Welcome to This is MS, the leading forum for Multiple Sclerosis research and support. Join our friendly community of patients, caregivers, and researchers celebrating over 20 years of delivering hope through knowledge.
https://www.thisisms.com/forum/
An extra bit of trivia - it was someone in his team and not the man himself who first used the term to describe the procedure.NHE wrote:The use of the word liberation by Zamboni is meant that his procedure liberates the blood flow. As far as I know, it has nothing to do with "liberating people from MS."
1.2.If there was no double blinded study than how can the placebo effect just be ignored? I am not trying to argue whether people benefited from the liberation procedure or not I just think as people with MS that is a logical question to be asking. I know the 100% thing has been beaten into the ground but to me this claim threw up red flags imeediately. Again I am not saying it is impossible but I think at the least people with MS should be looking at the number with a great deal of suspicion.NHE wrote:Dr. Sclafani has addressed this in his thread. He believes that it is unethical to sedate people to the extent that would be necessary such that they could not tell whether or not they were actually treated. Many people treated for CCSVI have reported that it was obvious when the balloon was being inflated. Sedation would expose people to unnecessary risk. Moreover, simply inserting a catheter into the jugular or azygous vein may clear out some obstruction. There are many types of blockages including a septum, a thin membrane blocking the vein, which could be cleared via a catheter insertion. Moreover, Zamboni's paper states that the doctors evaluating the patients were blinded to an individuals MS status.scorpion wrote: 1. 100%, 100%, 100%
2.no blind study to test against placebo effect
Pharmaceutical companies do this all the time. Remember Avonex + Tysabri? Copaxone with Revimmune? Copaxone with Novantrone? Anyways, MS/CCSVI may be a disease of chronic immune activation and continuation of DMDs may be prudent to help correct the chronically activated immune system.3.participants in his study continued to take MS therapy drugs
False. Zamboni published in peer reviewed science journals well before the rest of us found out about it.4. he went straight to the social media which bypassed any critical review of his research by his peers
Really? How else would you suggest he test his hypothesis that restricted blood flow may be a contributing factor to the disease of MS?5.to perform the "liberation" procedure at such an early stage in his research was a questionable ethical decision
This has been discussed elsewhere on the forums here at ThisIsMS. Zamboni did not operate on his own wife. Moreover, it may be the case that it's unlikely that he's personally operated on anyone recently. Have you watched the videos of his interviews? If you were paying attention, then you would have noticed something unusual about his hands. In one video he handles a computer mouse as though he were wearing a ski mitten. In another, he moves his hand over to rest it down on his other arm and it appears to be more of a flop type of motion. If you've read about Zamboni, then you may have discovered that he has an unknown (at least to me) neurological condition. Clearly, this seems to be affecting his hands (or at least one of them). Again, I doubt that he operated on his own wife. However, he may have directed the operation. I see no ethical problems with this if that were the case.6. to operate on his wife was a questionable ethical decision
The use of the word liberation by Zamboni is meant that his procedure liberates the blood flow. As far as I know, it has nothing to do with "liberating people from MS." I believe that this is common misunderstanding. Even Dr. Andrews, an IR in support of CCSVI treatment and research, makes this error in his video.7.the word "liberation" should never have been used to describe his surgery. liberation means to be free of. what a misleading term.
NHE
.
.
.
But if *my* doctor had not been so anal about testing more than one thing at a time my treatment might have benefited from the synergy now known to exist between Copaxone and Mitoxantrone.scorpion wrote:
3.Correct me if I am wrong, and I am work so I have no time to look it up, but were two treatments not used in combination with each other after both had already gone through clinical trials? For example Avonex had already completed clinical trials and been approved before it was tested in conjunction with Tsysarbi and vice versa.
I will not honour that with a complete quotation. He is not stuck anywhere.5.6. I completly disagree with you on this point. Before Zamboni performed any surgery he needed first to prove that CCSVI actually existed and if so did/does it have anything to do with MS.
Just because a thing is new does not mean it shouldn't be tried. Your results may vary, because it is congenital most of the time and everyone is different.according to some of his own trainees these blockages are subjective. Just read how many people on this forum have gone to three different radiologists and gotten three different results.
you're not the only one, FWIWL wrote:I thought that because his grasp of English fluctuated so wildly. Some of the spelling mistakes didn't seem too authentic to me either. Like someone pretending not to be proficient
Sorry, I didn't notice this before. As analogies go it isn't bad. The blocked road/diversion/blocked roads cleared/collateral routes empty again analogy appealed to me as well. I'm not interested in the emperors new clothes analogy. The stomach ulcer/bacteria/nobel prize analogy worked for me though. So did the blocked lavatory analogy as introduced in the CCSVI Sardinia Symposium.Malden wrote:Btw, what's your opinion on brain-barrel analogy?
I think, even if it is unlikely, because it cannot be proven 100% it would be wrong to act on it.Jugular wrote:True, true. But what you look for is different accounts using the same IP address, especially within close proximity. It can happen without it being the same person (e.g. two users using the same public WIFI), but not likely.jimmylegs wrote:FYI to all, in many cases a member can have a long list of IP addresses associated with their TIMS usage... myself included!
How 'bout the mental illness/lobotomy/nobel prize analogy?L wrote: The stomach ulcer/bacteria/nobel prize analogy worked for me though.
Zantac is an antihistamine. However, prevacid is a proton pump inhibitor.concerned wrote:The preferred first line treatment, I believe, is anti-histamines that block stomach acid production, like zantac and prevacid and stuff like that.
No, I don't mind. My first nativ language was macedonian and the second one is croatian. And here is my Flickr account:L wrote:...By the way, what is your native language M, if you don't mind my asking?
Check out his www.zap wrote:you're not the only one, FWIWL wrote:I thought that because his grasp of English fluctuated so wildly. Some of the spelling mistakes didn't seem too authentic to me either. Like someone pretending not to be proficient
Sorry... out of topic ;)Johnson wrote:
...Is the Alexander V yours?
Pshaw!Malden wrote:Sorry... out of topic ;)Johnson wrote:
...Is the Alexander V yours?