Access to treatment for multiple sclerosis must be based on science, not hope
Here the Editor's letter:
and media coverage:
- Family Elder
- Posts: 5359
- Joined: 11 years ago
- Location: southern California
- Been thanked: 1 time
Perhaps the truly hopeful ones are not the patients, but rather the neurologists....maintaining hope that MS will not be reclassified as a vascular disorder.
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
If you can get a treated person to talk to the media that is best. I am too busy with the UK system to join in but GOOD LUCK.
Please read the whole article. It ends with the disclaimer that this letter is the opinion of the writer and -does not -represent the viewpoint of the CMA.
I would suggest a research background on the author .
Take note of the articles research materials. We already know all of that information .
Just another opinion . No Big Deal .
A nice rebuttal to this is in order.
They keep trying .... don't they ?
One thing I notice is that he felt the need to mention not once but twice that people with MS are acting out of desperation.
It demeans us to say we are acting out of desperation. Most of us here understand what a venous occlusion is, we understand its effects on organs in other parts of the body (such as in Budd-Chiari), we understand the risks of angioplasty elsewhere in the body, and we understand what is known of the risks of jugular venoplasty. Most of us here have done the analysis of risk versus benefit. Most of us here would be willing to receive treatment in part of an open-label study if such studies were made widely available. To call us desperate is to demean our ability to understand this.
I also find it offensive that while we have done the legwork to understand CCSVI, we have peppered Dr. Sclafani with our questions, we have read Zamboni's papers, I do not think the author of this editorial has done any of this. Yet he has chosen to write an article that may slow the progress in Canada toward universal treatment of CCSVI.
Absolutely 100% dead on! Who said we were attempting to cure MS besides Dr. Stanbrook? We're addressing CCSVI!cheerleader wrote:Thanks for posting the editorial, TMrox---Venous stenosis, reflux and congestion is a known entity. It is treated in other parts of the body. Why should it be different in the brain and spine? Why is venous stenosis considered "science" and treated when it affects the liver, kidneys or legs? Why is it considered "hope" when it affects the brain?
Dr. Stanbrook misses the point! Try again, Doc...
That is very important to understand . The CMA clearly states ... that the articles content does not represent the opinion of the CMA .
Therefore ..... the article only represents the opinion of ONE person ...... NOT the Canadian Medical Association as a group.
We have seen this before. Remember the Lancet joke ???
Don't give this article and it's author any weight ..... I have already shot this goose out of the sky .........
Next ? Colin Rose ....... Bob ??
Sleep tight Cece ..... the good guy's are gaining ground
See news about North America's first clinical trial on the "liberation treatment".
- Similar Topics
- Last post