Hi George, you have claimed that 100% of people who have had success with HSCT have had their MS stopped and no one has since regressed. Can you tell me how you found these numbers, or how you found this out? Are you 100% sure? Also, are those who have Burts version similarly cured? Or have any of them regressed years after having the protocol. It sounds so amazing that it feels like it can't be true! Surely there must be some people to whom HSCT has cured them, but after a while it has come back?
I watched a youtube video of a seminar on MS in Australia where the lady speaking compared HSCT to Campath and said that the two procedures show little difference with outcomes...
This is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtBLhgLG ... ure=relmfu
Also, Does Campath stop progression as well? It seems to me that Campath and Burts Myleoblative procedure are quite similar when you get down to what's happening in your body, is this the case?
Great questions VQ. Some of my comments in reverse order. . . . .
Campath (Alemtuzemaub) is a good drug and has shown good treatment efficacy (far better than the CRAB drugs) and I'm happy to see it come to market. Campath does appear to stop the progression of MS in many (but not all) patients for at least a limited time that it has been studied (about 6 years now). But as a single-agent therapy it's absolutely nowhere near as effective as HSCT which is a multi-agent therapy.
Thanks for the link to the video of Dr. Suzanne Hodgkinson. I watched the entire segment and found her talk regarding drug treatments for MS interesting. She only very briefly mentioned stem cell transplantation near the end (which she referred to in the older vernacular as bone marrow transplantation) and I heard her make the following two comments regarding the subject:
"[HSCT] has not been tested near as carefully as Campath."
- and -
"It's not clear that it [HSCT] offers any particular advantages [over Campath]."
I feel very comfortable in clearly and strongly stating that these remarks are absolutely wrong and flat out false. At first I thought that Dr. Hodgkinson said this out of ignorance which she could be forgiven for. But now that I have checked her background I learned that she may have a major conflict of interest because of her (and her medical doctor husband's) money interest in drug patents and big pharma funding. I really have to question if she has conflicting motivation while lecturing about the subject. (HSCT cannot be patented and cannot be controled by a single entity.) It certainly doesnt help that both she and her husband have been embroiled for years in allegations of possible fraud and confirmed unethical behavior. . . . http://www.smh.com.au/national/academic ... -87n9.html
HSCT as a treatment for MS has been studied to a far greater extent than Campath. For early RRMS patients Campath has demonstrated a halting of disease progression in 78% of treated patients. Compare that with 100% of halting in the same population of HSCT treated patients, the data is pretty clear. But don't take my word for it. I'll let a better-credentialed doctor explain in the first 45 seconds of this video why HSCT is superior to Campath. . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msYTOSo4 ... re=channel
Regarding the stopping of MS disease progression following HSCT. . . . I have not seen a 'single' source that makes this statement. Such a claim can only be made due to the absence of any reports that an MS patient has gone on to progress following halting of disease activity via HSCT. I have looked very hard to find such a report, and have found none. So the claim comes from the absence of a report and I continue to keep my eyes open for any reports of anyone that had their MS progress following a halt in their MS via HSCT treatment. I welcome anyone to bring forward such data if it exists but have yet to see anything in this respect. So the evidence that the (halting of disease activity) statement is true by the absence of data to suggest the opposite is occuring. Sorry, that's the way science works.
Regarding the comparison of the curative success rates of the myeloablative vs. non-myeloablative protocols, so far (at 8 or 9 years post-transplantation), both protocols have demonstrated substantially similar curative efficacy (statistically the same). The data for the non-myeloablative protocol only goes out this far (having been first performed in 2002). The myeloablative protocol has been performed specifically for MS since the mid-1990's, so there's well over a decade of experience with this. And a related note. . . since the updated HSCT treatment protocols have been implemented starting with the phase II trials (and now continuing into the phase III trials) there have not been any treatment-related deaths. Not a single one.