This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community
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.
Hopeful10 wrote:I'm am afraid that these studies are going to be farces like the German study.
First, nearly all of these studies are led solely by neurologists. Instead, they should at the very least have radiologists or vascular surgeons either leading or being co-leaders of the study.
Second, the quotes from many of these neurologists suggest that they're hoping to disprove the theory of an Italian researcher. For some reason they don't mention the published BNAC study (or even the ongoing Georgetown study). The quotes from the Canadian researchers seem more even-handed than the quotes from the American researchers.
Third, the doppler ultrasound requires sufficient training and experience to properly evaluate for CCSVI, and researchers who want to disprove CCSVI will not take the time or spend the money to ensure the necessary training for their sonographers.
Agreed 100%. This is a neuro-led effort to silence the masses. Laughable.
I don't understand why neuros are even being given the option to study CCSVI this is a vascular issue!! Just because they have experience with MS that doesn't mean they understand the blood flow issues. I think the money should go to vascular specialists and interventional radiologists with MS neuros as consultants. Annoying!
From the NMSS (US) press release: "Dr. Aaron Field, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison...has put together a team that includes the director of the university’s MS clinic, experts in MRI physics and ultrasound, a neuroradiologist with extensive experience in vascular imaging, and a statistician with ample experience in clinical research.". Dr Field is a radiologist which is great. My neuro is part of the clinic and when I mentioned CCSVI to him he said "Criminal. It's just criminal! MS is not a vascular disease." Wonder if that bias will end up in the study?
I agree that the bigger issue is when will they treat?
Okay, now you have all got me pissed, do we boycott the Society that was established to find a cure, and support us? I have faithfully (and successfully) raised money for them over the past few years and now they are spending it on proving what everyone knows? I feel like I need to write an apology letter to everyone who has given me money for the MS Society. They are supposed to be on our side aren't they? My wife and kids have been excited about CCSVI and the hope it brings. I don't look forward to telling them that in a couple years the medical community may know something. I now know why Depression is so high among MS Patients. Thank you MS Society, for clearing that up for me.
Regarding MSSOC grants:
First of all the amount of expenditure by MSSOC is laughable, 350K a year or about 00.5% of their annual haul. Secondly, the research is basically reinventing the wheel. The association of MS and CCSVI is well established by the Buffalo research (notably they were shut out) and by the 1000 and counting CCSVI treatments throughout the world. This on top of findings such as Macdonald’s 90% of almost 300 MS patients having CCSVI leaves no doubt that CCSVI and MS are associated. What the research will contribute to is how many non-MS individuals have CCSVI and this is somewhat useful. The work on children and twins will add important new information although the numbers are very small and hence will be scoffed at.
One major concern is the ability of the researchers to detect CCSVI with the Doppler. It is well established that extensive training is needed and one can only wonder if the technicians doing the Doppler at the various study sites will be adequately trained. This is never discussed in the summaries but the training of the techs is a very critical part of any research project to detect CCSVI. One worries that detection will be a major problem due to lack of operator competency.
Another significant problem is the inclusion of researchers who have strong ties to the drug industry. You just don’t want such compromised individuals anywhere near research which has the potential to adversely affect the drug industry in a very big way. Such conflicts of interest need to be scrupulously avoided. The presence of Freedman as part of the Ottawa research is a cruel joke and an affront to science. We need objective people doing the research not those who want to vindicate their claims that CCSVI is a hoax.
I would note this research, when it is all done and published, will not bring us any notable understanding that we don’t already have today. This is classic stall research which will delay any real research which will test the efficacy of CCSVI treatment. That is the question at hand, not whether or not persons with MS have CCSVI. As I have always said, it will be at least a decade if not longer before the needed research is done to determine the efficacy of CSSVI relief. This is exactly what the neurologists and MSSOC want to happen.
They play act that they are doing something on CCSVI to appease their supporters but ensure nothing of any significance or newness gets accomplished by way of miniscule grants for projects which address questions for which we already have the answer. Of course at the same time MSSOC, NMSS and the neurologists will piously preach that persons with MS should not be tested or treated for CCSVI until they have done the proper research. With the type of research and funding amounts of this round, this may take 20 years rather than 10.
At least MSSOC didn’t disappoint me and they maintained their dedication to ensuring no effective treatments for MS. The sad thing is many people will think they are actually acting in the best interests of persons with MS despite the fact nothing could be farther from the truth.
cheerleader wrote:I am also frustrated to see that two of the US grants go to neurologists--Dr. Fox and Dr. Wolinsky--these gentlemen are brain specialists who do not utilize doppler technology or magnetic resonance venography technology in their daily practices. I would hope that at the very least they will be partnering with vascular doctors and doppler technicians in order to proceed with their studies.
From the NMSS website:
Dr. Wolinsky’s collaborators in this project are a stellar cast from the university, including include the overseer of the university’s cerebral vascular disease program, its chair of diagnostic and interventional imaging, director of MR research, director of the MS clinic, and chief of cardiovascular MRI.
Dr. Fox’s multi-disciplinary team includes the medical director of the Cleveland Clinic’s neurovascular laboratory, an expert cardiologist in venous ultrasound, the section head of imaging sciences, and others with expertise in neuropathology, anatomy, biomedical engineering, and biostatistics.
Dr. Zamboni's protocol is very specific- and the instruments and technology needed to test venous return are not something that can be mastered overnight.
No one else in the world understands how to do a vascular ultrasound of venogram?
thanks for the info on the teams, Patient. That's encouraging. My main concern is that the groups are headed up by neuros who are on the clinical advisory board for the NMMS...and have a vested interest in the status quo. Not incredibly objective. But you are right, the MRV and doppler technology is not exclusive to Italy..although it's still in its infancy. I think it's time to fund vascular doctors to study CCSVI. Maybe that needs its own society--like the one Dr. Haacke just started.
cheer
