The latest research on the controversial liberation treatment for multiple sclerosis is being hailed as the most definitive study done to date and one that should close the door on the need for further testing on the hypothetical association between narrowed or blocked veins and MS.
The study published in The Lancet and conducted by 91原创 researchers reveals that there is no relationship.
This is undoubtedly an emotional blow to MS patients who put their hopes in the radical theory of the genesis of MS and the corrective procedure developed by Dr. Paolo Zamboni. He is a vascular surgeon who wanted to alleviate his wife鈥檚 MS symptoms. He noted that patients with MS tended to have narrowing, twisting or outright blockages of the veins that drained the blood from their heads.
In 2009, he reported that more than 90 per cent of MS patients had such symptoms (named CCSVI, chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency) and, when treated by venoplasty (inflating a small balloon to widen the vein), 73 per cent of patients exhibited improvement.
To date, not one group has come close to replicating his data, and most studies refute it.
91原创 researchers now reveal that narrowing of major veins (greater than 50 per cent) can be found in about 70 per cent of all people 鈥� whether they have MS, are related to someone with MS or are a healthy control patient. CCSVI was diagnosed in one of 65 patients with MS, one of 46 siblings and one of 32 unrelated controls.
To scientists, the meaning is clear. An editorial that accompanies The Lancet study unequivocally states there is no longer any reason to allocate further resources (financial or intellectual) to debunking this theory.
The CCSVI story is a powerful one, and it clearly demonstrates the power of the media to generate hype over a cure that might, in fact, offer nothing, or in fact cause harm. It鈥檚 also instructive to those who control health policies in Canada: Paying for experimental medical procedures or drugs based on public demand, media hype or personal appeals 鈥� rather than controlled, clinical trials 鈥� isn鈥檛 the best way to help those who are sick.
Case in point: Medical marijuana.
This so-called drug has been available in Canada since 2001. Users are approved by Health Canada and they are allowed to grow or buy marijuana for medical purposes. In six months, a policy change will put physicians in charge of prescribing it.
But medical marijuana has not undergone the rigorous lab or clinical testing that is demanded of other drugs. There are no studies to show its effectiveness, its safety or dosage requirements. We don鈥檛 know about the potency of difference strains or how it will interact with other drugs.
An Ipsos Reid poll in March showed that 90 per cent of 91原创s believe such research is necessary before it becomes a prescription drug, and, more importantly, the 91原创 Medical Association has raised numerous protests to the federal health ministers saying, essentially, there remains scant evidence of the effectiveness of medical marijuana.
Yet Health Canada seems willing to provide a potent drug to 91原创s based solely on anecdotal reports.
The CMA says it will encourage doctors to have marijuana patients sign a release-from-liability form. But if I were a lawyer, I鈥檇 be prepping the paperwork for a lawsuit against Health Canada, doctors and anyone else who comes to mind once we start hearing about deaths from drug interactions and other problems.
Yes, people need the hope of a cure 鈥� but they also need protection from unproven procedures and drugs. Proper scientific testing now tells governments what they need to know about funding CCSVI procedures for MS patients. So why won鈥檛 Health Canada use the same principles to determine the safety and drug interactions of medical marijuana before handing it over for public consumption?
听
Susan Martinuk is a columnist for the Calgary Herald.
