MS doctors attacked for their skepticism

erinc14 · Post by **erinc14** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:11 am

OTTAWA—Mark Freedman was unprepared for the onslaught of hate.

There were the angry letters and phone calls. There were patients who told him he was fired, and others who accused him of conspiring with drug companies to keep them ill in the name of profit. There was the vitriol being poured into online forums, where he was called a pompous windbag with the bedside manner of Adolf Hitler, a pill pusher and, even, the “King of all Turds

Freedman, who chose to specialize in MS after a friend with the disease asked him to find a cure

http://www.healthzone.ca/health/newsfea ... skepticism

this article also calls us vigilantes .

Motiak · Post by **Motiak** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 7:11 am

People shouldn't verbally attack their doctors. If they are dissatisfied with the care they are receiving then they need to just move on to another doctor. That being said, I think it's a bit of a stretch to call what Dr. Freedman has said as "healthy skepticism". It's been outright denial and disbelief. However, that doesn't mean he should be attacked for his views.

Jugular · Post by **Jugular** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:18 am

I feel for Freedman as he is obviously a brilliant man who has contributed greatly to MS research. No doubt, he is in it for the right reasons too. But he brought this all on himself by taking to the papers to lambast CCSVI armed with little more than his personal opinion which was, no doubt, partially shaped at least by the fact that CCSVI was stealing all the MS research thunder and HE wanted to be that guy who finds a breakthrough.

Far better for him it would have been had he simply said that he doesn't find the idea particularly compelling based on his understanding of MS, that it warrants further study, and that it shouldn't derail other worthy research now underway. But no, he takes to the national media and all but calls Zamboni out as an unethical charlatan and offers his professional opinion that CCSVI will soon be debunked as being built on b.s. and lies. Not stopping there, he paternalistically dismisses MS patients interested in the idea as being misguided flakes.

And he is surprised by the backlash?

Post by **jimmylegs** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:19 am

i agree, motiak, and the point is made in the article too. i have it in print in front of me from the saturday star (front page).

sbr487 · Post by **sbr487** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:31 am

Jugular wrote: And he is surprised by the backlash?

I don't think he anticipated the intense backlash. Its difficult to believe that a skeptic would have called "hoax".

A question was asked to Dr. S sometime ago about the chiropractic approach. He simply refused to comment and that was enough to say that he remains a skeptic about this topic, and probably knew that some people are pinning hopes on this.

cah · Post by **cah** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:50 am

I'm sorry but to me, the neurologists talk bullshit again.

If there "approach" is "carefull" to an extend to not even consider it, then why do they accept heavy adverse effects and even deaths in there own drug research? Since when do you urge caution by calling it a hoax?

And can somebody please put a link in here to the "number of scientific truths that do not support (CCSVI)" Dr. Prat is speaking about? I'm looking into CCSVI for almost a year now, but I must have missed something.

Oh, wait - is he talking about the scientific truths of the german CCSVI studies?
Gosh, sorry. He's right.

"Is that what all MS patients want?" is a question a medical scientist shouldn't even have to ask. Of course all MS patients want "this". Because "this" just means to have better treatment options through research in all directions!!!

welshman · Post by **welshman** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 9:12 am

Sorry my "TiMS" writers, but I find it very difficult not to criticise these so called learned doctors for the way they have responded to this issue and even more so for the condescending comments they have made and continue to make.
Re: Freedman,

what have we done to lose the trust?

, well how about calling Zamboni a charlatan and stating that CCSVI will prove to be a hoax. The article states he has been researching the MS disease for 25 years, we know he receives significant funding from the MS Society, yet where is he with a cure, is he anywhere near a cure, does he know what causes the disease, can he prove the autoimmune theory ? I believe the answer to all those questions is a big fat NO. And yet he will not even consider the Zamboni Hypothesis despite it being close to the original theory olf MS !!!
Re: Knox,

I wish I could do better for them.

Well how about learning how to image veins, maybe go to Italy for training so you will be able to properly set up your MS Society funded research on the correlation of MS and CCSVI, and then you wouldn't have to make inane statement like you did about not knowing how to go about this research.
Re: Traboulsee,

Maybe its not the cure,

and

we want what is better for people.

First off, don't call CCSVI treatment "a cure" or even refer to it as "a cure". Secondly if you really want what is better for people, then get off the naysaying band-wagon and look at CCSVI with an open mind, and something that may indeed provide some relief to this insidious disease.
Regretably, Neuro's who have been vocal on this issue have a lot to answer for - input to the MS Society who have been active in getting a lid put on any meaningful research, they have influenced decisions that could have seen meaningful dollars going to research, and their continuous need for time consuming research when MS'ers don't have that time.
Oh and one final point for Freedman who again says he

understands their desperation,

MS patients ARE NOT DESPERATE, they simply want what appears to be a treatment that might give back some quality of life, and they are prepared to take the risk to have that treatment. It would be better if their doctors supported them instead of reprimanding them for for this choice.

MrSuccess · Post by **MrSuccess** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 10:17 am

re : mark freedman - classic passive aggression routine .

I for one ..... am not accepting Freedman's cod swallop .

Dr. Freedman has made his bed ..... and now has to sleep in it .

As has been recently posted ...... Dr. Godley at False Creek has organized a 200 person CCSVI investigation WITHOUT intervention .

No angio . Just comparing pwMS vs those without MS .

Heading up Dr. Godley's CCSVI investigation is a three doctor team ...led by Dr. Chambers . An excellant choice in my view .

In 2002 .... Dr. Chambers published a paper in the CMAJ that produced some interesting results . I have printed out the portion that I found of interest in the False Creek thread .

It appears Dr. Freedman is firmly encamped in the '' I don't care what you report as quality of life improvements ..... it is MY opinion that really matters ''

And sadly .... Dr. Freedman is not alone ..... in dismissing patient feedback ..... post surgery.

It appears Dr. Chambers will do a superior job in accessing pwMS in his CCSVI study ....... in that Dr. Chambers will listen to your opinion.

You can't ask for more than that .

Perhaps Dr. Freedman and others like him ..... could benefit from reading medical discoveries and published papers produced by other medical practictioners .

Of course this SOB Freedman will wave off this advice ..... as the sign on his door ..... has blinded him from listening to the little people ...... and other health professionals he obviously views as inferior .

I think it's time to show Freedman the door ....... he obviously is abusing his position of authority ..... and pwMS are needlessly suffering .

Mr. Success

costumenastional · Post by **costumenastional** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 10:54 am

Freedman's work never addressed the reason we get sick.
Freedman's work is all about manufacturing useless, expensive, toxic and extremely dangerous drugs.
Freedman is using MS patients as lab rats.
Freedman was the first who called Zamboni's theory a hoax.
Freedman is a wicked man.
All Freedmans of the world can now see that we can decide for ourselves.
Freedman has "no happy customers" as he claims.
Freedman is loosing "clients".
Freedman is loosing money.
Freedman is loosing it in general.
Freedman has done nothing this quarter of a century.
Freedman should not be allowed to speak for MS.
Freedman should not be allowed to talk in general.
Freedman does not deserve sympathy.

I belong to the "loud minority", the liberation treatment helped me to one extend and Freedman can kiss my ass any time. I can be sick on my own. I don't have to pay Freedman and his kind to make me even worse.

erinc14 · Post by **erinc14** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:36 am

btw, 1% of people are psychopaths.

concerned · Post by **concerned** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 12:41 pm

Judging from recent experiences, that estimate seems horribly low.

ozarkcanoer · Post by **ozarkcanoer** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 12:47 pm

I happen to think that this is a good article. It doesn't help anybody with MS to defame or insult anybody else. I am very dismayed at all the name-calling against neuros. It's not us against them but us against MS. I know we are all angry. I certainly am. But I am not angry at anybody who is skeptical about MS. I am just angry at all my symptoms. People should understand that to be skeptical is a good thing. Our job is to get the CCSVI news out. That means (I hope) more research. I am also a skeptic. I don't know that CCSVI is the answer for MS. I refuse to get angry at anybody who opposes the CCSVI hypothesis. And I have been "liberated".

ozarkcanoer

erinc14 · Post by **erinc14** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:40 pm

why is dr. hubbard "never so embarrassed to be a neurologist" if there's not a problem here ?

scorpion · Post by **scorpion** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:08 pm

This post kind of reminds me of the idiot fans at a football game where the ref made a call they did not like but the problem is not really the ref. The fans know if calls soon do not start going their way they will get a big L in the loss column. Instead of booing their team, which is really the problem, they blame their pathetic performance on the ref. Start making some decisive plays and the ref will not be a factor. Leave the ref alone and tell your team to get their ass in gear and make some plays.

garyak · Post by **garyak** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:58 pm

scorpion wrote:This post kind of reminds me of the idiot fans at a football game where the ref made a call they did not like but the problem is not really the ref. The fans know if calls soon do not start going their way they will get a big L in the loss column. Instead of booing their team, which is really the problem, they blame their pathetic performance on the ref. Start making some decisive plays and the ref will not be a factor. Leave the ref alone and tell your team to get their ass in gear and make some plays.

I compare Freedman to a ref that throws the game because he had placed sports bets !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Come on , he is a pompass ass.