Friday, April 15, 2011 5:26 PM
|
CCSVI in Multiple Sclerosis
Here's a repost from the Notes (in light of this week's neurology conference and press) This paper from the 1980's discusses multiple sclerosis and the vascular paradigm, and why it is dismissed time and again-----Medical Hierarchies. Nothing new under the sun. Medical Hierarchies: Neurologists vs. Vascular Doctors We are beginning to see how the hierarchical power structure at universities and in medical publications is impacting research into CCSVI. There have been two small negative medical studies which came out months ago and were published in the Annals of Neurology. Even thought these studies are NOT news or even timely.....these negative studies are picked up time and time again in the press and regurgitated. We will continue to see this in the media. Why? Aside from conspiracy theories and corporate espionage (which may be true as well)---there is another force which comes into play in medicine. The hierarchies of medical disciplines. I posted this paper earlier in the year. It was written in the 1980s---and discusses the favoring of the neurologists' explanation of MS over the vascular paradigm. Yes, this debate has been waging for many, many years-- http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119454590/PDFSTART From the paper on Social Constructionism and medical sociology: a study of the vascular theory of MS-- "A recent debate surrounding the pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis is analysed in terms of the skills, interests and backgrounds of the medical personnel involved. It is noted that the proponents of the vascular theory possess developed expertises in interpreting disease in structural, vascular terms, whereas their opponents' skills lie in immunology or neurology. Different observers have produced different conceptions of the disease because modes of observation, and the points from which observation takes place, differ. It is also noted that the debate over the causation and treatment of MS has occurred between a large and powerful social group and a weak and marginal one. The effects of this power inequality on the production and assessment of knowledge about MS are investigated." The authors go on to explain how the "large and powerful group" of more highly paid and trained neurologists got to "own" MS. Because of this, any other theories or modalities of MS diagnosis or treatment from weaker and less powerful medical groups or patients are shot down, called quack theories and easily discounted. Please read this paper. It talks about Dr. Philip James studies in Scotland in the 80's. He likened the MS disease path to decompression sickness and oxygen deprivation found in divers. James, like Dr. Roy Swank, thought this might be due to fat blockages in the vascular system, and he had much success treating MS patients with hyperbaric oxygen. A good, interesting read, and one that helps us understand what we're up against- and why the internet is a democratizing power in this "social constructivism" and how we can change the dialogue, and insist on more vascular research. We may not be able to control what the main stream/corporate press publishes in terms of research results...BUT we can inform one another, and help the vascular doctors have a platform for their research. Keep the faith. Spread the word. And don't let the heirarchical turkeys get you down...:)
|