An editorial in this year's New York Times entitled Faltering Cancer Trials has some bearing on, and learing lessons for, the issues surrounidng the readily availability of diagnostic tesitng and treatment of CCSVI for MS.
The story details how the the vaunted US clinical cancer trial process is approaching “a state of crisis” according to a report issued by experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences reviewing clinical trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute.
The report highlights some surprising statistics, including the shocker that about 40 percent of all advanced clinical trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute are never completed.
These large, government-sponsored studies are supposed to be the gold standard — very different from, and more credibly objective than, the narrow, biased studies sponsored by self-serving manufacturers opportunistically seeking approval of a new drug.
However, the report found that a typical trial must navigate past dozens of overlapping reviews and approval processes so cumbersome that the average time between developing the concept for a study and getting it started is about 2.5 years. The report points out that the longer a study takes to get started, the more likely it is to become scientifically out of date, and the less likely it is that doctors or patients will want to participate.
Many of the critics of the CCSVI theory, including proponents of prohibiting diagnostic testing and treatment, state their objections in terms of the value of clinical trials. And yet the report on the National Cancer Instiutes program, which at more than 25,000 patients, 3,100 institutions and 14,000 investigators participating each year is one of the largest and most important of its kind in the world, clearly demonstrates that even the so-called gold standard of clinical trials is not as definitive at clearly defining the most efficacious treatments as some doctors would like to believe.
A good reminder that even our most tried-and-true and cherished practices, such as clinical trials, are not always what they are cracked up to be, leaving plenty of room for the validity of out-of-the-box thinking like that represented in Zamboni's hypothesis. Are the clinical trial processes for the study of MS treatments vulnerable to the same ills that have befallen the advanced clinical trial processes of the National Cancer Institute? Just a thought....
A reminder to check out theAngeles Chain of Liberation program, which through Angeles matching funds is enabling MS patients to save up to $2,000 on the CCSVI intervention treatment program. Check out the next free "About CCSVI" webinar and get $500 credit towards your program cost. We've had more than 700 attendees to our CCSVI webinars, featuring Q&A with the Stanford-trained medical team.