You Tube : MS and CCSVI Research

[Halo Jones]

Badgers BITE my dear..

Promises...

[Board Game Geek]

Well, you have educated at least one person .
I just wish you had warned me what an ugly fcker you are

Please, it should be "You are one ugly mfcker".

At which point my mandibles, hidden under the beardage, go "clack clack clack" and I eat you.

[Board Game Geek]

Promises...

Looks like an early night then...

[Board Game Geek]

You did a great job speaking for almost nine minutes, without umms, errs, etc.

Thank you.

I used to do acting and public speaking, so it's something I am aware of when doing presentations.

/humble

[TykeMerc]

Interesting video.

Do I take it that some of the MS research charities are completely ignoring a possible avenue of simple investigation that could lead to a cure?

Judging from the very rapid spot of Googling it's not like investigation of this possible cause would preclude investigation into other causes.

[Drewster]

Well, you have educated at least one person .
I just wish you had warned me.......

I agree on both counts.......

Well done.........

and you are one ugly flipper.... but you knew that.... RIGHT??

[Board Game Geek]

Interesting video.

Do I take it that some of the MS research charities are completely ignoring a possible avenue of simple investigation that could lead to a cure?

Judging from the very rapid spot of Googling it's not like investigation of this possible cause would preclude investigation into other causes.

That's exactly what they are saying, and why the MS community worldwide is so up in arms.

[TykeMerc]

That's exactly what they are saying, and why the MS community worldwide is so up in arms.

Hmm, that's befuddling to say the least. Surely in researching a cure understanding the (or even a) cause is important. I admit that I come at problem solving from an engineers mindset, but it's logical to try and understand the causes in order to resolve a problem.

I'm completely confused as to why the MS charities would reject serious investigation into even a remotely possible cause of the symptoms let alone the disease.

I know 3 people with MS (fortunately all have relatively mild symptoms) and I'm sure anything that can offer any hope would be welcomed by them and their families.

[Board Game Geek]

Hmm, that's befuddling to say the least. Surely in researching a cure understanding the (or even a) cause is important. I admit that I come at problem solving from an engineers mindset, but it's logical to try and understand the causes in order to resolve a problem.

I'm completely confused as to why the MS charities would reject serious investigation into even a remotely possible cause of the symptoms let alone the disease.

I know 3 people with MS (fortunately all have relatively mild symptoms) and I'm sure anything that can offer any hope would be welcomed by them and their families.

Yes, both you, myself, and probably a great of us on this board, approach problems in logical ways, and then are adept at trying new approaches using lateral thinking as well.

It's my experience that the medical community is not like that.

Take MS for example.

For those that hate walls of text, you can skip here.

For those interested in why MS Research is stuck in the Dark Ages, please continue.

*************
Let's try to understand how the vascular connection to MS was dismissed, and why. It's all about EAE (experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis) and drugs-


"In the early 1930s, Thomas Rivers and colleagues provided the first evidence that immune cells can attack the brain. Their simple experiments established what is now the most well-studied model of autoimmunity—the experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) model of multiple sclerosis.

Studies had shown that injection of foreign brain tissues into the brains of rabbits could cause paralysis (2).

Intrigued, Rivers—then a virologist at The Rockefeller Institute—set out to duplicate these studies in monkeys.

Rivers and his colleagues injected Rhesus macaques with normal brain extracts from rabbits and showed that most of the monkeys developed acute CNS disease with immune cell infiltration and demyelinating lesions. No infectious agent could be cultured from the animals, putting to rest suspicions of an infectious etiology.

Rivers' group also noted that the disease-inducing capacity of the brain extracts paralleled their myelin content, providing the first hint that myelin was involved in disease induction.

Thus, the experimental allergic (now “autoimmune”) encephalomyelitis (EAE) model was born. The group published these observations in three articles in the Journal of Experimental Medicine (3–5)."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EAE continues to be the medical model neurologists and immunologists study today, even though this model for MS is deeply flawed. Researchers continue to give mice EAE by injecting them with antigen, and then try to "cure" them with a variety of immune blocking or modulating medicines.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here's a paper from 2005
http://www.neuroimmunol.org/papers/16153891.pdf

"Experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) is a useful model for aiding the development of new treatments for MS. All therapies approved for MS ameliorate EAE.

Two approved medications, glatiramer acetate and Natalizumab, were developed directly from studies in EAE. Several trials are ongoing in MS after success in EAE, including altered peptide ligands of myelin, DNA vaccines and statins.

However, EAE has failed to predict the outcome of certai n approaches. The reasons underlying such failures are discussed here."

Many scientists interested in developing new therapies for MS criticize the EAE model for its poor record of predicting outcomes in the clinic, especially for those instances when promising therapies indicate that they are beneficial in models of EAE, yet then fail in subsequent clinical trials.

Nevertheless, the EAE models are rapid, and can quickly give indications of whether a particular mechanism of action of a specific drug has merit when taken into an in vivo model that recapitulates many aspects of the human disease, MS"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So, the reason we still use the EAE model for MS is because it is a RAPID proof of DRUGS? Because these drugs can cure mice of EAE????

MS researchers continue to use this disease model, to the exclusion of other research, even in light of the fact that these treatments appear to cure mice of EAE...but FAIL IN CLINICAL TRIALS OF HUMANS WITH MS.

Insanity is repeating the same actions over and over again and expecting different results as Threaded quotes from another.

We have had seventy five years of EAE research, and we are not closer to understanding MS.

Perhaps we need to find a new model?
+++++++++++

And that is where this new research is turning the world of MS on it's head.

In nearly 500 test patients with MS, everyone of them showed in MRI scans of their necks of thin, crumpled veins that could not get the blood out of the brain properly, leaving iron to deposit. Iron is very toxic to the brain in such quantities.

Dr Zamboni put forward that Auto-Immunue Disease in and of itself is not the trigger for MS.

He believes the trigger is the hampered venous flow from the brain, which leaves iron behind, and THEN the Immunue System goes on the offensive to attack the foreign objects.

Patients that have had stents via angioplasty are reporting considerable benefits, such as loss of symptoms, etc.

He's on to something new here.

In 1863, a doctor who analysed the brain slices of post-mortem MS patients noticed lesions on the brain. Each one was around a small red dot, which he believed was iron deposits, and caused by incorrect venous flow.

That research was forgotten about, until unearthed recently.

[Board Game Geek]

As to why the MS Charities are not being very supportive.

1. Many MS Charities receive the majority of their funding from Pharmas.
2. Many MS Charities recommend the Pharma drugs.

Simple conflict of interests.

I spoke to my own MS Charity and asked if they were going to conduct research. They replied, "No, nothing is planned, however we have a great new drug pipeline up to 2015 of new drugs on their way !"

That told me all I needed to know, to be honest.

The MS Charities would lose considerable monies, and the Pharmas themselves would be financially crippled by a cure, especially one that is potentially surgical, and not drug-related.

Let me put this in perspective.

Biogen make £163 million a year from their new MS Drug. If MS can be halted or cured by a routine operation, are they going to be dancing in the streets ?

For some Pharmas, MS drugs account for 50% of their overall revenue.

For some strange reason, Pharmas who typically enjoy good PR by donating to Charities which advocate their drugs, to set up new drug pipe lines and help patients are remaining positively quiet about funding research in to CCSVI and Dr Zamboni's findings.

The only winners if he is right are :

1. MS Patients
2. Governments like ours who pay Billions on MS Drugs to the Pharmas.

Part of our campaign is at government level, advocating how much money can be saved. We intend this to be a political hot potato, and we have had several MP's get the message. I can't say any more than that.

Another loser could be those who have significant shares in Pharmas which derive most of their profits from MS Drugs, if this pans out. So keep an eye on your shares and CCSVI research, ladies and gents.