CCSVI Heats up

Neurologique has launched its Facebook page at www.facebook.com/Neurologique and the discussions are advancing.

One member wrote the following:

There may be a cure for Multiple Sclerosis!Dr Ashton Embry President, Direct-MS says it best in this open letter, http://www.direct-ms.org/magazines/Embry%20Open%20Letter%20to%20Khan%20et%20al%20regarding%20CCSVI.pdf I say,”CCSVI is a known condition in the legs and has been treated for years! Why then can't CCSVI in the neck be treated? Regardless of whether or not a person has MS or not. Let research continue to figure out what came first MS or CCSVI, in the mean time it only makes sense the doppler scanning become a part of ruling out MS or CCSVI and the the Liberation Treatment become a part of MS therapy.”


My answer was:


Thank you for sharing this. While I understand the anger here, it is not clear on what basis the author states: that there is "little doubt that CCSVI is an important factor in the MS disease process in many cases (definitely not all cases)."

Throughout mose of the 'open-letter' Ashton Embry takes a measured approach, but that quotation is unclear to me. If MS itself may be congenital, then once again how do we know if CCSAVI preceded it or not.

I was not an author on the Annals of Neurology piece, but I think it is fair to point out that the CCSVI data is preliminary, because although Dr. Zamboni's paper does not say it is definitive, hundreds (or thousands) of patients are treating it as if it is. They are taking real health risks by having an unestablished semi-surgical (endovascular) procedure. Patients have gone so far as to created Facebook pages with titles such as 'Dr. Zamboni for Nobel Prize.' Websites, such as www.ccsviForMS.com, www.ccsviLiberation.com and www.ccsviCuresMS.com, have crept up as well.

In terms of experts in MS and pharmaceutical company relationships, Mr. Embry writes: "Naturally your advice is going to be “Don’t use the non-drug treatment. Use only the drugs”. How can it be otherwise and that is why advice from those with obvious conflicts of interest is self-serving and worthless." and "...your Point of View is completely out of date and your advice regarding CCSVI testing and treatment is totally compromised and of no value." If he truly feels this way, then I would suggest not seeing a specialist neurologist for MS. Nothing forces patients to seek allopathic and osteopathic physician consultations. If doctors are not to be trusted, then why do patients come to see us? "How can it be otherwise?" The Hippocratic Oath and our dedication to our patients is how it can be otherwise.


Please note, I am not defending either viewpoint and I have made that clear in my blogs:

http://neurologique.blogspot.com/2009/11/going-to-other-side.html

http://neurologique.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-other-hand.html

http://neurologique.blogspot.com/2010/02/ccsvi-does-it-hold-up.html

There is no "war" as Mr. Embry suggests -- the front-line of facing MS is made up of patients, carepartners and doctors. We are the only ones who are sworn to have no other interest (as opposed to all the other 'stakeholders.'


The question is whether testing for CCSVI has utility. What will you do if it shows CCSVI? Would you then take real health risks? Your doctors are sworn to protect your health and we don't know whether performing the Liberation procedure will cause more harm than good.

What do you think?


- Dr. Daniel Kantor, MD BSE
Medical Director
Neurologique

info@neurologique.org
www.neurologique.org

Open letter to NPR's Morning Edition

Dear NPR, On 03/10/2010 I was disturbed to hear the story on physicians prescribing medications based on limited study data, but rather on years of clinical experience. Instead of NPR offering a balanced view of this issue, the speaker stated that doctors write prescriptions "in the dark." The tone used when referring to the thousands of caring physicians was unfair and unwarranted.

No one forces patients to seek allopathic or osteopathic care, but the Public does need to recognize that "evidence-based medicine" also means clinical experience. In these times of the Public's confusion over the role of health insurers vs. providers (i.e. doctors), NPR should educate their listening audience in a more fair and well-balance manner.

- Dr. Daniel Kantor, MD BSE
Medical Director
Neurologique

info@neurologique.org
www.neurologique.org

MuSic to our ears

MuSic

We will hopefully be having an MS jam session with the Lee Boys in May at Freebird Live in Jacksonville, FL

See: http://bit.ly/b85Dxk

- Dr. Daniel Kantor, MD BSE
Medical Director
Neurologique

info@neurologique.org
www.neurologique.org

MS Town Hall Meeting: Jacksonville, FL - Jax Beaches MS Support Group

Even if you couldn't be there, catch the latest MS Town Hall Meeting, filmed on LIVE WebTV.

Cupping -- old treatment for age old problem

Pain.


Cupping is usually performed by heating up the edges of a glass cup, which is then placed on the skin. The heating up is what helps cause the vacuum, which causes the skin/fat/muscle to be raised a little into the cup. Traditional Chinese medicine uses cupping, almost like how it uses acupuncture -- by applying the cups to certain area, it is supposed to relieve pain. Often cupping is not used alone and is used with other forms of therapy. There is growing medical evidence that cupping does wotk in certain types of pain, such as lower back pain. One of the problems lies in the difficulty in really 'blinding' someone to whether they receive the cupping or not (sham cupping or placebo). In a drug trial, we use placebo pills (commonly called 'sugar pills') that look exactly like the pills being studied. This is a lot more difficult in a cupping study.

Most people associate cupping exclusively with Traditional Chines Medicine, but many other cultures use it -- such as the Bedouins. Cupping can be performed with suction and without heating the cup, but this is less traditional. It is also possible that cupping work by sucking blood into the area to which it is applied.

Pros:

- Low cost alternative way to treat pain, especially since there aren't that many alternatives.
- Has a long tradition and is relatively safe

Cons:

- Often needs to be used in conjunction with other treatments, so unclear how much it adds
- The fire may leave burns or marks
- Some practitioners may charge a lot for this treatment, which is not proven to be effective.


What do you do for your pain?


- Dr. Daniel Kantor, MD BSE
Medical Director
Neurologique

info@neurologique.org
www.neurologique.org