Ottawa Will Fund Clinical Trials: Media

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

Postby Blaze » Wed Jun 29, 2011 6:38 pm

Jugular wrote:
Dare we dream?


Yes!!!!!
User avatar
Blaze
Family Elder
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:00 pm

Advertisement

Postby Blaze » Wed Jun 29, 2011 7:42 pm

Well, we knew it wouldn't be long before we heard from the naysayers. Dr. Jock Murray was on The National on CBC, claiming this was all a result of political pressure and that this is setting a precedent for the future of medicine.

Dr. Murray also said he thinks it is unlikely an acceptable clinical trial can be designed. Has helbothered to talk to Dr. McDonald? Probably not.
User avatar
Blaze
Family Elder
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:00 pm

Postby MrSuccess » Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:45 pm

Dr. Jock is old school. MRI was invented in 1989. The Internet really not in effect ... yet.

All these advancements ..... are troubling for the Old Schooler's.

They long for the day ..... when they held all the knowledge contained in those musky old textbooks they decorated their offices with.

This was meant to intimidate .


Those day's are ......... OVER.


Lead ........ Follow ......... or .........get the Hell out of the way .





Mr.Success
User avatar
MrSuccess
Family Elder
 
Posts: 890
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:00 pm

Postby MrSuccess » Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:23 pm

Mr.Success never doubted for one minute ..... the Buffalo researchers ..... and always supported them ....in the face of heavy incoming fire ........

Can we expect a retraction ?

Dr.s Zivadov & Bianca-Guttman Weinstock ........ where would all this have gone without their contributions to CCSVI .

Their greatest achievement ......... getting the CCSVI concept ....... published in the Neuro's medical journal.

Well done ........ fine doctors. :!:



Mr.Success
User avatar
MrSuccess
Family Elder
 
Posts: 890
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:00 pm

Postby Blaze » Thu Jun 30, 2011 10:23 am

I just started another thread about Saskatchewan trials not proceeding at this time (http://www.thisisms.com/ftopict-17079.html

This is based on an article in today's Saskatoon Star Phoenix. That article also says Phase 1 of the national trials announced yesterday will be to test the safety of the procedure on healthy (angioplasty) on healthy people to determine if it is safe. How does that make sense?!? Oh, wait, this is the government--It doesn't.

How many healthy people will be willing to have unnecessary angioplasty? And what about all those horrific risks that have been thrown in our faces for the past 18 months?!?

Can any docs out there comment on whether this is acceptable or ethical?

Here's that part of the article:

However, what the federal government is proposing is a smaller-scale, two-phase trial than what was proposed by Saskatchewan. Phase 1 will involve a small number of healthy people to test the safety of the procedure while Phase 2 will involve between 20 and 300 patients to look at the effectiveness of the treatment on a limited number of people.
User avatar
Blaze
Family Elder
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:00 pm

Postby euphoniaa » Thu Jun 30, 2011 10:42 am

Blaze wrote:Can any docs out there comment on whether this is acceptable or ethical?

Here's that part of the article:

However, what the federal government is proposing is a smaller-scale, two-phase trial than what was proposed by Saskatchewan. Phase 1 will involve a small number of healthy people to test the safety of the procedure while Phase 2 will involve between 20 and 300 patients to look at the effectiveness of the treatment on a limited number of people.


Outside the ethical considerations of using "healthy" people when "sick" people are happy to volunteer.... how in the hell would they decide what venous area to do the "procedure" on when using volunteers with healthy veins? :) The doctors who are performing it now try to find a likely stenosis or venous abnormality first, don't they?
Dx'd with MS & HNPP (hereditary peripheral neuropathy) 7/03 but must have had MS for 30 yrs before that. I've never taken meds for MS except 1 yr experiment on LDN. (I found diet, exercise, sleep, humor, music help me the most.)
User avatar
euphoniaa
Family Elder
 
Posts: 691
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:00 pm
Location: midwest U.S.

Postby Cece » Thu Jun 30, 2011 10:55 am

I would not volunteer for that if I were healthy. There is a risk of damaging healthy valves or causing intimal hyperplasia or clotting. It seems really odd to be starting with proof of concept of venoplasty.
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 9022
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby PCakes » Thu Jun 30, 2011 11:04 am

There must be a precedent set for this type of treatment trial? Will they really 'treat' healthy volunteers? Seems medieval. How did they test cardiac angio? or percutaneous aortic valve placement?
I'm with Cece on this one.. 8O
User avatar
PCakes
Family Elder
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Blaze » Thu Jun 30, 2011 11:28 am

PCakes wrote:There must be a precedent set for this type of treatment trial? Will they really 'treat' healthy volunteers? Seems medieval. How did they test cardiac angio? or percutaneous aortic valve placement?
I'm with Cece on this one.. 8O


Beyond medieval! I doubt anyone did a traceheotomy on a healthy person before they did the first one on a battlefield in around 3600 BC (according to Egyptian artifacts).

I don't think anyone ever cut off a boob of a healthy woman to determine if it was safe to do a mastectomy on a woman with cancer. I don't think Dr. Christian Barnard ever did a heart transplant on a healthy patient before he did the world's first one on an unhealthy person.

So, why would anyone think they should do venous angioplasty on a healthy person?!? Haven't we already learned it is safe from numerous studies around the globe?

This is insanity. Who came up with this idea?!? Oh, wait, let me guess...
User avatar
Blaze
Family Elder
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:00 pm

Postby Cece » Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:29 pm

www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/ar ... -ms-trials
“It was not an easy decision,” said Dr. Alain Beaudet, president of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, who chaired the meeting in Toronto and said that after a majority of members supported the decision, everyone voted for it.

“We always want the scientific evidence to be stronger. The question is, when will it be strong enough to get going with this thing? There are people that will tell us it’s too early. Others will tell us that it’s too late. We’re really trying here to do our best and balance science and patients, but it remains a human endeavour.”

Dr. Aaron Field, an associate professor of neuro-radiology at the University of Wisconsin, said a “key factor” in the decision was a meta-analysis of the research published so far, including a recent study by a Zamboni ally at the University of Buffalo that made headlines by suggesting CCSVI was a result, not a cause, of MS. The analysis took into account factors such as the number of subjects in research studies, and whether they used proper blinds and control groups.

“Even when you took a very conservative approach to that meta-analysis, it still came out looking like there was an association there (between CCSVI and MS),”
said Field, who, like Beaudet and Rubin, stressed there is still not enough evidence to suggest cause and effect.
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 9022
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby Blaze » Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:36 am

CCSVI Coalition has issued this news release about the announcement:

Research yes, still no right to treatment

CCSVI Coalition applauds announcement of clinical trials

TORONTO, June 29, 2011 /CNW/ - Today the Government of Canada on the unanimous advice of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) approved funding for clinical trials of CCSVI related to Multiple Sclerosis. This is a reversal of the negative position taken last fall by CIHR and the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. Today's statement made no mention of participation by the MS Society in this positive decision and there is no indication that the MS Society has changed its negative view of CCSVI.

Today's announcement marks the first time that the Government of Canada has acknowledged the relationship of CCSVI to MS.

People familiar with this issue are encouraged to contact the Minster of Health, congratulate her on this decision and urge her to make a priority of having treatment for CCSVI available in Canada immediately. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/contact/ahc-asc/minist-eng.php As well as long-term research, treatment is what Canadians with MS, their families and friends have been asking for the right to receive treatment in their own country for a disease that slowly and unrelentingly destroys health of its victims.

The CCSVI Coalition (www.ccsvicoalition.org) will continue to fund CCSVI research in Canada and to advocate for immediate access to treatment of CCSVI.



User avatar
Blaze
Family Elder
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:00 pm

Postby munchkin » Sat Jul 02, 2011 7:16 am

How I hope this is true, but I am still a little cynical. In Manitoba, they said we would receive follow-up care. But even though I only have 30% flow in the one functioning jugular I can't see an IR without a referral from the MS clinic.

Canada still has a long way to go.
User avatar
munchkin
Family Elder
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:00 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Blaze » Sat Jul 02, 2011 7:20 am

Here's an editorial from Globe and Mail about the announcement.


Aglukkaq Is Right To Authorize Zamboni Trials

Canada has at last decided to be a full participant, not a bystander, in testing a potentially revolutionary treatment for multiple sclerosis devised by the Italian doctor Paolo Zamboni. It will set up clinical trials of the treatment, which until this week had been dismissed by many experts. Full participation in clinical trials is the right thing – the ethical thing – to do in a country with 75,000 people who suffer from the disease. Canada needs to see this treatment through, till the truth is uncovered.

Much has been said, of late, of a University of Buffalo study that casts doubt on Dr. Zamboni’s theory that vein blockages contribute to the disease and can be eased by surgery. But the authors of that study went on to say: “It behooves the clinical research community to carefully pursue [the theory] to its end. We should neither jump on the bandwagon as it passes through town, nor assiduously miss the parade.”

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research – this country’s main medical research funding body – has been true to its word. When it rejected clinical trials for the vein-unblocking treatment last year, it said that an expert panel would watch preliminary studies carefully. Now the expert panel has jumped in and said that early evidence of vein abnormalities is enough reason for proceeding to clinical trials.

And Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq has been true to her word, too. She said the government would support clinical trials if the CIHR gave its support.

There was always an irony in Canada’s rejection of clinical trials. The CIHR’s creation of an expert panel on the treatment was itself a recognition that Dr. Zamboni’s ideas were novel and powerful. Yet the panel rejected trials as premature and went so far as to say that they might not even win approval from ethics boards in hospitals because of the treatment’s risks. That seemed a narrow view of ethics, given the suffering of many people with the disease, which is marked by weakness, loss of muscle co-ordination and vision problems.

The CIHR says the evidence from new research isn’t clear on whether vein blockages are a cause of MS or a consequence. But there does appear to be a link between the blockages and MS, says CIHR president Alain Beaudet. That is enough to launch the first two phases of four-phase clinical trials. And so it is game on. This is not bandwagon-jumping. It is an attempt to test a new idea about an old disease, and it is in keeping with the best traditions of scientific inquiry.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opi ... ukkaq-is...



User avatar
Blaze
Family Elder
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:00 pm

Postby munchkin » Sat Jul 02, 2011 7:28 am

Sorry, I wasn't implying the information was wrong. I was trying to state that I hope the country acts honestly on the trials to ensure that they are done properly and without negative CCSVI bias.

Objective, fair, and appropriate trials is what I hope is true. And then the rest of the medical community can start to act like Dr's again in regards to the health issues of pwMS.
User avatar
munchkin
Family Elder
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:00 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Blaze » Sat Jul 02, 2011 7:41 am

munchkin wrote:Sorry, I wasn't implying the information was wrong. I was trying to state that I hope the country acts honestly on the trials to ensure that they are done properly and without negative CCSVI bias.

Objective, fair, and appropriate trials is what I hope is true. And then the rest of the medical community can start to act like Dr's again in regards to the health issues of pwMS.


I didn't think you were implying the information was wrong. I think most of us share your skepticism--with very just cause.

The requirement for healthy people to be treated first before people with MS to ensure safety reinforces our fears about how objective, fair and serioous these trials will be.
User avatar
Blaze
Family Elder
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:00 pm

PreviousNext

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