This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

This reminds me of a work-team exercise (ugh), where we discussed lifesaving essentials....I had more right answers, but people just didn't want to listen and maybe I couldn't bother speaking up more....and that is what the exercise was to show...don't ignore other members of the "team", be open to all ideas and discuss things....
Well, it does boil down to popularity, money and power, but a revolution is never far away.

Hi Cheer,

interesting philosophical debate!
I already admitted, that I met Dr. Schelling in the early eighties, and that I was not so much interested in hearing his wild theories about ms... I think we are all prisoners within our own brains. And even those who do research, are looking to their left and right to see what other esearchers do, always observing what position they have in that research community.
On the other hand it seems important to realize, that doctors of the 19th century were as smart as they are today and maybe it does not always need to go more and more into the details like all these weird molecules, but to see "the bigger lines". For my understanding of inflammatory processes, the results of Prof Ricker ("Relationspathologie") in the years from 1905 to 1924 are still valid and he points out the role of the vegetative nerve system. Slow blood flow initiates leuco- and erythrodiapedesis.... But he also concentrated on the "sunny side of circulation" i.e. the arterial part, and not on the the dark side of the moon, the venous system.
Economy is another motor... unfortunately this drives medecine into a market place, where the loudest voice makes the best money.

So, we will see how the paradigm shift will go on. I suppose that there will also be a pharmaceutical approach to venous malfunction (to re-establish the old system within the new one).

lobra

lobra wrote:Hi Cheer,

interesting philosophical debate!
I already admitted, that I met Dr. Schelling in the early eighties, and that I was not so much interested in hearing his wild theories about ms... I think we are all prisoners within our own brains. And even those who do research, are looking to their left and right to see what other esearchers do, always observing what position they have in that research community.
On the other hand it seems important to realize, that doctors of the 19th century were as smart as they are today and maybe it does not always need to go more and more into the details like all these weird molecules, but to see "the bigger lines". For my understanding of inflammatory processes, the results of Prof Ricker ("Relationspathologie") in the years from 1905 to 1924 are still valid and he points out the role of the vegetative nerve system. Slow blood flow initiates leuco- and erythrodiapedesis.... But he also concentrated on the "sunny side of circulation" i.e. the arterial part, and not on the the dark side of the moon, the venous system.
Economy is another motor... unfortunately this drives medecine into a market place, where the loudest voice makes the best money.

So, we will see how the paradigm shift will go on. I suppose that there will also be a pharmaceutical approach to venous malfunction (to re-establish the old system within the new one).

lobra

Hey lobra...
Good to hear from you. Thanks for your honesty about hearing Dr. Schelling in the 1980s. Other docs in Bologna admitted the same amount of incredulity.

I've mentioned before that I see the internet and pub med online as the modern day version of Martin Luther translating the bible into the vernacular. We no longer need the high priests to tell us what is good for us, or to sell us indulgences. We can go directly to the source, read for ourselves and e-mail the doctors. We can ask questions and use our own minds and logic to ferret out the truth. We can step back and look at the big picture- to contemplate and learn on our own.

That doesn't mean we're all doctors or researchers....it just means that the high priests can no longer expect us to take their opinion as scientific truth. And the autoimmune paradigm has never been scientifically proven. It has been assumed.

You're point about doctors being just as wise in the 19th century is a good one...they looked at the body as a whole unit, not separating the circulatory system from the organs. And as you said, the veins have been relegated to the "dark side"...even though, as Dr. Lee mentioned in Bologna, veins are so much more important to the health of the body, God made them in pairs!
cheer

Great info cheer and gang!

Now I understand that CCSVI hasn't been around very long, there's not much published information and it's going to be a big uphill battle, but this type of stuff is what drives me crazy...

http://www.nationalmssociety.org/search ... i&x=12&y=9

How long can they ignore it?

Mike

The NMSS knows about it. I emailed their VP of PR aout it and got a reply that someone would get back to me, but of course they didn't.

cheerleader wrote:Dear Mr. Success-
You've started posting on the CCSVI forums, but never introduced yourself or divulged any personal information. Do you have MS? Are you a caretaker? What's the interest in CCSVI?
I'm sure folks would like to know.

sorry about your neuro, zap. I think pseudoscience is not knowing how or why a drug works (the mechanism of action), yet selling it to MS patients.
cheer

Cheer, you are amazing. I admire your knowledge and spirit. Thank you for continuing to act on behalf of those who choose to reach around our neuros and keep fighting to learn the truth about MS. I enjoy the stream of new knowledge being provided about CCSVI, and I enjoy the debate.
I can't wait to see the results for myself in 2 weeks

Sneaky wrote:Great info cheer and gang!

Now I understand that CCSVI hasn't been around very long, there's not much published information and it's going to be a big uphill battle, but this type of stuff is what drives me crazy...

http://www.nationalmssociety.org/search ... i&x=12&y=9

How long can they ignore it?

Mike

Yes yes, the irony of uh, OUR society that cannot even broach the subject is reprehensible to me. Oh wait, they got the latest studys from x many drugs front and center.

Which kinda leans towards the thought that they don't plan on changing the name to CCSVI anytime soon lol. We'll get it out there in spite of them, but since so many "want to double check with the MS society", as if they are the final word on anything, we will have to work around them, in spite of them, and not with them. I see no other way. For now.

Dust the old shoes off and move on to the next one.
Its obvious they dont want their name tied to it, since of course with drugs, well those are tied to a company which can be sued and universities and such. With CCSVI, there's no such "central driving force" behind it.
Mark.

Sneaky wrote:How long can they ignore it?

It's not only them. Since Jan of this year I have had a daily google news alert (which collects articles from pretty much all news outlets) set to "multiple sclerosis", and have not received a single article mentioning this new paradigm, although there are around 10 articles about new drugs and fundraiser events on average per day.

The only positive thing about it I can see about this is that pharma-industry won't pay as much attention to CCSVI for now and try to destroy it (I know, I probably come across like a conspiracy theorist saying that, but it's just how I feel), while Zamboni, Dake, and others can do more research and improve the procedure technique.

I'd like to say how much I admire Dr. Dake and Dr. Zamboni's courage.

radeck wrote:The only positive thing about it I can see about this is that pharma-industry won't pay as much attention to CCSVI for now and try to destroy it (I know, I probably come across like a conspiracy theorist saying that, but it's just how I feel), while Zamboni, Dake, and others can do more research and improve the procedure technique.

And that's the problem, the money will continue to fund the drug companies research while those like Dake, Zamboni and the others have to do it without the backing of the society and such.

Mike