Assessment of the Doepp (German), Sundström (Sweden) and Zamboni Papers by J. Pentz
• Posted by Judy Pentz on August 6, 2010 at 9:28pm
Reference:
WSJ article by Tom Burton(Wall Street Journal)(see any conflict of interest there?)Look who has the stock interests!!!
LA Times article by Shari Roan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have multiple sclerosis and I have CCSVI. I am not an MRI specialist, but Dr. Mark Haacke, of McMaster University, is. I do know how to have an MRI, just ask me. I had the pleasure for 2 hours straight the other day. I see no pictures of veins in the results. I have listened to Dr. Haacke speak, at least in the W5 broadcast. As with everything on CCSVI, we are at the VERY beginning as far as real research is concerned and finding out, and developing proper protocols. Joan Beal, of the CCSVI Alliance, said she was looking forward to hearing Dr. Haacke's response to the Swedish paper. So am I. The below are my thoughts and conjecture from a common sense perspective. I do think there are some basic truths.
I have read over both the Doepp and Sundström papers and that of Zamboni. Paolo Zamboni took 10 years to fully understand and come up with the protocol for diagnosing and treating patients who also have MS.
This is in response to the Wall Street Journal article by Tom Burton's article, and also the LA Times article by Shari Roan, both of which flagrantly omit all of the following.
It is difficult to compare the two new papers to that of Dr. Zamboni due to the time it took either Doepp or Sundström to come up with a protocol. They are both neurologists did so without understanding of the venous system They came up with their own protocols after just a few just a few months in an attempt to diffuse Zamboni's work.
Doepp claims to have found no CCSVI by doing a Doppler ultrasound, holding the instrument at one place on the neck within a proximity to a particular valve.
Zamboni's Doppler examines the entire neck from the base of the cranium down and around the collar bone. It also can reveal where the stenosis actually is.
When I had my Doppler it was done correctly and refluxive blood found in both jugulars. If the instrument had been held at one single location on my neck, how could the length of the vein and venous flow even be seen? I was found to have almost a full second of refluxing blood in each vein.
On Sundström's paper, they claim to have used MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) which is not generally used for veins. An MRV (Magnetic Resonance Venography) can see the venous activity in the brain, even in 3 dimensions, but are not always accurate.
I have heard from Dr. Byung-boong Lee, Dr. Carlos Mora (a neurologist), both from Georgetown University, and Dr. Paolo Zamboni himself states that MRV's are not the best to detect CCSVI. Even my uncle, and interventional radiologist who was in charge of five hospitals in Columbus Ohio says ONLY a venogram is the "gold standard" which does not involve an MRI/MRV/MRA machine at all.
Furthermore, a proper MRI/MRV to actually show this requires a specialized test and machine that is only in the beginning stages of development. This is something that may become more prevalent in the future (my opinion), once studies and proper techniques/ protocols to detect CCSVI advance and more information is discovered and confirmed.
These facts discredit both the German Doepp paper and the Swedish Sundström paper, as well as the fact they put this together within a few months with little apparent grasp of looking at veins.
I was advised by someone in Sweden who actually called and spoke to Dr Sundström personally that he had no intention of trying to replicate Zamboni's results or to even use one of Zamboni's carefully developed protocols.
It is very disconcerting that so much attention be given to studies and papers that are far less credible than the 10 year researched paper of Paolo Zamboni.
Neither the German Doepp study, nor the Swedish Sundström are credible in the least. What is even 4 months compared to 10 years, especially when those trumpeting these results are not venous specialists, but neurologists. And they did these in a very short few months. Simply not credible.
It is unfortunate that the authors, Mr. Burton, nor Ms. Roan did not read the papers papers involved or consider how haphazardly Doepp and Sundström came up with protocols from a neurologist's perspective in only a few months. I would hope, as a journalist, they would take the time to verify facts and not mislead the public as their extremely similar articles did.
No comments:
Post a Comment