What a biased programme this was from Sam Smith. She set out from the outset to discredit a very promising new treatment for those many people whose medical symptoms have been labelled with the name multiple sclerosis. It was evident from the start of the programme that the tone was going to be negative. Many of the opening shots featured YouTube videos of people calling out words such as "I have been liberated". Liberation is not a term that we use in this country - the original treatment for CCSVI was developed in Italy where someone unsuspectingly used the term liberation, in Italian, to mean liberating the blood flow. In English this term has a whole other connotation, therefore those involved in the procedure avoid its use, whereas those in the sensational parts of the media seem to love to shout the term - it provided the sensationalism Sam Smith clearly sought, whilst clearly adding little to rational measured coverage of the subject.
It should be noted that the vascular theory of multiple sclerosis is not a new theory - the origins of such theories have been around for 170 years or so. It has long been known that the lesions of MS are venocentric (located close to the veins).
It should also be noted that the CCSVI procedure is not in itself a new procedure. It is carried out in our hospitals every day, only for different conditions. It is not dangerous. The rate of deaths for angioplasties in general in our hospitals is around 1% of those operated on (many of whom will have been elderly - unlike the majority of the CCSVI population).
People with MS are struggling to obtain treatment on the NHS for their condition simply because they also have the label of multiple sclerosis - not because the procedure itself carries undue risks. Vascular consultants in the UK will not work against the advice of an MS patient's neurologist. This is the stumbling block for people with MS. Neurologists are not ready, for whatever reasons, to accept that MS may have vascular origins. Meanwhile their patients only wish to be treated for their CCSVI - not their MS. If the same patient need treatment for a broken leg - they would not need to seek permission from their neurologist,
Sam Smith gave the impression that Dr Tariq was something of a rogue doctor, yet she failed to note that in his native Kuwait he has been charged by his government to arrange CCSVI treatment for all the country's MS population. He is in fact a Consultant Interventional Radiologist of some note internationally, who actually first trained in Ireland.
Sam Smith trapped Dr Gilhooly of the Essential Health Clinic into an interview in the clinic's car park. She had clearly provoked him, as could be ascertained by his ruffled demeanour. Dr Gilhooly is a reputable doctor who has brought a valuable new treatment for CCSVI to the UK. Those people with the condition have an absolute right to be able to choose to pay for treatment in the UK if they so desire. It is possible to pay for breast enhancements, laser eye treatment, nose reconstructions etc etc etc, so why on earth not for the substantially less risky, minor CCSVI procedure?
Sam Smith also needs to be aware that in a study carried out in Buffalo, USA a number of people who were relatives of people with MS also tested positive for CCSVI.
I was scanned myself by Vic Fernando at the Essential Health Clinic. My veins were reported to have a normal flow. There will always be anomalies with any scans. Yet it is known that CCSVI abnormalities are starting to be seen in people with Alzheimer's Disease. It is a fascinating, rapidly moving science. We need balanced reporting of the subject.
Karen Lewis was brave enough to be filmed in the most personal of health situations, while this 'balanced' BBC report completely failed to investigate the science with an open mind. Sam Smith had prejudged the debate before she even started. This is not the kind of reporting licence payers expect to see from the BBC.
"What a biased programme this was from Sam Smith. She set out from the outset to discredit a very promising new treatment for those many people whose medical symptoms have been labelled with the name multiple sclerosis. It was evident from the start of the programme that the tone was going to be negative. Many of the opening shots featured YouTube videos of people calling out words such as "I have been liberated". Liberation is not a term that we use in this country - the original treatment for CCSVI was developed in Italy where someone unsuspectingly used the term liberation, in Italian, to mean liberating the blood flow. In English this term has a whole other connotation, therefore those involved in the procedure avoid its use, whereas those in the sensational parts of the media seem to love to shout the term - it provided the sensationalism Sam Smith clearly sought, whilst clearly adding little to rational measured coverage of the subject.
It should be noted that the vascular theory of multiple sclerosis is not a new theory - the origins of such theories have been around for 170 years or so. It has long been known that the lesions of MS are venocentric (located close to the veins).
It should also be noted that the CCSVI procedure is not in itself a new procedure. It is carried out in our hospitals every day, only for different conditions. It is not dangerous. The rate of deaths for angioplasties in general in our hospitals is around 1% of those operated on (many of whom will have been elderly - unlike the majority of the CCSVI population).
People with MS are struggling to obtain treatment on the NHS for their condition simply because they also have the label of multiple sclerosis - not because the procedure itself carries undue risks. Vascular consultants in the UK will not work against the advice of an MS patient's neurologist. This is the stumbling block for people with MS. Neurologists are not ready, for whatever reasons, to accept that MS may have vascular origins. Meanwhile their patients only wish to be treated for their CCSVI - not their MS. If the same patient need treatment for a broken leg - they would not need to seek permission from their neurologist,
Sam Smith gave the impression that Dr Tariq was something of a rogue doctor, yet she failed to note that in his native Kuwait he has been charged by his government to arrange CCSVI treatment for all the country's MS population. He is in fact a Consultant Interventional Radiologist of some note internationally, who actually first trained in Ireland.
Sam Smith trapped Dr Gilhooly of the Essential Health Clinic into an interview in the clinic's car park. She had clearly provoked him, as could be ascertained by his ruffled demeanour. Dr Gilhooly is a reputable doctor who has brought a valuable new treatment for CCSVI to the UK. Those people with the condition have an absolute right to be able to choose to pay for treatment in the UK if they so desire. It is possible to pay for breast enhancements, laser eye treatment, nose reconstructions etc etc etc, so why on earth not for the substantially less risky, minor CCSVI procedure?
Sam Smith also needs to be aware that in a study carried out in Buffalo, USA a number of people who were relatives of people with MS also tested positive for CCSVI.
I was scanned myself by Vic Fernando at the Essential Health Clinic. My veins were reported to have a normal flow. There will always be anomalies with any scans. Yet it is known that CCSVI abnormalities are starting to be seen in people with Alzheimer's Disease. It is a fascinating, rapidly moving science. We need balanced reporting of the subject.
Karen Lewis was brave enough to be filmed in the most personal of health situations, while this 'balanced' BBC report completely failed to investigate the science with an open mind. Sam Smith had prejudged the debate before she even started. This is not the kind of reporting licence payers expect to see from the BBC." Humbugcat.... Well said I don't know that I can add anything to your comprehensive criticism of the BBC South West Inside Out programme. This is not the first time of course that I have had the experience of being approached by a reporter who has made up their mind before doing any research. It is also worth noting that Prof Zajicek (the Neurologist) has declared his interest to the Medical Research Council and from that we can see that he received a consultancy fee from pharmaceutical companies to the tune of over £50,000. This kind of illustrates the forces at play in CCSVI and its treatment. There is no money in it for them and they are unlikely to support treatment that does not result in the use of expensive drugs.
For more responses go to : http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/NF1951566?thread=8108628