This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

.

Just thought that I would share (it seemed relevant to the thread).




NHE

Hi Bob, I just mean they can officially support these patient oriented research models.

I think the NIH has an important role in setting tone for the scientific community. There is an attitude that it is not science if it is not molecular and lab driven and that is incorrect.

NHE-- how PERFECT!!

.

Good point Bob I agree completely and I like the way you put it

holed up in front of a microscope

All that comes out of that is MS trivia, at the rate of one thing every 10 years!!.

Great cartoon, NHE!!! Love this discussion....

When Dr. Dake and I were first discussing Zamboni's research, he asked me, "How could this have been overlooked? Why didn't someone else see this sooner?" I commented that I thought medical researchers couldn't see the forest for the trees...that MS had become so micro-analyzed, no one looked at the rest of the body. Microcosm vs. macrocosm...both are needed in research. Steven Hawking proved this by finding connections between string theory and the universe. It's all one creation.

Let's hope NIH gets some collaboration and cooperation going between the different research departments.
cheer

.

peekaboo wrote:Back to NIH...

Ummmm I think that NIH is prepping for the CCSVI studies due to their 2 clinical trials regarding MRV's

Yes i agree that NIH is a fantastic org. i have a bro-inlaw that works w/them. and i have used them for Mental health rehab training from my past working life.

Could someone point me to the location where you are finding the information about NIH's MRV studies? I looked on clinicaltrials.gov but didn't see it. Perhaps am not using the search function correctly.
Thanks!
KKA

Before 1957 MS research seemed driven only by what seemed to be "common sense" and post 1957 common sense seems to be held in disdain and the only research of any merit has to be the product of a lab

this is interesting how did you come to that conclusion? I heard from two of "our" researchers that in the 50's there was a lot of investigation into venous issues but it dried up for some unknown reason.

I wonder what the key event was that made them abandon ship and develop this disdain, what was so interesting that it took MS entirely into the direction of AI with no looking back? does anyone know?

Kay...
Here's the link to the thread on MRI/MRV clinical trials Holly posted:
http://www.thisisms.com/ftopict-7473.html

mrhodes40 wrote: I wonder what the key event was that made them abandon ship and develop this disdain, what was so interesting that it took MS entirely into the direction of AI with no looking back? does anyone know?

Marie...good question. Not sure if it was a "key" event...but I do know that the experimentation of treating MS patients with blood thinners wasn't as successful as was hoped. And when immune modulating medicines had an effect, I think the pharma research money went that way. The vascular model was seen as a failure, since the drugs available didn't work. What's odd is that this paradigm was completely dropped, even as vascular technology advanced. Thank God Dr. Zamboni was using his dopplers on MS patients!
cheer

.

cheerleader wrote:Thank God Dr. Zamboni was using his dopplers on MS patients!

Thank God Dr. Zamboni's wife has MS.

Rokkit

cheerleader wrote:Kay...
Here's the link to the thread on MRI/MRV clinical trials Holly posted:
http://www.thisisms.com/ftopict-7473.html

I didn't see MRV mentioned in there--just MRI. I wasn't reading that closely though as my eyes are troubling me today and a little computer weary.

Thanks though!
KKA

.

I think MRA looks at arteries and MRV looks at veins. (that is a guess though)

L