This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

there is no full paper released yet. The quote is from the ISNVD website, from their program of presentations that was just released. There is a thread around here with the program, plus the link. All we've got on this is that tantalizing tidbit, but I agree, this is very big news, I very much want to read more.

pairodime, thanks for the links!!!

MS and Type 1 Diabetes are closely linked conditions. The main mouse model there is the NOD mouse (non-obese diabetic mouse). Type 1 diabetes (insulin dependent, autoimmune type) has now been cured in these mice approx using 200 different methods over many years.

None of these methods have looked like curing type 1 diabetes in people. Much questioning is now made of the validity of this model for research purposes but what alternative is there?

You got a laugh and a smile out of me codefellow...

This mouse model should be very important.

Blocked veins > "micro strokes" > mild impairments (growing over years/ decades; may be too long for mice)

So mild impairments are exactly what one should expect at first.

R.

se1956 wrote:This mouse model should be very important.

Blocked veins > "micro strokes" > mild impairments (growing over years/ decades; may be too long for mice)

So mild impairments are exactly what one should expect at first.

R.

it fits with the chronic nature of ms - I think you are right.

Over on facebook, in a link to this thread (getting a bit circular here), Joan said that from what she understands, the mice had some white matter lesions. This is huge if it can be confirmed!!! Will the paper come out in March at the time of the conference or will it only be the presentation?

Like we've said all along ... science will work this (CCSVI) out - no matter all the negative neurologist studies cited by certain people/groups who have an obvious hatred for this new(OLD) thought on what causes "MS".

and this one doesn't involve injecting foreign substance into the mouse ... (EAE) ... to get something that "resembles" MS.

2011 is going to be huge, and it's only going to get bigger from there.


Great find Cece ...

How exciting.

This sets a new standard for scientific proof: from now on all studies, in order to achieve sufficient scientific credibility, must be triple blinded, especially if they are mouse studies. The new milestone of three-mouse-blinding will only be acceptable if the researchers have docked the murine tails with an acceptable instrument, such as a carving-knife.

CCSVIhusband wrote:Like we've said all along ... science will work this (CCSVI) out - no matter all the negative neurologist studies cited by certain people/groups who have an obvious hatred for this new(OLD) thought on what causes "MS".

It's not the skeptics' fault these negative studies keep coming out. One or two positive studies, okay just one, would go a long way right about now.

1eye wrote:This sets a new standard for scientific proof: from now on all studies, in order to achieve sufficient scientific credibility, must be triple blinded, especially if they are mouse studies. The new milestone of three-mouse-blinding will only be acceptable if the researchers have docked the murine tails with an acceptable instrument, such as a carving-knife.

I feel in the three blind mice case we should see how they run.

Rokkit wrote:

CCSVIhusband wrote:Like we've said all along ... science will work this (CCSVI) out - no matter all the negative neurologist studies cited by certain people/groups who have an obvious hatred for this new(OLD) thought on what causes "MS".

It's not the skeptics' fault these negative studies keep coming out. One or two positive studies, okay just one, would go a long way right about now.

We've had ten positive abstracts presented at 2010 ECTRIMS (publications in vascular journals to follow), but the negative neurological ones get more press and are picked up and regurgitated on pharma sponsored web sites. For all of the recent publications (pro and con) go to
http://ccsvi.org/index.php/advanced-top ... smaterials

The other fact is that it usually takes a year to 18 months for papers to be written and accepted for publication. Most of these negative studies are completed in three months and accepted for publication in 6 weeks to 3 months. That is an unbelievable acceleration in the publication process.

Neurological journals hope to bury this vascular research in piles of paper. But the vascular doctors are moving slowly and steadily and are not letting go. The Cooke Stanford paper is a new modern model of MS...and will be published in a vascular journal. Will neurologists consider a vascular journal worth a read? So far, they haven't.

This is why CCSVI Alliance is reaching out to neurologists such as Dr. Burks, and trying to forge open communication across disciplines. If neurology and MS specialists believe they can make this go away, they have an ever-increasing and committed group of vascular doctors who will prove them wrong.
cheer

for the mouse model, I came across this:
www.thisisms.com/ftopicp-61243.html#61243

They can speed up the injury to work with the mouse lifespan - I am not sure how that works, but it sounds good.

I laughed out loud. Nice one

three blind mice, three blind mice see how they see how they stumble see how they stumble

Turns out Zamboni was a mouse doctor afterall.

not Zamboni!
Thanaporn is our mouse doctor.

The model of continental shift was finally excepted after approx. 30 years after all old profs. retired or died. The internet nowadays is like a catalyst, so things will be faster.

R.