It all depends what you regard as evidence and what you regard as proven. If a vascular surgeon is happy with the evidence and submits to the procedure then that is a good start for me. Clearly however I would want more than one opinion on the subject but I would want those opinions from those that had undergone the procedure or those medically qualified to give such opinions and with experience of treating CCSVI.
We need to remember that this has been reported before and ignored, this time the fuss is about it being reported by a doctor with a sick wife who read existing medical literature. He may have named it CCSVI but he did not invent it.
In an ideal world where only science ruled medicine you would be right but we do not live in such a world.
We don’t live in a world where all data from clinical trials is published and therefore what is proven is often only what vested interests behind products want proven.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/wIWuEAFlg1Y
http://anh-europe.org/news/governments-push-potentially-harmful-and-mostly-ineffective-winter-flu-jab?utm_source=The+Alliance+for+Natural+Health&utm_campaign=ff165bf3fd-121017_ANH_Intl_e_Alert_No_11910_17_2012&utm_medium=email
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Pharma-companies-mislead-patients/dp/0007350740
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/02/us-glaxo-settlement-idUSBRE8610S720120702
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/drug-giants-fined-11bn-for-criminal-wrongdoing-8157483.html
I believe something like 30,000 people have had CCSVI treated which is ample evidence for the procedure one way or another. The problem is no one has collected that evidence.
As for public money being used for unproven procedures again in an ideal world that would not happen.
However if the NHS acted solely on evidence then the post code lottery would not exist but it does.
Therefore whilst I am no way involved in the CCSVI movement I entirely support what they are doing and wish them every success.
The law of the land now specifies a legal obligation for patent consultation. These people are being fobbed off, not listened to.
So the Humpty Dumpty Syndrome returns!
Yes, I did find the 5 following references interesting.
Two were about the fine handed to Glaxo Smith Kline (unethical marketing).
One was a biased comment from the anti flu vaccine brigade.
One was a link to Amazon for Ben Goldacre’s book.
One was a link to a video by Gwen Olsen.
NONE of them related to CCSVI - which is the topic of this thread (unless the aim is to hijack it by the “Anti Big Pharma” brigade).
So how about a reference that IS related to CCSVI:
I am sure that everyone can recognise the source.
Paints a slightly different picture of CCSVI, does it not?
Geoff
Indeed it does, and it is so far different from other studies and the opinion of those who have had the procedure one has to ask the question why?
It’s called the placebo effect. Go back a while, to my post about the dodgy stemcell treatment in Rotterdam in 2006 and the proportion of perceived benefits is the same.
There’s no point in discussing the pros and cons of CCSVI with you David, as you just haven’t read enough. Go and study some more and we’ll get back to it. Posting links about the FDA fining Teva and Merck has nothing to do with CCSVI - absolutely nothing. You, as a retired person with (as you wrote) scientific training can see this.
I was so thrilled in 08/09 to read about CCSVI. It has been very disappointing. It’s also been a huge money-maker for various clinics around the world. I suspect that the profits from these procedures must be approaching those of the drug companies.
Who are the wealthiest doctors in the US? Cardiologists? Cosmetic surgeons? No. Interventional Radiologists. It’s becoming a cult on the internet. No anti- discussion is tolerated. Try it and watch the hate mail pour in.
The most shocking post that I read, was by one of CCSVIs most prominent proponents, who offered sympathies for someone who was diagnosed with Marburg’s MS and by way of ‘help’ offered lists of herbs, such as milk thistle. Wow - someone with fatal MS should go to a herbalist?
Can I make a suggestion if you do not wish to discuss things with me do not reply to my posts.
Links about other non - scientific things going on with clinical trials and non - evidence based procedures like flu vaccine, unless of course you believe the Cochrane Collaboration are part of some conspiracy against pharma, are in my view very relevant when considering the general value of clinical trials in determining the value of clinical trials in respect of other treatments such as CCSVI.