Status, not Science, rules MS treatment
Answer : Because they don’t know what MS is nor how to treat it. That doesn’t prevent their throwing DMVs at the hapless patient and being generally obnoxious in dismissing the vascular connection to MS.
In my last past I mentioned Dr. Schelling’s history of the Vascular Connection in MS. On page 33 of his paper MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS : The Image and its Message. The Meaning of the Classic Lesion Form
Dr. F. Alfons Schelling, MD writes http://www.ms-info.net/ms_040504.pdf
QUOTE: Since no really distinctive pathological traits have ever been posited for multiple sclerosis, the speculations as to the lesion’s cause(s) have always been mainly conformable to the dominant research interests of their time. » … « From toxin to virus, Modern Dogma : If not a viral agent, then an auto-immune process. »END QUOTE
So here we have the real problem with MS research and potential treatment – MODERN DOGMA which we all know favors the bio-chemical, that is to say DRUG, solution.
Just as I finished my previous blog post, I consulted Joan Beal’s excellent site The Vascular Connection. Long absent, I was happy to read her post on Jan 2, 2019, all the more so that she discussed reseaarch confirming Dr Schelling’s observation that current research is based on dogma more than science.
The following research focuses on Multiple Sclerosis which is an entIrely appropriate example because a high status specialty – Neurology – monopolizes research, diagnosis and treatment.even though the vascular connection to MS has been observed for at least 150 years.
I am going to quote directly from Joan Beal’s January 2, 2019 post : ccsviinms.blogspot.com/
QUOTE I wanted to write this post to share a very important paper I first read several years ago. It was written in 1988--over 30 years ago! I believe it can help us answer the question as to what happened to CCSVI?
The entire paper is here: Malcom Nicolson and Cathleen McLaughlin :Social constructionism and medical sociology: a study of the vascular theory of multiple sclerosis
The authors are responding to a critique of their work, which stated that societal hierarchies really didn't influence medical research, and needn't be considered. The writers disagreed with this critique, and in this paper they show how medical research and treatment are developed with a societal bias. This bias depends on who claims ownership of a particular disease and what their specialty is. A researcher's area of knowledge and expertise decide how a disease is viewed and treated.
From the paper:
« Scientists cannot therefore devise scientific theories solely in the light of their direct immediate experience of phenomena. They base new knowledge upon the relevant data and upon their pre- existing beliefs and theories. We understand the unknown in the light of what we already know - which, of course, in tum has its roots in training and in prior socialisation. Different observers, therefore, produce radically different cognitive worlds because modes of observation, and the points from which observation takes place, differ. »
And the authors use multiple sclerosis as their empirical case study---by outlining how the neuron-centric neurologists had ignored and even deliberately buried the evidence of the vascular system's impact on brain health, in order to focus on their own immunological view of the disease and their pharmaceutical immune modulating treatments.
This is from the abstract:
« A recent debate surrounding the pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis is analysed in terms of the skills, interests and backgrounds of the medical personnel involved. It is noted that the proponents of the vascular theory possess developed expertises in interpreting disease in structural, vascular terms, whereas their opponents' skills lie in immunology or neurology. Different observers have produced different conceptions of the disease because modes of observation, and the points from which observation takes place, differ. It is also jjnoted that the debate over the causation and treatment of MS has occurred between a large and powerful social group and a weak and marginal one. The effects of this power inequality on the production and assessment of knowledge about MS are investigated."
The vascular links to MS have long been known, since Rindfleisch first saw the central vein sign through a microscope in 1863. CCSVI was not the first vascular treatment to be "debunked" by neurologists using badly designed and obviously biased studies.
As the paper states many times, vascular specialists are not as powerful as neurologists, and rarely are able to respond to these dismissals or badly replicated stabs at their research. They are paid less, receive less funding for their research, are less respected. We've seen them disparaged as "plumbers." Neurologists comment that this is because blood vessels are not as complex as the brain. And yet, ironically, it is a lowly central vein sign which is 100% accurate in diagnosing MS lesions.
The Central Vein Sign »END QUOTE
Joan then gives a brief history of research debunked and dismissed by the neurology profession – eg Dr Tracy Putnam, Dr Roy Swank, Dr Franz Schelling, Dr Philip James and lately Dr Zamboni.
QUOTE What is most important to take away from all of this is that each of these older "debunked" treatments----HBOT, diet, exercise, blood thinners (such as aspirin) are now scientifically recognized as helpful to people with MS, because of their affect on cerebral blood flow…
I had hoped people would recognize that venoplasty was not being called a "cure" for MS. It was simply another treatment--like exercise, diet, lifestyle, meditation, sleep, etc-- which could potentially improve cerebral blood flow, heal the endothelial layer of blood vessels, maintain gray matter and slow MS disease progression. No surprise, neurologists went ahead with ill-conceived and flawed studies, in order to debunk Dr. Zamboni and shut it all down. Better to kill the theory and debunk the messenger, than attempt to understand the connection.. »END QUOTE
Back to me MSCureEnigmas
So there it is, undue respect for social hierarchy overrides the reputed « objectivity » of medical science research. I agree with Joan that the Neurology profession uses their superior social status and power to monopolize Multiple Sclerosis diagnosis and treatment.
But they are not the only « fraternity » guilty of imposing superior rank in the pecking order to discredit alternative ideas. The GP Dr Owiesy’s work on treating spasms in the vein’s smooth muscle layer to facilitate blood circulation has been more or less dismissed by the Interventional Radiologists of the ISNVD. Even lower in the pecking order we find Chiropractors and non MD Osteopaths who don’t count officially precisely because they aren’t MDs. Allopaths disdain Homeopaths, Kinesiologists, and Acupuncturists while massage therapists hardly rate at all even if they may be able to release CNS fluid flows. « Internet University » bloggers like me merit scathing scorn.
I believe Multiple Sclerosis should become a distinct specialty. One might begin with this one scientific study.
*Cerebral Circulation Time is Prolonged and Not Correlated with EDSS in Multiple Sclerosis Patients: A Study Using Digital Subtracted Angiography
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObj ... tation=PDF
« Discussion : The present study reported a significant CCT (Cerebral Circulation Time) increase in MS patients compared to control sub- jects, indicating a consistent condition of cerebral hypoperfusion. »
Start there : Where, why is the blood flow obstructed ? And fluid flows impacting the central nervous system ? Once determined, I believe one can begin to be of real help to the MS patient.
Full text previously published on my site MSCureEnigmas.net. July 19, 2019 https://www.mscureenigmas.net/
Sorry, I can't find the quote "button".