Hi Doug, originally I didn't pay any attention to the title of that article but you're right and it seems they could have EASILY come up with something better or at least explained the reasoning for that title. I suppose it's important that we keep in mind that peer reviews written for other researchers who are less familiar with the current status of the theory of ccsvi than the people at thisisms. I don't find it hard to believe that of the Neurologists who have heard of ccsvi, most of them probably still associate ccsvi as the proposed cause of MS.
DougL wrote:quote "R.J. Fox has received consulting fees from Avanir, Biogen Idec, EMD
Serono, and Novartis, and research support, consultant and advisory committee fees from Biogen Idec were
paid to Cleveland Clinic; A. Rae-Grant has received speaking honoraria from Biogen IDEC, Novartis, and
i always hate to read this stuff in any research. makes we wonder what the motivation for the paper is
to play the other side of the coin, Dr S and all his friends recently promoted CCSVI at the conference that CeCe posted about. they too have a financial interest. of course all their papers would be positive.
To expand on what you mentioned, 2 of the 4 writers of the article had nothing to disclose and the other two had pretty innocuous ties to pharmas. On the other hand, EVERY Interventional Radiologist involved with ccsvi finds it in their best financial interest to convince us that ccsvi is a legitimate ailment and venous angioplasty and various testing methods, all of which they profit from, are the required standard of care. For me it seems the best chance at getting some honesty would come from the group in which 50% of the group doesn't stand to gain financially.
DougL wrote: i did not know there were clinics that required the person to have MS.
What raised media attention and then public interest in ccsvi was Zamboni's claim of absolute specificity between ccsvi and MS and with that in mind early on the question would have been why would you set an unbroken leg and in kind why would someone treat ccsvi in someone who didn't have MS/ccsvi?
Now that absolute ccsvi specificity to MS has succeeded in giving the theory of ccsvi believability in the minds of some, it evidently now is time to point out that ccsvi is also associated with a host of other (profitable) diseases and hopefully no one will be the wiser and realize that an association with a host of other diseases pretty much nixes the specific relationship between ccsvi and MS which was originally the only interesting thing about the theory of ccsvi.