Double Blind Shmind
Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:13 pm
Forgive this question. I just can't figure out what I'm missing here.
It seems to me that there are only two big things that need to be shown for CCSVI to hit the mainstream.
1) Is there a correlation between narrow veins and MS?
2) Does opening (and keeping open) the veins stop MS progression?
Lets assume Buffalo’s numbers are already out and we all agree on the first one.
For the second, I know there are studies being planned, and it seems it will take a year or 18 mos for everything to play out.
For instance, imagine a study where a group of 50 MS patients get a baseline MRI and have their veins opened, (I think the control group is irrelevant, but imagine 50 of them if you like) and then we watch the "liberated" for a year. 50 liberated people times 12 mos gives us 600 “liberated MS patient months” (minus the re-stenosers of course, who by definition are no longer showing the effect of open veins). One year later we do another MRI to confirm no progression for the liberated...that took a year.
Instead, why couldn't they take the black market MS crowd with their already open veins and start adding up “liberated MS patient months”? Jeff gets us 10, Marie 9, Lew, Sharon, Wonky, Rhonda… I realize you can’t hand-pick them, but you can get your 600 MS patient months right now, today (or Wed, after the Buffalo announcement). Add up Zamboni and Dake and Simka and Queen Noor, and count up the months up to 600. Compare progression in those 600 liberated months to 600 average MS months, as measured by an MRI. Why couldn’t someone add up the months of patients who have managed to get their veins open and check if there is any progression. I’m not talking improvement, relief of symptoms, etc., just flat-out progression or no progression on an MRI. There is no placebo effect or operator error involved when comparing a before and after MRI. There is either change, or there is not. Is there a reason that data can’t be gathered immediately? Is there a reason it would not be conclusive?
Once it is established that "open veins" equals "no progression," it becomes the top drug out there and the free market can take over the task of finding the best way to open veins, w/ production of vein-specific stents, dissolving stents, figuring out risk of stent vs. risk of repeat balloon, etc.,
It seems to me that there are only two big things that need to be shown for CCSVI to hit the mainstream.
1) Is there a correlation between narrow veins and MS?
2) Does opening (and keeping open) the veins stop MS progression?
Lets assume Buffalo’s numbers are already out and we all agree on the first one.
For the second, I know there are studies being planned, and it seems it will take a year or 18 mos for everything to play out.
For instance, imagine a study where a group of 50 MS patients get a baseline MRI and have their veins opened, (I think the control group is irrelevant, but imagine 50 of them if you like) and then we watch the "liberated" for a year. 50 liberated people times 12 mos gives us 600 “liberated MS patient months” (minus the re-stenosers of course, who by definition are no longer showing the effect of open veins). One year later we do another MRI to confirm no progression for the liberated...that took a year.
Instead, why couldn't they take the black market MS crowd with their already open veins and start adding up “liberated MS patient months”? Jeff gets us 10, Marie 9, Lew, Sharon, Wonky, Rhonda… I realize you can’t hand-pick them, but you can get your 600 MS patient months right now, today (or Wed, after the Buffalo announcement). Add up Zamboni and Dake and Simka and Queen Noor, and count up the months up to 600. Compare progression in those 600 liberated months to 600 average MS months, as measured by an MRI. Why couldn’t someone add up the months of patients who have managed to get their veins open and check if there is any progression. I’m not talking improvement, relief of symptoms, etc., just flat-out progression or no progression on an MRI. There is no placebo effect or operator error involved when comparing a before and after MRI. There is either change, or there is not. Is there a reason that data can’t be gathered immediately? Is there a reason it would not be conclusive?
Once it is established that "open veins" equals "no progression," it becomes the top drug out there and the free market can take over the task of finding the best way to open veins, w/ production of vein-specific stents, dissolving stents, figuring out risk of stent vs. risk of repeat balloon, etc.,