Page 1 of 1
Hubbard Foundation Conference 2011 videos now online.
Posted: Sun May 15, 2011 3:58 pm
by CureIous
Posted: Sun May 15, 2011 4:02 pm
by CureIous
Posted: Sun May 15, 2011 6:24 pm
by CureIous
Posted: Sun May 15, 2011 6:28 pm
by CureIous
Dr. Jack Burks, don't want to miss this one either.
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNLk22n_rqQ
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrrUcYQcXLU
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhaFKbgLoTA
Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMelCRTjkv8
Fast forward to 6:20 on Part 4, that's where he talks about the 27% pre-treatment relapse rate, vs. 100% post-treatment in the Zamboni study. From a logical perspective, he appears to be saying, "if only the restenosed people had relapses, then it should hover back down around the 27% it was prior to treatment, not 100%.
He also asks about any 2 year follow up on the Zamboni patients. Nothing particularly earth shattering, but some valid questions nonetheless. The slide at 9:40 is interesting too as it mentions the Hubbard fMRI results.
Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmgI1ymhCMg
Part 6 this has the Q&A session at the end, where Sandy Mcdonald sets the record straight, make sure not to miss, it's quite interesting. Sandy is speaking starting at about 6:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3tV3r0o34Y (you may have to turn the volume up to hear him and listen carefully.
Posted: Sun May 15, 2011 6:33 pm
by Cece
The 'Summary of Predictors' is fascinating, you'd expect some of those to be predictive.
Posted: Sun May 15, 2011 7:27 pm
by CureIous
Cece wrote:The 'Summary of Predictors' is fascinating, you'd expect some of those to be predictive.
Yeah, I think these studies are going to become more inherently reliable as time goes on as the bugs are getting worked out. IOW there's less and less "missed stuff" that flys under the radar the first time around.
Posted: Mon May 16, 2011 6:45 am
by Cece
Arlene Hubbard's notes on the conference.
They invited every neurologist in the area. They had conference information in the Journal Neurology. Other than Dr. Hubbard and Dr. Burks, not one neurologist attended. A single one showed up, said to tell Dr. Hubbard he was there but then left and did not attend.
This angers me.....
It strikes me as neurologists being exceedingly closed off to any information on CCSVI, except perhaps the information that confirms their pre-existing ideas. That does not serve their patients' best interest.
Posted: Mon May 16, 2011 11:59 am
by codefellow
Cece wrote:www.facebook.com/notes/arlene-pellar-hu ... 4524950517
Arlene Hubbard's notes on the conference.
They invited every neurologist in the area. They had conference information in the Journal Neurology. Other than Dr. Hubbard and Dr. Burks, not one neurologist attended. A single one showed up, said to tell Dr. Hubbard he was there but then left and did not attend.
This angers me.....
It strikes me as neurologists being exceedingly closed off to any information on CCSVI, except perhaps the information that confirms their pre-existing ideas. That does not serve their patients' best interest.
Gotta say I agree with you on this one, Cece. Even the most vocal and adamant skeptics on this forum are not so closed-minded as to IGNORE information collected by respected medical professionals. I mean, it is one thing for a doctor to ignore something a patient read about on the internet, but both the neurologists and the IR's have degrees in medicine. Should they not at least have respect for each other's opinions?
Re: Hubbard Foundation Conference 2011 videos now online.
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:03 am
by Cece
This is an old thread, but some good information in it, and I was looking for a place to add Arlene Hubbard's notes from the 2012 Hubbard Foundation Conference. (And forgive me if it has already been posted! I hadn't looked at it closely before.)
David Hubbard discussed the Hubbard Foundation’s clinical outcomes study. 260 Patients pre and post venoplasty statistically significant using the MSIS.
66% overall improvement
The more sites treated the better the outcome
SPMS did less well that PPMS and RRMS
Duration of disease…no difference
Age, no difference
Women did better than men
Diet and lifestyle needs to be evaluated.
We've heard this elsewhere as well. I would have expected duration of disease or age to make a difference, and it did not. I would have expected PP MS to fare the worst, and it was SP MS that did, but these are not stats to dispair over: A majority of people with SP MS still improved. The more sites treated, the better the outcome is an interesting one. It could be that those with fewer sites treated had stenoses that were missed and went untreated, or they had complicated presentations such as hypoplasias, that cannot be easily treated, or that the treatment of more sites freed up more blood flow allowing for more pronounced improvements.
fMRI…movie of the brain
BOLD venous test….”tell time” test…looking at the function of several areas of the brain.pre venoplasty MS patients have less brain blood flow.
After venoplasty the brain blood flow normalizes.
Changes in the surging of blood in the brain occur the day after venoplasty.
This cannot be placebo
That last one is worth repeating: This cannot be placebo.
Hubbard foundation’s registry has been instrumental in collecting data on pwMS.
Every pt in our study has had abnormal valvular structures.
Every patient. 100%. That's either specificity or sensitivity (ack which one) and it suggests that CCSVI may be causal to MS.
Left renal vein has been involved in most patients who did not have a response and when treated the patients got better.
An interesting statement! A good reason to check the left renal vein at the time of the first procedure, and not let patients go out and fail to have improvements and not know why.
Re: Hubbard Foundation Conference 2011 videos now online.
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:10 am
by Cece
from Dr. Ponec at the 2012 conference:
50% of IRs believe in CCSVI and 88% of IR’s would have the tx if they had MS
Wonder what the stats are for neurologists. It's interesting that the percentage of IRs who would have the treatment if they had MS is greater than the percentage of IRs who believe in CCSVI. The first question is black/white, yes/no; and the second question is what have you got to lose, take a gamble, shades of unknown gray. Sorry for that not being very clearly said, it is still early today.
Problems with treating ccsvi
We don’t know for sure what we are treating
We don’t know for sure how to treat it
Other than that, we have it all figured out
Rather humorous.
Too much hyperbole on the web
The treatment is very safe
Very high incidence of venous abnormalities in MS
Too much hyperbole on the web? I've accused the neurologists of hyperbole, and of fanning flames, etc. I don't want us to be guilty of it as well.
Re: Hubbard Foundation Conference 2011 videos now online.
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:13 pm
by 1eye
Cece wrote:...Too much hyperbole on the web?...
No comment. I'm busy watching the videos.
Re: Hubbard Foundation Conference 2011 videos now online.
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:32 pm
by Cece
1eye wrote:Cece wrote:...Too much hyperbole on the web?...
No comment. I'm busy watching the videos.
Remember these are the videos from 2011. I don't think there are any out yet for 2012.