This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

Bob,
What is the purpose of this response? Joan is on topic and this is a public forum. Using this logic, you should stay the hell out of the CCSVI thread, right? You know we have these discussions every once in a while. I never say anything when you logically stir the pot, but this post just seems totally personal; I thought you were above that and were simply a 'man of logic' in a quest for the truth. Joan is pointing out holes in your argument, just like you do to everyone else. Maybe you just don't like having arguments thrown back at you. I don't know, but you lose credibility when you make it personal.

_________________
http://myhopefuljourneyintoactualmsreco ... ogspot.com

.

Chris,

Is that all the Hopkins doctors had to say about the difference between the two approaches? Did they ever elaborate? I would have thought they might have some idea on why some of their peers think it's necessary to do both the high-dose chemo, followed by the stem cell transplant.

Lew and Chris--appreciate the chivalry, but I'm OK....I grew up with brothers.

I just thought it was important to give the history (through 3 published research papers co-authored by Freedman) of why Dr. Freedman is now selectively only treating those with aggressive MS- in the inflammatory stage. He is treating a very specific demographic, and there was nothing in the article stating why. And also because that's what this thread was about. The article was regarding Dr. Freedman's current study in Canada. Dignan linked to even more critical research--which stated the same facts.

Although I may be characterized as the Avon Lady for CCSVI around these parts....I am actually interested in the science behind stem cell treatments-for healing of neurological damage. But if that's only a boys' club, I can take my lipstick samples and go home-
cheer

_________________
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
dual stents placed 5/09
CCSVI in MS

You have no manners.

.

It's OK Cheer. I shouldn't have said anything. It's a fight you can''t win. Let him go on telling people he is winning. It fills the hole.

No they never did mention why they didn't do the stem cells except for the fact your bone marrow already has stem cells so it seemed redundant, but harmless to them. I was happy getting what I got so I didn't ask much more.

.

Good find. I would think that there would have to be longer term data somewhere. If I remember correctly two years ago there was a study that talked about patients who were four years post hicy. If my math is correct those patients would have had the trreatment six years ago.

.

From the article:


Did I miss something? Since when is it OK to use patients as guinea pigs in studies? I thought this is why they use animals in studies?

Yeah you missed something. Chemotherapy has been around for years and there has been TONS of stem cell studies using animals.

.

Yes you're right, I missed something and this is actually how it is supposed to work. Clinicaltrials.gov tells me that this trial most probably is a "treatment trial" which is a trial which "test new treatments, new combinations of drugs, or new approaches to surgery or radiation therapy."