This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

Found this blog post this morning - don't recall reading about this guy before, though tit might be of interest ...



from http://sofija.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/ ... ackground/

In 1965 Torben Fog, directly investigating the multiple sclerosis-specific cerebral lesions’ relationship to the course of their veins, found the distinctive plaques to consistently develop in a peculiar dependence upon definite vein segments.

Interesting reading, Zap. I seem to remember something that Zamboni said about finding the iron concentrations were greater along the veins; or something to that effect. So now 47 years later our imaging is so much better, maybe now we can get to the bottom of this!

Lora

Good one

Dr Zamboni mentioned Fog in his W5 interview and references him.

The thing that is so distressing about it is how LONG ago this information was available. If we revere our medical professionals for being scientists then information like this should not disappear due to medical fashion into the back water of medical thought, particularly when the current paradigm has crossed a line wherein the drugs offered are: 1 not stopping the disease when they should if the model is correct....and 2 toxic enough to kill some of us or cause permanent damage (like heart damage from Nov.)

Another thing that I find disturbing is that some people act like this is a wacky theory from far afield when the evidence that perhaps a venous issue was at the root has been there since day 1 (Charcot).

At any rate the notion that this is "just one paper" ignores that entire body of background work that should prepare the mind to find this new work compelling and perhaps even very substantive IN SPITE of that fact that taken on its own, it is early work. And I do not mean to suggest that someone should consider it proven before that work is done but that people who dismiss it completely are willfully ignorant of these wider facts and that is not an "expert" evaluation but bias.

I will point out that the studies on the big stem cell transplants (chemo radiation) are extremely small, I do not think there has been one with over 30 people, and 30 is a minimum number for any kind of validity what so ever.

Yet I believe most neurologists would respectfully entertain the notion of someone being interested in ASCT --IF they were sick enough and out of options. The reason is that their knowledge and acceptance of the body of work supporting the AI model makes that the "logical" next step, so it is seen as a reasonable approach with a plausible route to success, rather than the totally unproven approach that it really is.

SO ignorance of the work that sets the background for CCSVI means it looks strange and alone and really from left field.........when in reality the numbers of patients treated to dopplers are very large, and the model itself has its own background work that makes it in fact plausible rather than completely unsupported except by Zamboni's own paper as it has been represented by people who like the status quo.

_________________
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

Torben Fog (1912-1987) M.D., Chief Neurologist Kommunehospitalet Copenhagen in Denmark. In 1980 a Jubilee Fund was set up with his name, he had then been chief neurologist for 25 years at the hospital.
The hospital is closed today as far as I know.

http://http06.bon.basefarm.net/nyheder/ ... /index.xml

Google can translate to English for those who don’t read Danish

I take my hat off to him

/John