Welcome! This blog contains research & information on lifestyle, nutrition and health for those with MS, as well as continuing information on the understanding of CCSVI and cerebral hypoperfusion. This blog is informative only--all medical decisions should be discussed with your own physicians.The posts are searchable---simply type in your topic of interest in the search box at the top left.Almost all of MS research is initiated and funded by pharmaceutical companies. This maintains the EAE mouse model and the immune paradigm of MS, and continues the 20 billion dollar a year MS treatment industry. But as we learn more about slowed blood flow, gray matter atrophy, and environmental links to MS progression and disability--all things the current drugs do not address--we're discovering more about how to help those with MS.To learn how this journey began, read my first post from August, 2009. Be well! Joan
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Vascular results thrown out by COSMO: researchers publish their own
February 16, 2013 at 10:49am
A team of vascular researchers from Naples was part of the multi-center COSMO CCSVI study in Italy, but the three main auditors decided to throw out their results, since they felt their finding of CCSVI was too high to be valid.
The data from this group has just been published in the BMC Neurology Journal. This trained vascular team found CCSVI in 76% of pwMS and 16% of controls. They find longer circulation time in those with progressive MS, "suggesting a role of hypoperfusion in neurodegeneration." Here is the study.
How can the COSMO study claim to be independent when 90% of the positive findings of CCSVI were thrown out by three men who were not even in the room when the doppler tests were done? In what way is this science?
Here is more on this ongoing story:
Vascular specialists in the Lombardi region are angered that positive results are discarded by COSMO study. They offer a blinded doppler "redo" for people who participated.
The COSMO study results were adjusted by three central readers, who threw out 90% of the positive CCSVI results in pwMS, because they felt the number of positive findings was too high.
The study coordinator, Giancarlo Comi, blatantly violated a feature of clinical trials, in that he came out announcing negative results at ECTRIMS 2011, when more than 75% of the patients had yet to be tested.
the outrage continues,