'Scientific quackery': UBC study (regarding CCSVI)

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

'Scientific quackery': UBC study (regarding CCSVI)

Postby ElliotB » Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:06 pm

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/multiple- ... -1.4014494



$5.5M federal-provincial research report tested vein-widening 'liberation therapy'

A new study at the University of British Columbia has produced a "definitive debunking" of a controversial procedure that surgically widens neck veins as a treatment for multiple sclerosis.


'Anybody who knew anything about MS knew the idea was nonsense from get-go.'
- Dr. Michael Rasminsky, McGill University (neurologist)

My thoughts... ANY procedure or protocol that helps some but not all probably does not work I know many will find fault with this study. as they have with the numerous other studies that have come to the same conclusion. Again, IMHO ANY procedure or protocol that helps some but not all probably does not workk.

Too bad!
ElliotB
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:08 pm

Advertisement

Re: 'Scientific quackery': UBC study (regarding CCSVI)

Postby Cece » Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:10 pm

When you get cancer, you get told the chances of the chemo working. My friend was told 50-50 odds. He went with the chemo and he was one of the ones for whom it worked. The chemo worked on some (50%) and not on others (50%).
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 9280
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Re: 'Scientific quackery': UBC study (regarding CCSVI)

Postby centenarian100 » Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:23 pm

I agree with Cece here. Most proven effective treatments do not work for everyone. Not everyone with acute appendicitis survives after antibiotics and surgery. Only 96% of children survive acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

The expectation for 100% efficacy is unrealistic.
centenarian100
Family Elder
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:51 am

Re: 'Scientific quackery': UBC study (regarding CCSVI)

Postby ElliotB » Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:53 pm

"Most proven effective treatments do not work for everyone"

Sorry, this translates {to me} that they are proven not to necessarily work. Because if they truly worked, wouldn't the treatment work for everyone?
ElliotB
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:08 pm

Re: 'Scientific quackery': UBC study (regarding CCSVI)

Postby centenarian100 » Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:33 pm

ElliotB wrote:"Most proven effective treatments do not work for everyone"

Sorry, this translates {to me} that they are proven not to necessarily work. Because if they truly worked, wouldn't the treatment work for everyone?


I think it is silly to say that a treatment "truly works" only if it is 100% effective for everyone. As I said, very few treatments are so effective. Would you refuse to take antibiotics for pneumonia just because antibiotics don't work for everyone, and some people get worse and die? What is important is that taking the antibiotic yields a greater chance of cure than not taking the antibiotic.

The problem with liberation therapy is not that it does not work for everyone. It is that in a randomized blinded trial, the treatment did not produce better outcomes than the sham treatment.
centenarian100
Family Elder
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:51 am

Re: 'Scientific quackery': UBC study (regarding CCSVI)

Postby ElliotB » Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:45 pm

"think it is silly to say that a treatment "truly works" only if it is 100% effective for everyone."

That is a valid point, but ultimately there needs to be some kind of way of determining effectiveness. And perhaps "mostly everyone" would have been a better way of stating what I meant. If around 100% is 'silly', in your opinion, what percentage would not be considered silly?
ElliotB
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:08 pm

Re: 'Scientific quackery': UBC study (regarding CCSVI)

Postby vesta » Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:19 am

Greetings:

Ample evidence points to MS (and other neurological disorders) being a disorder of the fluid (blood, cerebrospinal fluid) circulation through the CNS. This current study shows that they don't understand the phenomena. It's easy to debunk a theory when it has been misdefined.

"So consider the factors. Is blood flow from the brain impeded by a venous obstruction? Or does a dysregulated autonomic nervous system cause the smooth muscles of the vein to go into spasm, thus sending refluxed blood into the CNS? Will simple body tension cause the veins to seize up and impede blood flow, tension caused by emotional stress, the flu, toxins, poor food? Has stress re-activated a dormant EBV Herpes virus lodged in the autonomic nervous system causing the veins to seize up in spasm? Is there a bone pressing on the otherwise healthy vein? Does cerebro-spinal fluid flow obstruction damage the axons, the spinal cord? Where is the principle obstruction to the free flow of central nervous system fluids? How should it be treated?"

Quote taken from my site MS CureEnigmas.net

Best regards, Vesta

At this time, Chiropractors familiar with spinal structural conditions are probably best equipped to study, diagnose and even treat skeletal obstructions of blood and cerebro-spinal fluid flow through the central nervous system. Dr Michael Flanagan “upright
vesta
Family Elder
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:10 am
Location: Paris, France

Re: 'Scientific quackery': UBC study (regarding CCSVI)

Postby MrSuccess » Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:25 pm

MrSuccess highly doubts that the word "quackery" was uttered by the people behind this study.

In fact .... MrSuccess is delighted to discover that such a study was undertaken.

In other words ........ MISSION ACCOMPLISHED ! :!:

Now let's go back in time. From the beginning. The MS world was all excited about a small 65 pwMS
study conducted by Professor Zamboni. This study examined the possible link between narrowed or
blocked neck veins , from the brain to the heart.

Dr.Zamboni and his team carefully examined these 65 people. NO STENTS WERE PLACED

Dr. Zamboni and his team noticed many of his patients veins narrowed again. So he tried a second
time. Changes were noted. But no cures , as was published in other places. :evil:

Dr. Zamboni reasoned that there MIGHT be a connection between CCSVI and MS.

Dr. Zamboni published his findings , and asked his peers to try to replicate the findings of his CCSVI study. With some precautions . Such as ..... NO STENTS . Stent migration was a serious risk.
Dr.Zamboni also stressed all future CCSVI studies be done in a Clinical setting only.NOT for PROFIT.

All of Dr.Zamboni's cautions were ignored. Terrible things happened. The science was ground to a halt.

Worst of all ..... were the outlandish claims of this being a miracle ms cure. NOT by Zamboni , but
by other well meaning but naive people. Again , the science of CCSVI suffered and slowed.

Now .... to the utter delight of MrSuccess ..... Dr.Zamboni's peers have indeed meet his challenge
and entertained the CCSVI curiosity and conducted a CLINICAL study . No costs to pwMS. No dangerous stents placed. And published their findings . ALL AS Dr.Zamboni wished for , years ago.

Again I say : MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

It would be of extreme interest to MrSuccess to see both the UBC study and Dr.Zamboni's compared side-by-side. They may be exact in nature. Maybe not.

Either way ...... and regardless of published outcomes ...... this is a good thing for CCSVI.

There is not a chance in hell ...... given the time and money spent by the UBC study , that it was considered a "quackery" investigation. These people know in their hearts .... that this thing called CCSVI ...... might be of substance.

Once again ......... MrSuccess stands by Dr.Zamboni , and his great discovery of CCSVI.

MrSuccess
User avatar
MrSuccess
Family Elder
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:00 pm

Re: 'Scientific quackery': UBC study (regarding CCSVI)

Postby centenarian100 » Fri Mar 10, 2017 6:35 pm

ElliotB wrote:That is a valid point, but ultimately there needs to be some kind of way of determining effectiveness. And perhaps "mostly everyone" would have been a better way of stating what I meant. If around 100% is 'silly', in your opinion, what percentage would not be considered silly?


It depends on the size of the benefit. Lets say that the treatment only worked in 20% of patients with multiple sclerosis but was dramatically effective in those patients (compared to placebo) and was safe, this could be considered an effective treatment.

If liberation therapy cured MS in 20% of patients and the sham therapy cured MS in 0% of patients, it would be a valuable therapy.
centenarian100
Family Elder
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:51 am

Re: 'Scientific quackery': UBC study (regarding CCSVI)

Postby MrSuccess » Sun Mar 12, 2017 12:17 am

and some more thoughts on this " Scientific Quackery "............

it seems rather odd to MrSuccess that such large amounts of money would be needed to debunk
a medical theory. Hmmm ..... who has that kind of cash laying around ? I think I know. :idea: :evil:

Spend 5 million ...... to gain hundreds of millions :idea: Just follow the money..... back to WHO is
going to benefit.

Regardless .......... these people have done exactly as Dr. Zamboni asked . Trial Clinic. No costs to
the participants . Published results. Check.Check.Check.

MrSuccess assumes SOME of the participants were PERFECTLY healthy. To make the double blind test
results valid.

MrSuccess
User avatar
MrSuccess
Family Elder
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:00 pm

Re: 'Scientific quackery': UBC study (regarding CCSVI)

Postby centenarian100 » Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:28 pm

MrSuccess: Zamboni has his own conflicts of interest. There is no doubt that his reputation and significant amounts of future money are tied to the outcome of this trial. No one is 100% unbiased.

-C
centenarian100
Family Elder
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:51 am

Re: 'Scientific quackery': UBC study (regarding CCSVI)

Postby MrSuccess » Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:41 pm

hi C100 ........ I think it to be a worthwhile experience to re-read Dr.Zamboni's ORIGINAL published
study results of 65 pwMS.

Dr.Zamboni CLEARLY and with great professional courtesy , asked his peers/colleagues to try and replicate his findings of CCSVI. This kindness and courtesy has not been reciprocal. :sad:

Dr.Zamboni wisely stated , that his work needs to be repeated in a CLINICAL setting. At NO COST to
any people participating in such Trials. And most importantly .... Dr.Zamboni cautioned AGAINST placing
any stent in neck veins , as migration of the stent into the heart .... could be dangerous.

And yet ....... sadly ..... all of this was ignored.

And most important of all .......... was Dr.Zamboni's opinion that the treatment of CCSVI in pwMS
was NOT a cure for MS or any other neuro issues and problems.

Everyone seems to conveniently forget his conclusions. No cure. Just asking if blocked veins in the
neck ..... in any way or shape ..... could be the culprit in the root cause of MS.

Seems to me to be the polar opposite of Quackery.

I sense C100 .... that you are a firm believer in the solution to MS lies in pill form. I also want all and
any possible solutions looked at into this mysterious medical condition we call MS.

Can you think of any other medical condition out there ..... that features NO TESTS of any kind that
PROVE one way or the other ...... that you have a serious medical condition ?

No Tests . No Proof. No Solutions.

The discovery of CCSVI is just an IDEA .... that just might be the start of solving the MS riddle.

As such ....... I stand behind Dr.Zamboni and people here , that bring us any information that helps us better understand MS.

MrSuccess
User avatar
MrSuccess
Family Elder
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:00 pm

Re: 'Scientific quackery': UBC study (regarding CCSVI)

Postby centenarian100 » Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:54 pm

Mr. Success: I did not intend to imply that Dr. Zamboni is a bad guy or that CCSVI is some kind of nefarious plot. The problem with having a conflict of interest is that it leads to unintentional subconscious biases. The "financial advisor" selling you a variable annuity or whole life insurance genuinely believes that these are good products.
centenarian100
Family Elder
 
Posts: 499
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:51 am

Re: 'Scientific quackery': UBC study (regarding CCSVI)

Postby vesta » Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:24 am

centenarian100 wrote:MrSuccess: Zamboni has his own conflicts of interest. There is no doubt that his reputation and significant amounts of future money are tied to the outcome of this trial. No one is 100% unbiased.

-C

https://isnvd.org/

Centenarian100 suggests that Dr. Zamboni has a vested interest in promoting his idea with the additional hope of financial gain. I will point out that Dr. Zamboni is a European University Doctor. Practitioners in European medicine aren’t awash in money like in the United States. Values differ. Doctors in his milieu find financial motives in medical science to be unprofessional and vulgar.

In my opinion the recent Canadian study reflects an unconscious bias to set up a protocol designed to fail. Would you really want to be a research subject on whom a substandard procedure is performed?

Regards, Vesta
vesta
Family Elder
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:10 am
Location: Paris, France

Re: 'Scientific quackery': UBC study (regarding CCSVI)

Postby ElliotB » Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:13 pm

"In my opinion the recent Canadian study reflects an unconscious bias to set up a protocol designed to fail."

You may be right, but the bottom line is that there have been numerous other studies that came to the same conclusion and more than enough feedback on this site from those who have had the procedure done that also is quite inconclusive (which basically give support of the study's conclusion) - like every kind of treatment, there are those that have had positive results and others who have not.
ElliotB
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 5:08 pm

Next

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