Multiple Sclerosis Experts Question Vein Disorder Theory

If it's on your mind and it has to do with multiple sclerosis in any way, post it here.

Multiple Sclerosis Experts Question Vein Disorder Theory

Postby scorpion » Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:33 am

User avatar
scorpion
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:00 pm

Advertisement

Postby Johnnymac » Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:17 am

This seems to just be a re-wording and regurgitation of recent news. Notice it never mentions a Dr specifically other than the communications person for the UK MS Society.
Research Communications Officer at the MS Society, Dr Susan Kohlhaas, said: "Several medical advisers to the MS Society have read through the papers published by Dr Zamboni, and have heard him lecture on the subject.

"They are not convinced by the evidence that blockages to draining veins from the brain are specific to people with MS, or that this explains the cause of MS at any stage of the condition."


The 'expert' they are referring to is most likely Dr. Alistair Compston who has been a vocal opponent to venous theories in MS. If they are going to say in an article "MS Experts blah blah blah"....then grow some balls and quote the doctors in question. This is just poor journalism at best and PR for the CCSVI critics at worst.
User avatar
Johnnymac
Family Elder
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby sou » Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:28 am

Hi.

I would believe him if he willingly blocked his jugulars and waited a couple of decades to see what happens. If he found that inconvenient, I would be equally satisfied if he blocked the jugulars of his kids.

Only then he would have a *slight* chance to convince me with his (non) arguments.

sou
Shortest joke: "We may not be able to cure MS but we can manage its symptoms."
User avatar
sou
Family Elder
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:00 pm
Location: Greece

Postby scorpion » Fri Dec 18, 2009 8:52 am

I know, I know, posting anything suggesting that there are people and researchers questioning the validity of Zamboni's research is simply fodder for the "CCSVI critics". I hope we continue to hear the success stories, new research, etc. that comes out about CCSVI but it is just as important to hear people's doubts and questions. Wow, I am not sure posting the names of the researchers not not named in this article would be safe. I would not want them to be burned at the stake along with Dr. Compston. :x
User avatar
scorpion
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:00 pm

Postby Lyon » Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:13 am

How's the swimming in these waters Scorp??

Image
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby Johnnymac » Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:19 am

scorpion wrote: it is just as important to hear people's doubts and questions.


I agree, but the problem I have with it is they are not really posting their doubts and questions, just saying they are skeptical or that they don't believe the theory holds water or however they want to word it. The plea I have for them is WHY do you think that? Give us a scientific argument as to why you're skeptical, otherwise just say "More testing needs to be done to verify these findings".....I completely understand skepticism and value that as a trait in science, but there needs to be an underlying platform for that skepticism to rest on that is built on scientific evidence.

Call Zamboni's research what they will, but until I hear a real reason as to why they are skeptical I have no other evidence to base my judgement on.
User avatar
Johnnymac
Family Elder
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby Lyon » Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:17 pm

Johnnymac wrote: I agree, but the problem I have with it is they are not really posting their doubts and questions, just saying they are skeptical or that they don't believe the theory holds water or however they want to word it.
But an unfortunate factor of the research world is that the burden of proof rests on the new guys to provide.....and, to a large degree, I do seriously mean "unfortunate".

I'm convinced that we're stuck in the 1950's regarding the state of MS research because the introduction of the peer review process caused us to be stuck with the bullshit incumbent ideas of that time which can only be overturned by elusive "conclusive", or at least "convincing" evidence. Despite that, it seems a lot of what we suspect now obviously makes more sense, even if not conclusively provable.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby whyRwehere » Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:21 pm

I am an MS expert and I am dismissive of their dismissal of Dr Zamboni's theory. Take that!
User avatar
whyRwehere
Family Elder
 
Posts: 908
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:00 pm

Postby sou » Sat Dec 19, 2009 9:15 am

How many people has this "doctor" cured in his glorious career? It would take something more than a tie and a serious looking (vomit causing) face with glasses to convince me.

Come on! Block the jugulars of your newborn! Blood has other pathways to return to the heart! Nothing will happen to the child! This guy is so smart that has understood completely 4 billion years of evolution and his opinion IS the gospel of neurology.

sou(r)
Shortest joke: "We may not be able to cure MS but we can manage its symptoms."
User avatar
sou
Family Elder
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:00 pm
Location: Greece

Postby HarryZ » Sun Dec 20, 2009 6:42 am

Folks,

Let's relax a bit here!

Zamboni has taken 100 MS patients and discovered that all of them have a degree of jugular blockage. By clearing this blockage he has seen a large improvement in the MS symptoms these patients have suffered with for years. He has published a theory as to how this relates to MS.

This theory flys in the face and severely questions the long held and unproven autoimmune theory. This has shaken the established MS world of medicine. Obviously more research is required and I have read that some universities (like UBC in Vancouver) are going ahead with research on this new concept. This in itself is good news.

And don't forget that Dr. Hinton Jonez, in the late 40's and early 50's treated thousands and thousands of MS patients with IV histamine and saw that about 80% of these patients enjoyed MS symptom relief. Histamine improves the circulation to a large degree. Is there a correlation here?

Zamboni's early results show promise. Let's hope it leads to better treatment for MS patients everywhere. Until then, the skeptics and doubters will be coming out of the woodwork. Focusing on further research sure seems more important and productive than name calling.

Harry
User avatar
HarryZ
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2440
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: London, ON, Canada

Postby sou » Sun Dec 20, 2009 11:38 am

Harry, you are right.

I apologize to everybody, but the Semmelweis reflex of some scientists makes me very angry.

sou
Shortest joke: "We may not be able to cure MS but we can manage its symptoms."
User avatar
sou
Family Elder
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:00 pm
Location: Greece

Postby Summer55 » Sun Dec 20, 2009 12:55 pm

There will be a number of studies underway within Canada in the next six months. Proposal for research funding from the MS Society must be submitted by January. Approval of funding in June, and allocation of funding in July.

Many questions regarding CCSVI will be answered within the next year. At least whether or not there's a corrolation between CCSVI and MS.

So, before I jump up and down claiming that a cure has been found - or before I start criticizing Zamboni's theory and start trash-talking people who support it and want to further investigate it, I think I'm going to wait to see what the results of these studies show.

I think that in the very least, this new research path provides a lot of hope to a lot of people out there. And hope, in any form, is a positive thing.

My fingers are crossed that both me and my Dad will one day walk away from this mess called MS.
User avatar
Summer55
Getting to Know You...
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Calgary, Canada

Postby HarryZ » Sun Dec 20, 2009 3:40 pm

I apologize to everybody, but the Semmelweis reflex of some scientists makes me very angry.

sou


Sou,

I have been around for more years than I would like to admit and the "Semmelweis reflex" has irked me more times than you can imagine so I can understand why you feel this way. There are some MS docs who just can't seem to accept the fact that perhaps their theory might be very wrong and they have to look in other directions. They are usually very dismissive of other ideas and can be condescending to others who have a different view.

Harry
User avatar
HarryZ
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2440
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: London, ON, Canada

Postby Johnnymac » Mon Dec 21, 2009 12:02 pm

You know, the really ironic thing here is:

Where is the proof that this is an Autoimmune disease? Kinda ironic that the established scientific platform that MS has rested on for so long is pure theory and speculation based on symptomatic evidence the existence of white matter lesions alone, with no actual trigger identified.

YET, the medical professionals that are publicly skeptical of the CCSVI theory will proudly rest their affiliation with the currently accepted (yet unproven) theory of autoimmune?

As sad as that is, its kinda funny when you really stand back and look at it.
User avatar
Johnnymac
Family Elder
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby scorpion » Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:51 pm

And the CCSVI theory is based on one mans small study and some subjective data.
User avatar
scorpion
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:00 pm

Next

Return to General Discussion

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users