In-Depth Analysis of the “Summary Report - CIHR Summary
Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:45 am
An In-Depth Analysis of the “Summary Report - CIHR
and MS Society of Canada Joint Invitational Meeting on
Multiple Sclerosis Research
The full In Depth Analysis is at
Executive Summary
A detailed analysis of the recently released CIHR/MSSOC Report on CCSVI and
Multiple Sclerosis (Beaudet Report) has found that the report contains many
scientific errors and unsupported opinions. The serious scientific failings which
permeate the Beaudet Report are painstakingly documented in over nine pages
of text in the In-Depth Analysis.
An even larger and more serious problem with the Beaudet Report are the overt
and most disconcerting ethical breeches. These ethical breeches include:
1. The committee organizers used an incredibly biased committee member
selection process such that that no scientists or practitioners with
expertise, knowledge and/or experience with CCSVI and MS were allowed
on the Beaudet Committee
2. The majority of the Committee members (13/23) have an obvious conflict
of interest when it comes to evaluating the need for a clinical trial to test
the efficacy of a non-drug therapy for MS such as CCSVI treatment. Such
a conflict of interest takes the form of close ties, often financial, with the
pharmaceutical companies that manufacture and market the drugs that
are currently used for MS. Such ties are meticulously documented in the
Appendix of the In-Depth Analysis.
3. The conflicts of interest were not declared or even alluded to in the
Beaudet Report
4. The committee members with a conflict of interest did not recuse
themselves when it became obvious that CCSVI and the question of a
CCSVI treatment clinical trial were going to dominate the discussions by
the Committee. In fact, the compromised individuals strongly influenced
the final recommendations of the committee.
The highly flawed science, in combination with the serious ethical breeches of
the Beaudet Report, completely invalidates its recommendations. Given the
above the Federal Health Ministry needs to:
1. Convene a new expert committee to examine and make recommendations
on the need for a clinical trial to test the efficacy of CCSVI treatment for
MS. The committee should be populated by both scientists and
practitioners with expertise and experience with CCSVI and MS and
scientists with experience in related topics such as venous angioplasty in
other conditions, the neurovascular system, neuro-imaging and MS
disease pathogenesis. Every effort should be made to exclude individuals
with a clear conflict of interest related to past and/or present relationships
with the pharmaceutical industry.
2. Launch an investigation into the ethical breeches of the Beaudet Report
and determine how such a scientifically inappropriate and ethically
challenged committee came into existence in the first place.
3. Review the appropriateness of having Alain Beaudet lead the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research. Canadians need to have confidence in their
health leaders and Beaudet’s credibility has been destroyed by the
scientific failings and the ethical breeches of the committee he formed and
the report he wrote on a most important health issue.
and MS Society of Canada Joint Invitational Meeting on
Multiple Sclerosis Research
The full In Depth Analysis is at
Executive Summary
A detailed analysis of the recently released CIHR/MSSOC Report on CCSVI and
Multiple Sclerosis (Beaudet Report) has found that the report contains many
scientific errors and unsupported opinions. The serious scientific failings which
permeate the Beaudet Report are painstakingly documented in over nine pages
of text in the In-Depth Analysis.
An even larger and more serious problem with the Beaudet Report are the overt
and most disconcerting ethical breeches. These ethical breeches include:
1. The committee organizers used an incredibly biased committee member
selection process such that that no scientists or practitioners with
expertise, knowledge and/or experience with CCSVI and MS were allowed
on the Beaudet Committee
2. The majority of the Committee members (13/23) have an obvious conflict
of interest when it comes to evaluating the need for a clinical trial to test
the efficacy of a non-drug therapy for MS such as CCSVI treatment. Such
a conflict of interest takes the form of close ties, often financial, with the
pharmaceutical companies that manufacture and market the drugs that
are currently used for MS. Such ties are meticulously documented in the
Appendix of the In-Depth Analysis.
3. The conflicts of interest were not declared or even alluded to in the
Beaudet Report
4. The committee members with a conflict of interest did not recuse
themselves when it became obvious that CCSVI and the question of a
CCSVI treatment clinical trial were going to dominate the discussions by
the Committee. In fact, the compromised individuals strongly influenced
the final recommendations of the committee.
The highly flawed science, in combination with the serious ethical breeches of
the Beaudet Report, completely invalidates its recommendations. Given the
above the Federal Health Ministry needs to:
1. Convene a new expert committee to examine and make recommendations
on the need for a clinical trial to test the efficacy of CCSVI treatment for
MS. The committee should be populated by both scientists and
practitioners with expertise and experience with CCSVI and MS and
scientists with experience in related topics such as venous angioplasty in
other conditions, the neurovascular system, neuro-imaging and MS
disease pathogenesis. Every effort should be made to exclude individuals
with a clear conflict of interest related to past and/or present relationships
with the pharmaceutical industry.
2. Launch an investigation into the ethical breeches of the Beaudet Report
and determine how such a scientifically inappropriate and ethically
challenged committee came into existence in the first place.
3. Review the appropriateness of having Alain Beaudet lead the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research. Canadians need to have confidence in their
health leaders and Beaudet’s credibility has been destroyed by the
scientific failings and the ethical breeches of the committee he formed and
the report he wrote on a most important health issue.