Response from Canadian MS Society Re: CCSVI

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

Response from Canadian MS Society Re: CCSVI

Postby ms07 » Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:30 am

I had expected better:

http://www.mssociety.ca/en/research/medmmo_20091021.htm

My take on this article is that it is factual and fair but it doesn't convey the kind of hope and promise I feel CCSVI deserves.
User avatar
ms07
Newbie
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 3:00 pm

Advertisement

Postby ozarkcanoer » Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:36 am

I read the Canadian MS Society's posting on CCSVI. It read almost word for word like the USA's NMSS posting. Just like it was copied and pasted !!! These societies want proof and are cautious. I think MS societies as far as scientific advances are concerned, are driven by their scientific committees. I hope the doctors on the scientific committees are educating themselves RIGHT NOW. Maybe WE need to contact these people ourselves. I think the scientific advisors are listed on MS societiies web pages.
User avatar
ozarkcanoer
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:00 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

Postby vendredi5h » Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:00 am

Don't forget we are fighting an annual 7 000 000 000$ MS meds industry. This is too big for the transition to CCSVI to be easy.

I'm pretty sure these pharma are making big enough financial contribution to MS Societies to make them very causious before throwing by the window the utility of their products.

It's only speculation and I don't really know the extent of the big pharma influence, but I'm pretty sure that 7B$ is enough to produce many negative reactions toward CCSVI. In my opinion, we always have to keep this in our head when we read anything regarding CCSVI, including from MS societies.

Yannick
User avatar
vendredi5h
Family Member
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:00 pm
Location: Quebec, Canada

Postby cheerleader » Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:11 am

In all honesty, we do not have enough published research at this point in time for MS societies....after Jacobs first part of their study is released next month there will be more press- and as more research (such as Dr. Dake and Dr. Haacke) is published, there will be pressure placed on the MS societies to fund studies of CCSVI, and on neurologists and vascular researchers to team up and look at this paradigm. Then we can hold some feet to the fire.

We forget, because of the immediacy of the internet, how little time has actually elapsed since Dr. Zamboni's first CCSVI paper was published less than a year ago.
More to come!
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 mrhodes40 » Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:06 am

My take on this article is that it is factual and fair but it doesn't convey the kind of hope and promise I feel CCSVI deserves.


I agree.
I'm not offering medical advice, I am just a patient too! Talk to your doctor about what is best for you...
http://www.thisisms.com/ftopic-7318-0.html This is my regimen thread
http://www.ccsvibook.com Read my book published by McFarland Health topics
User avatar
mrhodes40
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2066
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: USA

Postby px125 » Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:51 am

cheerleader wrote:In all honesty, we do not have enough published research at this point in time for MS societies....after Jacobs first part of their study is released next month there will be more press- and as more research (such as Dr. Dake and Dr. Haacke) is published, there will be pressure placed on the MS societies to fund studies of CCSVI, and on neurologists and vascular researchers to team up and look at this paradigm. Then we can hold some feet to the fire.

We forget, because of the immediacy of the internet, how little time has actually elapsed since Dr. Zamboni's first CCSVI paper was published less than a year ago.
More to come!
cheer


Hi all, I'm reading everything about it, since the birth of the CCSVI post.
I belive we need to be realistic but at the same time we need to keep on "sensibilize".
In my opinion:

1. No neuros or other physician, on the basis of our knowledge should pre-eventively, take part against the CCSVI hypothesis: the autoimmunity is HOW the disease express, not WHY. At times, no idea about WHY has been proven.

2. At the same time we need to remember that, being so many differences between different type of MS, we should expect that the CCSVI will have successes and falls. I mean that telling experiences about the effect of stents or balloning is only ONE experience, and only time will tell which group of patients will improve better and which not.

Kisses to all, I'm with you.

3.
User avatar
px125
Newbie
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:00 pm
Location: Italy

Postby mose » Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:51 pm

That was a very fair and perfectly understandable response. Shows level-headedness and good judgment.
User avatar
mose
Family Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:00 pm

Postby MrSuccess » Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:52 pm

Yes , the Canadian MS Society certainly does reflect the American MS Society's CCSVI opinion. In my view .... a very positive opinion.

As pointed out by Cheeleader , this is new territory for everyone , including MS Society's. One would expect them to act cautiously.

Every MS Society has a huge responsibility to carefully investigate each new research idea , before providing funding.

Each MS Society has limited funds to grant researchers.

The volunteer commitee members must be cautious when they award funding to MS investigators . For example :

Let's say the MS Society has $M- 100 to grant researchers . No doubt there are more MS research ideas than MS funding. It is the MS commitee members task to fund the best research.

I expect competition for funding to be hotly contested.

As the vast amount of MS Society's funds are grassroots procured ....I expect that same grassroots movement will want a strong voice in how that funding will be spent. And on what.

It seems to me that contacting -with respect and kindness -the research commitee members and asking them if CCSVI can be considered for MS research funds , may be the way forward.

But let's not put the cart before the horse . As of October of this year , the MS Societies have not been approached by CCSVI researchers for funding of this great idea . :idea:

And apart from Dr. Zamboni's , there is not enough research material and results complied to entice the MS Society's of North America. Not yet.

But it is on the way .............





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

Postby Loobie » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:50 am

I think, beyond a shadow of a doubt, if this actually does make marked improvements in the QOL of progressive patients, there will be no way they can ignore it. Right now there is nothing. Progressive patients make up how much of the current MS demographic? I don't know but I know it's more than 20%, AND we all supposedly, or most anyway, flip over into progressive at some point anyway. I just don't think anything that would actually show results for progressives could be ignored without looking like a conspiracy, so I think they'll go hog wild over it if it does end up showing that it can provide not only progression halting but improvement. The problem, once again, is that it won't show up in an MRI and thus won't be easy to measure clinically.
User avatar
Loobie
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2196
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:00 pm
Location: Dayton, Ohio USA

Postby dignan » Sun Nov 22, 2009 12:03 pm

I'm putting this link (below) in the Canadian MS Society thread because although it's related to the W5 CCSVI documentary, it's also related to the Canadian MS Society and the vibe in the W5 thread is so positive I didn't want to ruin it.

"The National" is the flagship news program of Canada's public broadcaster, the CBC. Last night, to counter the W5 documentary, they had an interview with Paul O'Conner, the Canadian MS Society's scientific advisor, and the likely author of the MS Society's press release on CCSVI a few weeks back. On the bright side, it was considered a big enough story by the CBC that it was the second story on the broadcast, so maybe the old saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity" will be true in this case.

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows ... 1338559641
User avatar
dignan
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1608
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 3:00 pm

Postby ozarkcanoer » Sun Nov 22, 2009 12:15 pm

dignan... Thanks for the news clip with Dr O'Conner. It is a bit disheartening to watch, but I think that so many patients are convinced by Dr Zamboni's evidence that the Canadian and USA MS societies will have to take notice. I have already emailed my local NMSS chapter and told them that I would NOT sponsor a walk this year unless they pay some more serious attention to CCSVI. This is a boycott of the walk.

I DO intend to donate to either Stanford or Buffalo or Dr Haacke's study.
User avatar
ozarkcanoer
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:00 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

Postby mrhodes40 » Sun Nov 22, 2009 12:24 pm

Thanks Dignan!

I was not surprised by his response. I was pleased that he expressed at least some semblance of excitement about this new work, that is what I would EXPECT from the MS society and had been lacking.

I did note that to me he seemed more excited by the fact that we have more drugs than ever in the pipeline now....
I'm not offering medical advice, I am just a patient too! Talk to your doctor about what is best for you...
http://www.thisisms.com/ftopic-7318-0.html This is my regimen thread
http://www.ccsvibook.com Read my book published by McFarland Health topics
User avatar
mrhodes40
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2066
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: USA

Postby dignan » Sun Nov 22, 2009 1:03 pm

Marie, I'm with you, he was more positive than I thought he'd be -- he actually admitted that it could be exciting.
User avatar
dignan
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1608
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 3:00 pm

Postby whyRwehere » Sun Nov 22, 2009 1:03 pm

Oh, puleeez. He is saying, we know nothing ourselves, but just keep waiting...there could be a risk in testing from the dye (yah, what about the gadolinium for MRIs...that doesn't seem to bother them). And where is the proof going to come from if people don't act?
User avatar
whyRwehere
Family Elder
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:00 pm

Postby Needled » Sun Nov 22, 2009 1:04 pm

I had a bit of an :roll: reaction when he mentioned the possible side effects of the dyes when being tested. Terrific point -- we've been injecting ourselves on a daily/weekly/monthly basis for years with approved drugs and no one is sure exactly how or why they work, not to mention Ty's PML, and he's worried about the contrast dye in MRVs?
I didn't hear him talk about funding any of the studies that are needed. I'm sure hoping that's something they, and all the other MS societies, line up for.
User avatar
Needled
Family Elder
 
Posts: 361
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Connecticut

Next

Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: NormB


Contact us | Terms of Service