MedPageToday.com reports:
“A new study from Germany has found that multiple sclerosis (MS) patients showed no evidence of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) — striking another blow against the theory that obstructed blood flow in veins exiting the brain may be a cause of MS.
…
The findings directly contradict results reported last year and in 2007 by Paolo Zamboni, MD, of the University of Ferrara in Italy, and colleagues from a 300-participant ultrasound study, in which nearly all the MS patients but few controls had CCSVI.”
Earlier this week, the New York Times reported, “From M.S. Patients, Outcry for Unproved Treatment.”
And we recently reviewed a Philadelphia Inquirer story, ” ‘Liberation procedure’ for multiple sclerosis sparks debate.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
richard
July 3, 2010 at 12:42 pmThere’s nothing to this, too good to be true, MS treatment,CCSVI. It appears to be on it’s way to joining the same trash pile where a so called miracle for autism ‘facilitated communication’ can now be found. The hopes of millions and the millions connected to them are about to be dashed. It happens, it hurts, it sucks and we’ll also fall for the next miracle cure. It’s been a facinating ride! Love to everyone.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like