Debunking the latest study ‘debunking’ CCSVI
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:49 am
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/08/16/debu ... ing-ccsvi/
Interesting comments again by Dr. Trabalousee.
Interesting comments again by Dr. Trabalousee.
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/
And also the spleen.1eye wrote:And life, as they say, depends on the liver.
At least in Dr. Traboulsee's trial, all patients will get the procedure. One group gets it right away, one group gets sham and then a year later gets the procedure. However I don't think there is any action plan for what to do about restenosis (and/or vein injury and underdilatation misdiagnosed as restenosis.)MrSuccess wrote:There is TALK and there is ACTION. Perhaps someone in contact with Dr.Traboulsee can point out that Dr.Zamboni's original 65 pwMS study of CCSVI ..... INCLUDED .... all people in his study getting the medical procedure . ALL of them. And then again on those deemed to have re-stenosed. A-C-T-I-O-N .
It may be slightly different for me because of my citizenship. I believe it is part of the ethics of informed consent in a clinical trial, to give the patient access to as much information as possible, that has any conceivable relevance, as and when that information becomes available.Hooch wrote:In all fairness Cece not as much had been published about using IVUS back in 2010 but I asked for it when I was treated by Dr Siskin in Sep. 2010, meaning we certainly knew about it here (from Dr Sclafani I believe). I was told that it was expensive and not necessary (I was disappointed) and I think it is still not used in his practice in Albany.
On a slightly different subject I believe that my husband was a control in the Ian Rodger's study at McMaster's in Hamilton. At the time we thought the study was being run by Dr Mark Haacke and it included MRI (not MRV) but I believe Dr Haacke didn't have anything to do with it in the end as when I spoke to him in Nov. 2011 he seemed to be surprised by my question. My husband has received no feedback and they said that would be the case unless they found anything abnormal.
I am not sure I accept the concept that there is a non-stenotic MS group.brocktoon wrote:Another big problem with this study is that the MS group is not separated in any way, which hinders the ability to analyze the data properly. Our group has already replicated the bar graph with our recent MRI flow findings and we have observed similar findings to the Rodger paper, but when the MS group is separated into stenotic and non-stenotic subgroups, we see lower IJV flow in the stenotic group compared to the controls and non-stenotic MS groups. We still have to work on the statistics for the data set though and hope to have a paper on it within a few months.