Frankly i'm confused why people keep bringing up how much money is spent on MS drugs like it would be way out of proportion to how much liberation treatment would cost.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but at a let's say liberal estimate of 300, 000 MS sufferers in the US get the treatment for $5000-$6000, that would be $1.5-1.8 billion dollars. I've read that spending on all MS drugs combined in the US is $4 billion/year. If restenosis turns out to be a common occurance, couldn't that hit similar numbers?
I'm no economist or anything, and again, correct me if i'm wrong.
But I agree that the way foward for this is to let science take it's course, rather than denouncing all critics as having ulterior motives.
Douglas Adams said:
Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!'
denialism and CCSVI
-
WordWarriorMama
- Newbie
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 3:00 pm
logic?
As a former teacher, reading some of this thread, I'm wishing once again that classical Logic was taught more widely. There are some logical errors for instance in the original post citing that book about denial. Did you know that the very first rule of communication is that "the source affects the message"? And that's really widely accepted commonsense, isn't it? for instance, when we're talking to a used car salesman at a lot, we automatically take into consideration that he's trying to sell us a car so he can make a commission, that his interests may not be the same as our interests.
I recently discovered that my monthly Tysabri infusions cost over $11,000 (covered). How much do you figure it costs to manufacture that medication? I'd be very surprised if it were over over $100. I understand about costs of research and development all, but still . . .
You can call it "conspiracy theory" if you want--to suggest that pharmaceuticals have an interest in not seeing even some MS patients being cured by simple "plumbing" procedures--but I call it logical thinking. (BTW, the word "conspiracy" indicates only that two people conspire to act in a way that's immoral or illegal; aren't there conspiracies all around us? ;)
I recently discovered that my monthly Tysabri infusions cost over $11,000 (covered). How much do you figure it costs to manufacture that medication? I'd be very surprised if it were over over $100. I understand about costs of research and development all, but still . . .
You can call it "conspiracy theory" if you want--to suggest that pharmaceuticals have an interest in not seeing even some MS patients being cured by simple "plumbing" procedures--but I call it logical thinking. (BTW, the word "conspiracy" indicates only that two people conspire to act in a way that's immoral or illegal; aren't there conspiracies all around us? ;)
WordWarriorMama I am unsure what flaws you are referring to in my original post. I just want to clarify my use of the word conspiracy in my original post. I was referring to the fabricated conspiracy people "make up" when scientific data does not validate what they originally hoped the data would prove. I recently posted a brief history of MS "cures" that turned out to be eventually proven quackery. In most of the articles there were claims of some sort of conspiracy or another primarily of course from you guessed it... the big pharmas.
I could not agree with you more that MS drugs are overpriced.
I was aware that "the source affects the message" but I did not know it was the "first rule of communication" although it does sound logical. See I am classy and logical! Or is that classically logical???
I could not agree with you more that MS drugs are overpriced.
I was aware that "the source affects the message" but I did not know it was the "first rule of communication" although it does sound logical. See I am classy and logical! Or is that classically logical???
So you are essentially saying that MS patients are seeing conspiracy theories because what they wished did not come true.scorpion wrote: I was referring to the fabricated conspiracy people "make up" when scientific data does not validate what they originally hoped the data would prove.
Which indirectly means that MS patients want to willingly go through a procedure which they know is no good than doing nothing ... hmmm
Yes, I am saying SOME people with MS are crying conspiracy when they receive information that shows CCSVI is not what they hoped for in the beginning. The conspiracy label has even been tossed at neuros,researchers,etc. who ask critical questions about CCSVI. Not allowing the critical questions to be asked or painting people, who may not buy into the "liberation procedure", as conspirators and traitors will not make things more real. I recently told my mom, who is 61, that she needs to start going to her doctor for checkups. Her response to me was "I don't go because than I will have to hear what is wrong with me". "If I don't hear it, than I don't have to think about it".No I do not believe anyone who had the procedure did it because they believe it is no good. I think they hope it will have a positive effect on their MS. As far as doing nothing, there is a lot each of us can individually do to help ourselves and others with MS so I do not think it has to be the liberation procedure or do nothing. I would NEVER tell anyone not to have the procedure. It is a personal decision which I completly respect.
remember that molecular mimicry is just a theory too. it is just dogma but if it were correct than I think we would have cured MS by now. I think CCSVI and molecular molarchy are incredibly over simplified. I can suggest ten different things that have to go wrong in order for MS to occur and I think I still would not have the entire picture lets see
loss of electrolyte homeostasis
laged nutralization of immune response
inability to keep infections at bay
loss of control of blood vessel dilation and constriction
something causes immune to cross the blood brain barrier
vitamin D, magnesium, b12 deficiency
inflamation and disfunction of the vagus nerve
cortisol deficiency
excess folate
lack of iron binding
secondary hyperparathyroidism
mistep in hemesythesis
one has to wonder if the kidneys were doing there job properly would any of this be a problem.
loss of electrolyte homeostasis
laged nutralization of immune response
inability to keep infections at bay
loss of control of blood vessel dilation and constriction
something causes immune to cross the blood brain barrier
vitamin D, magnesium, b12 deficiency
inflamation and disfunction of the vagus nerve
cortisol deficiency
excess folate
lack of iron binding
secondary hyperparathyroidism
mistep in hemesythesis
one has to wonder if the kidneys were doing there job properly would any of this be a problem.
http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/archives/ ... of-ms.htmlconcerned wrote:Frankly i'm confused why people keep bringing up how much money is spent on MS drugs like it would be way out of proportion to how much liberation treatment would cost.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but at a let's say liberal estimate of 300, 000 MS sufferers in the US get the treatment for $5000-$6000, that would be $1.5-1.8 billion dollars. I've read that spending on all MS drugs combined in the US is $4 billion/year. If restenosis turns out to be a common occurance, couldn't that hit similar numbers?
I'm no economist or anything, and again, correct me if i'm wrong.
But I agree that the way foward for this is to let science take it's course, rather than denouncing all critics as having ulterior motives.
Douglas Adams said:
Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!'
The lifetime cost, for each patient, is estimated at 1.2 million dollars in the US.
Restenosis may happen a number of times. Zamboni reports that a second or third procedure is usually enough. People may resort to stents. I should imagine that safer stents will be developed. In any case, the treatment, for each of us, is not going to top a million..
How would Zamboni know????????? Has he done a second and third procedure on anyone and if so how would he know that would be enough???????L wrote:concerned wrote:F
Restenosis may happen a number of times. Zamboni reports that a second or third procedure is usually enough. People may resort to stents. I should imagine that safer stents will be developed. In any case, the treatment, for each of us, is not going to top a million..
-
concerned
at $80,000 or whatever was being charged at stanford, if you had the procedure twice, wouldn't that be a little under 1/6 the cost of a life time of drugs in the US? I doubt the procedure would cost the same thing in the US as it is costing oversea's.
typical cost of Angioplasty Procedure ($57000 U.S. vs $11000 overseas)
And if it turns out you keep needing the procedure for the rest of your life, couldn't that easily sky rocket? I've heard that stents are "addictive". (i think it was on Letterman, so take that how you wish)
Restenosis (from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronary_stent
One of the drawbacks of vascular stents is the potential for restenosis via the development of a thick smooth muscle tissue inside the lumen, the so-called neointima. Development of a neointima is variable but can at times be so severe as to re-occlude the vessel lumen (restenosis), especially in the case of smaller diameter vessels, which often results in reintervention.
Anyway with no insight into how the future of ccsvi will turn out , it's premature to say that this is going to make life cheaper for MS patients.
If people are spending maybe 1/6 of the cost of a life time of drugs within a year (within the US), who knows how much they'll have to spend in the future. Esp. if they're staying on their disease modifying drugs.
typical cost of Angioplasty Procedure ($57000 U.S. vs $11000 overseas)
And if it turns out you keep needing the procedure for the rest of your life, couldn't that easily sky rocket? I've heard that stents are "addictive". (i think it was on Letterman, so take that how you wish)
Restenosis (from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronary_stent
One of the drawbacks of vascular stents is the potential for restenosis via the development of a thick smooth muscle tissue inside the lumen, the so-called neointima. Development of a neointima is variable but can at times be so severe as to re-occlude the vessel lumen (restenosis), especially in the case of smaller diameter vessels, which often results in reintervention.
Anyway with no insight into how the future of ccsvi will turn out , it's premature to say that this is going to make life cheaper for MS patients.
If people are spending maybe 1/6 of the cost of a life time of drugs within a year (within the US), who knows how much they'll have to spend in the future. Esp. if they're staying on their disease modifying drugs.
) has yet to prove to alter the course of MS, it's kind of early to compare lifetime treatment costs.-
concerned
But if people's veins are possibly getting stenosis from the procedure itself, it could create problems in the patients which would need to be addressed for the rest of their lives, regardless of whether ccsvi is a "thing" or not.
seeing as how people are getting this procedure, whether or not it's a "thing", this aspect of the financial discussion could be relevant? Iatrogenesis seems to be a real possibility, no?
seeing as how people are getting this procedure, whether or not it's a "thing", this aspect of the financial discussion could be relevant? Iatrogenesis seems to be a real possibility, no?
Ai, I haven't a clue where I got that from! I think that I read it here. If it's any excuse, the idea in my head when I was writing that post was that people aren't going to have monthly angioplasty procedures. They shall either resort to stents or vascular surgery. Or give up. A monthly cost, over a lifetime, should CCSVI prove as effective as the promise, will not be as high as the monthly cost of CRABs, nurses, unemployment etc.scorpion wrote:L wrote:How would Zamboni know????????? Has he done a second and third procedure on anyone and if so how would he know that would be enough???????concerned wrote:F
Restenosis may happen a number of times. Zamboni reports that a second or third procedure is usually enough. People may resort to stents. I should imagine that safer stents will be developed. In any case, the treatment, for each of us, is not going to top a million..
Zamboni's study, compelling anecdotal evidence, I'll be there for venoplasty when I'm called up (and no Lyon, you didn't coin the phrase, but nice try).
-
malden