University of Buffalo) of thousands of MS patients also indicate that about 90% have abnormal venous flow. Thus any question that CCSVI is not highly associated with MS has been put to rest.

An obvious question becomes why did the Buffalo researchers find only 62% of persons with MS have CCSVI whereas selective venography and MRV studies are finding venous blockages and flow problems in about 90% of persons with MS. I think the answer to this lies in the Buffalo data that are in the published paper. It was found that about 90% of persons with MS who were tested for all five parameters had at least one abnormal blood flow parameter. I suspect a single abnormal parameter as measured by Doppler may well indicate a significant blockage and associated flow problems which are imaged by MRV and selective venography.
The Future

It is now well established by large, well controlled association studies such as that of the University of Buffalo and by thousands of selective venographies and MRVs that CCSVI is highly associated with MS. We don’t need any more small, poorly done, association studies using non-invasive techniques administered by inexperienced technicians and supervised by anti-CCSVI neurologists. However, we will continue to see such studies as the neurologists continue to try to discredit CCSVI. I suspect that the seven association studies currently being funded by the MS societies and supervised by neurologists will be negative in regards to CCSVI. There are 10 billion reasons why this will happen.

Of course, the research that needs urgently to be done is an objective and comprehensive clinical trial which tests the effectiveness of venous angioplasty for MS. The thousands of reliable and well documented (video) reports of significant symptom improvement following venous angioplasty suggest such a trial will yield a positive result. Thus such a trial presents a huge threat to future cash flows of neurologists so I expect it will be quite a fight to get one funded and completed in a rigorous and objective manner. One can imagine the monumental efforts that will be made by some anti-CCSVI factions to try to ensure that any CCSVI clinical trial that gets off the ground will have a negative result.

=====================
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 codefellow » Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:41 pm

1eye wrote:I do not take anything Dr. Embry has said as a moral condemnation of any people. We are all trying to find out the truth.


The simplest explanation for such a bias is the fact that if CCSVI treatment replaces drug therapy for MS, the neurologists stand to lose huge sums of money. Notably, the neurologists involved in the University of Buffalo research reported very extensive financial ties to pharmaceutical companies in the disclosure portion of the published article. Thus it is quite understandable that neurologists, including those at the University of Buffalo, are doing what they can to discredit the concept of CCSVI. Very few people would not fight against a concept that has the potential to greatly decrease their earning power.
User avatar
codefellow
Family Elder
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:00 pm

Postby 1eye » Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:02 pm

Right, well, ok, say I did miss that bit in the quick skim I gave this piece. Do you disagree with it? It seems to pretty clearly draw a line in the sand that says: on this side, drug companies will give you unrestricted grants for your pursuit of truth, and on the other, you might have to do some fund raising. I think I have been aware of Buffalo raising some of their own. They were also charging subjects to be tested, at one point.

The pursuit of truth costs money. I'm sure it is a lot to expect, to ask companies who would lose profits if CCSVI research were successful to pay for it too, but who else is there? Dr. Zivadinov has so far played both sides quite successfully, and is still in business.

Over on Facebook they are campaigning against Galenya, which I'm sure Novartis has a lot of bucks invested in, and there is undocumented rumour of mass death from it, which has me confused.

I'm just asking, do you agree that the 'very extensive financial ties' to pharmaceutical companies, referred to, taints the research?

Frankly I don't know what to believe, but I think it might lead to a somewhat different slant if those ties were not there.
"Try - Just A Little Bit Harder" - Janis Joplin
CCSVI procedure Albany Aug 2010
'MS' is over - if you want it
Patients sans/without patience
User avatar
1eye
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2929
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada

Postby ikulo » Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:22 pm

1eye wrote:Over on Facebook they are campaigning against Galenya, which I'm sure Novartis has a lot of bucks invested in, and there is undocumented rumour of mass death from it, which has me confused.



mass death? whaaaat?
User avatar
ikulo
Family Elder
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:00 pm
Location: colorado

Postby Cece » Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:09 pm

Dr. Zivadinov's response to Ashton Embry:

4/20/11 letter to Ashton Embry, PhD from Bianca Weinstock-Guttman, MD and Robert Zivadinov, MD, PhD, FAAN
.by Bnac Ccsvi Study on Wednesday, April 20, 2011 at 6:16pm.
April 20, 2011

Dear Ashton,

Your interest in our multiple sclerosis (MS) research over the past years and the collegial relationship we have developed has been much appreciated by us both. It was our pleasure to visit you in Calgary last year and speak to the people there about our research.

We regret that you and your Board are disappointed that the findings or interpretations of our published research in the April, 2011 issue of Neurology did not produce the results you had hoped for. We have both read your detailed critique on Facebook of our peer-reviewed paper and recognize that you have issued very serious charges about the integrity of our research and the conclusions we have drawn. We believe, however, that the best forum in which to conduct this very important debate would be a Letter to the Editor to the Neurology journal, a step we encourage you to take. In this way, your concerns will go formally on record to others in the broader medical community, who can then evaluate your criticism and respond. We will have an opportunity to respond as well, also on record. This is the way science advances.

We hope you will accept the invitation to use this recognized way of refuting our findings. We also feel this method of criticism will be the most effective way to achieve our common goal of advancing the understanding of venous constriction and how that may be related to MS.

This CCSVI paper we published is one of many we are working on. When taken individually, each paper may have conclusions that could seem to contradict findings of the others. Some have shown a positive correlation and others did not. We are all still at the beginning of understanding CCSVI, so it is premature to issue any definitive pronouncements one way or the other. The essential message we want to communicate is this: So far, we are finding a higher prevalence of CCSVI in patients with MS but not to a degree that would indicate that CCSVI causes MS, the hypothesis we are testing. However, based on this particular CCSVI study and others we have done and others not yet published, we are learning that regardless of whether or not CCSVI causes MS (as this study suggests it does not), CCSVI is a factor for a significant number of MS patients. That makes this particular study and continued research very important to understanding how to help MS patients and others who have CCSVI.

Whatever the final outcomes are of this debate and our research, please recognize the truly monumental ways The Direct-MS Foundation has contributed to the understanding of MS and possibly to other diseases and the understanding of aging. We regret you declined the request for Robert to come to Calgary to discuss this with you in person. Although you have broadcast your accusations on Facebook and they are circulating around the Internet, we wanted to respond to you with an invitation to come visit us in Buffalo instead. We hope you will accept.

With best regards,

Bianca Weinstock-Guttman, MD
Robert Zivadinov, MD, PhD, FAAN
.
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 9022
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby 1eye » Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:38 pm

ikulo wrote:
1eye wrote:Over on Facebook they are campaigning against Galenya, which I'm sure Novartis has a lot of bucks invested in, and there is undocumented rumour of mass death from it, which has me confused.



mass death? whaaaat?


yeah, weird, but maybe some information flow-control and expectation management is not always a bad thing... "When the going gets weird..."
"Try - Just A Little Bit Harder" - Janis Joplin
CCSVI procedure Albany Aug 2010
'MS' is over - if you want it
Patients sans/without patience
User avatar
1eye
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2929
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada

Postby Lyon » Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:02 pm

..
Last edited by Lyon on Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby patientx » Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:11 pm

I am surprised that Dr. Zivandinov and/or Dr. Weinstock Guttman even bothered to read this latest claptrap from Ashton Embry. This is one geologist who has rocks in his head.

What I find really sad is, here are two well-respected MS researchers, who have to cowtow to the fringe element due to funding. Their having to respond to aspersions cast upon their statistician is another example.

I have much respect for the doctors in Buffalo. I hope they don't continue to feel the need to respond to these idiotic insults.
User avatar
patientx
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:00 pm

Postby cheerleader » Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:26 pm

patientx wrote:I am surprised that Dr. Zivandinov and/or Dr. Weinstock Guttman even bothered to read this latest claptrap from Ashton Embry. This is one geologist who has rocks in his head.

What I find really sad is, here are two well-respected MS researchers, who have to cowtow to the fringe element due to funding. Their having to respond to aspersions cast upon their statistician is another example.

I have much respect for the doctors in Buffalo. I hope they don't continue to feel the need to respond to these idiotic insults.


Dr. Embry has done more for pwMS than any anonymous and obnoxious poster on this web site. How dare you insult his intelligence? He has funded vitamin D research which has changed the paradigm on supplementation and our understanding of vitamin D deficiencies in MS. He's suggested nutritional and supplement protocols that have helped thousands of people acheive symptom relief. He gave tens of thousands of dollars to BNAC and is incensed by the press and public statements made during the neurology conference in Hawaii. It was obviously politically motivated. BNAC did not discuss their most recent research, showing CCSVI in 10 pw RRMS, all young, all had venous malformations. Why was this not discussed in the press? Politics... BNAC owes every pwMS and their caregivers an explanation.

And yes, I believe their statistician is not independent. And I'll continue to assert the problem of having a pharmaceutical employee compile data.
link to MOST RECENT BNAC paper
cheer
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
http://ccsviinms.blogspot.com
User avatar
cheerleader
Family Elder
 
Posts: 5042
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: southern California

Postby CureIous » Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:35 pm

Interesting that ANY Dr. would include, "as you wrote on Facebook" etc. etc. in any correspondence. Interesting times indeed.

I doubt any measured response from Ashton Embry would get published in a Neurology journal, but ya never know. Perhaps he should seek that avenue of redress?

So this thread wasn't really about "us vs. them" it was about Ashton vs. Buffalo and the resultant drama?

I think *some* patients yes, are a bit fed up with the dismissive hand waving from their personal neurologists on auto-reflex, and from what we saw at Stanford, they have no problem playing hard ball, don't forget that either. It goes both ways.

Myself, I take it/them on a case by case basis, but for the most part, all that personally concerns me is my personal Neuro and he's been amenable to accepting and digesting the information thus far presented in my case, and that's all I can ask of him. The thought from the start was "he has a LOT of MS patients", and " I want first dibs on getting him up close and personal to CCSVI, whether it pans out or not". Mission accomplished. I'll update on what happens at the next visit, I will be very interested in picking his brain, try to find out what the "inside scoop" is as far as the neurological community goes....
RRMS Dx'd 2007, first episode 2004. Bilateral stent placement, 3 on left, 1 stent on right, at Stanford August 2009. Watch my operation video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwc6QlLVtko, Virtually symptom free since, no relap
User avatar
CureIous
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1210
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:00 pm
Location: Riverside, CA

does EAE cause ccsvi in healthy mice?

Postby 1eye » Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:39 pm

cheerleader wrote:Dr. Embry has done more for pwMS than any anonymous and obnoxious poster on this web site. How dare you insult his intelligence?
cheer


Go, cheerleader!!!

My friend Dave said he used to work in the field with him and he rocks there too, so to say.
"Try - Just A Little Bit Harder" - Janis Joplin
CCSVI procedure Albany Aug 2010
'MS' is over - if you want it
Patients sans/without patience
User avatar
1eye
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2929
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada

Next

Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Contact us | Terms of Service