The authors of the CMAJ editorial miss a number of key points probably because they know very little about the science of CCSVI. It is unfortunate they did not do their homework before writing their inadequate and somewhat naive editorial.
The current published scientific evidence leaves no doubt that CCSVI is closely associated with MS, that CCSVI precedes the MS disease process and that there are numerous, very plausible biological mechanisms which relate the effects of impaired venous flow (CCSVI) to the MS disease process. This science, in conjunction with the availability of a very safe, established procedure to resolve CCSVI is enough to justify treatment of CCSVI for anyone with MS.
Once you add the facts that it will be at least 8 years before the proper research is done (note current MSSOC research ending in 2012\13 just looks at the already established CCSVI/MS association and will add nothing new) and that many people will suffer major added disability in those 8+ years, it becomes ridiculous and basically barbaric to deny treatment.
The final problem is the gigantic conflict of interest that almost all MS neurologists have with an effective, vascular, non-drug treatment. The financial consequences of CCSVI treatment are dire for MS neurologists and this has led them to publicly claim CCSVI is a hoax and to lobby hard to stop any treatments and to ensure no useful research (i.e. treatment trials) is done by MSSOC. It appears the neurologists have persuaded the CMAJ editors to help them beat back the obvious need for CCSVI treatment. Such are the current politics of MS which are dominated by the financial health concerns of neurologists rather than the physical health concerns of patients.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
CMAJ Editorial: Direct-MS response
Here is a response from Direct-MS to my last post that I copied as a new topic of discussion on TiMS: