Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Just for a change of pace

by Paul Wells on Wednesday, September 1, 2010 3:18pm - 0 Comments

Conservative cabinet minister “accepts the recommendation of the country’s leading researchers.” The subject is multiple sclerosis, the decision is to refrain from funding studies into the effectiveness of a maverick therapy Colleague Cosh and others here have covered at some length, and in the context, Leona Aglukkaq’s decision seems rather courageous.

Tags: Leona Aglukkaq

More by Paul Wells

http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/ Scott_Tribe

Tough situation. I can see where the government is coming from in holding off… but there are also a lot of MS patients/sufferers out there who will be angry that a promising procedure to help them is being slowed down.

Lord Kitchener's Own

a promising procedure to help them is being slowed down

That is one way to look at it, but another argument might be that sufferers aren't being offered false hope, in the form of federal funding of a clinical trial into a somewhat dubious treatment.

Kelvin

Sorry, accidentally clicked on the down thumb.

I want to clarify that, for the record, this is the responsible, prudent position to take.

Though, over recent years, I am a bit concerned that quackery seems to be intensifying in all spheres, and I'm wondering if short-term prudence in not testing (and debunking) a lot of these unconventional ideas is really letting them go away, or just giving them breathing space. Revival of measles from lack of vaccinated kids, and so forth.

madeyoulook

Almost every time our federal health minister makes the news, she has impressed me. This is, again, one of those times.

Stewart_Smith

I agree, she presents honest straightforward arguments that demand respect even if you might disagree on some of the specifics.
http://stumblingabordeaux.blogspot.com Pato31

I have to agree, Mrs. Aglukkaq has been doing her job in a most esteemed manner.
Former Con Bot

That is till she gets a question that her minions hadn't prepped her, than she really does begin to break down….

Jenn_

But only because for some reason the response "I don't know, but I'll look into it and get back to you" can never be spoken. I have no doubt she'd do that well, and would get back to the person in a timely fashion. But that would almost be as bad as apologizing for something, apparently, and we can never have that.

Olaf

Why do I get the feeling that their acceptance of the recommendations of the country's leading researchers is more of a "in spite of" type thing than a "because of" type thing?

AT1

Geez! Damned if you do….
madeyoulook

I think that is unfair to Minister Aglukkaq. Throughout H1N1 she has demanded the best information from the brains in the business, brought the health critics from the other parties in on discussions early on for input and to brief them on the latest info, and made defensible decisions based on the best advice she could get. She seems to be doing the same thing here.

Take shots at the Tories in general over "evidence-based" this and "ideology over data" that. But not this minister. Not this file. She does not deserve those shots.

Olaf

Oh, so the working assumption here is that ministers in this government now make their own decisions on politically sensitive files?

Also, I'm not in the "fair" business, as I believe I've demonstrated on countless occasions.

MostlyCivil

She wasn't running the show during H1N1. Believe it. The flip/flop decisions on vaccinination target groups and adjuvented/unadjuvented for pregnant women were all political, and not science-based. It was actually quite sad to watch. She looked quite stricken.

madeyoulook

Evidence?
MostlyCivil

Originally, unadjuvented vaccine was declared safe for all, including pregnant women. Then they ordered unadjuvented, and told women it was coming if they wanted it, then it wasn't, and the original vaccine was safe again. Nothing changed with the vaccine, just the appearance of "listening" to the concerns of a few loud voices.

I can't give you minutes of the meetings, but I can tell you that, while most of the vaccine roll-out was up to par, this one area was a complete screw-up. It lef to confusion in the public, and a lack of trust of ALL health authorities, every province and city.
madeyoulook

You are confusing evidence changing as more information becomes available (in an overall dynamic and fluid environment) with ministerial incompetence.
MostlyCivil

No. I can tell you, with some authority, that the information about safety of the vaccine for pregnant women DID NOT CHANGE from day one. Lots of other stuff changed. From the first health warning out of Mexico to the recent WHO announcement, I've lived every day of this.

Believe me, I saw the evidence of change on a daily basis. Yes, I am involved in the health infrastructure.
Blue

Well, you better get back to work.
MostlyCivil

Blue, you've just joined cats, emily and wilson on my list of "don't bother anymore".
Blue

Great! Maybe now you will spend less time lurking on the blogs and more time using that "authority " to make yourself more " involved in the health infrastructure ".
Phil_King

My wife was pregnant at the time, and the studies coming in from other countries pointed to the adjuvanted vaccine being safe for pregnant women, and still does to this day. It works better and faster and produces a better immuno response with less of a dosage and thus less exposure.

The only reason things changed was because people were getting mixed messages from the very vocal anti-vaccine community, and as a result were freaked out and started demanding the non-adjuvanted vaccine in large numbers.

It didn't help that the roll out of the vaccine was a total mess either.
Jenn_

Maybe so, but anywhere she did have control–like bringing her counterparts in on things–she did well.

Actually, I think she's very transparent and it is relatively easy to see that she's in politics to do good things and has ideas about how to go about it, but she's not immune to the old political games where you have to play along to get along and so on.
Olaf

The point is that the very moment she's sent out to defend a "conservative" position, that does not accord with all right thinking people (non-conservatives), she'll be savaged just as any other conservative deserves to be. Ultimately, conservatives are deemed thoughtful, democratic and enlightened insofar as they support non conservative positions.
Jenn_

I lost my scorecard. Is not funding a clinical trial a conservative position? My first thought would be it is, since it avoids all that nasty spending of money and has the added bonus of avoiding the touchy-feely ickyness of compassion.

And so here I am defending her non-funding of said clinical trial. But, wait a minute, I'm a Liberal! Something isn't right somewhere.
madeyoulook

I'm a Liberal! Something isn't right somewhere.

A cheeky commenter might suggest that the answer to that second sentence may be found in that first sentence. But, I am not a cheeky commenter…

;)
Olaf

I think it's human nature to think that not all members of the Conservative caucus are evil. But it's an illusion; a logical fallacy. As soon as they're sent out to defend a policy that's unpopular, you'll have a million people saying "see, I told you, and what about that time in high school…"

The only sanctuary for a Conservative member of Parliament is to be booted from caucus. Michael Chong is a good example. He'd be subjected to the exact same "he's a classic Harper neo-con, fascist, douchebag, lapdog" type of ridicule everyone else was if he had stayed with the party. But no. He's a hero. He's better than a hero. He's the pinnacle of all that is sweet and pure in our democracy. He's a conservative that progressives can feel free to praise, thus telling themselves that they're perfectly nonpartisan. Just rational truth seekers, because they support someone who opposed those that they hate. Helena Guergis is another good example. While in caucus, she was an unlikable, incompetent tyrant, who should resign at the soonest possible opportunity. Once booted from caucus? She's a perfectly reasonable, independent, competent, horribly misunderstood victim of Harpers random vindictiveness.
Kaplan

Well, I don't know about Chong, but I know Leona's educational credentials top out at a diploma from Arctic College. So, you know, feel free to cast your lot with her, but she's so in over her head, it's truly scary. Her incompetence, and utter reliance on civil servants and the PMO was on full display during H1N1. Anyone connected in any way with public health policy could tell you that.
madeyoulook

She doesn't need a PhD. She needs to assemble the right smart people, listen to them, and present and defend a course of action at the Cabinet table.
Jenn_

I wouldn't call it "reliance" on PMO exactly. More like "can't get away from" I think.
Olaf

More like "can't get away from" I think.

That sounds about right to me. The PMO has nets.
http://dredtory.blogspot.com/ Sir_Francis

Michael Chong is a good example.

He's not an example of someone cleansed of his horrid CPC-ness by being "booted" out of caucus, because, well…he wasn't. Moreover, you are again falling into ye olde either/or fallacy by failing to note that it's quite possible to see Guergis as an unlikeable incompetent who also happens to be a victim of Harper's vindictiveness.

Now, speaking of possibilities—is it not possible to admire Michael Chong strictly for his un-sheep-like behaviour on a point of principle? I'm not saying you would; I'm just asking whether you think it's possible.

I admired Chong for expressing a vision of Canada that one rarely hears these days, either from Liberals or "Conservatives". He'd have earned my admiration quite regardless of his party and quite regardless of whether Harper wanted to keep him in cabinet or even as a Facebook friend. Canadians generally admire guts, especially when displayed by a practitioner of a profession notorious for its exacting standard of gutlessness.

PolJunkie

I'm still on the part about a Harper minister accepting the recommendations of experts.

That's what I call a change of pace…

Olaf

I'm still on the part about a Harper minister accepting the recommendations of experts.

Let us know when you're finished the entire paragraph. We'll wait.

PolJunkie

Your point being?

Olaf

Just that you made it sound like you were still on an early part of the two sentence post, the way someone would talk about being part way through a novel they were reading.

I think that ultimately I was implying that you're a slow reader and therefore of limited intelligence, but I can't be sure.

PolJunkie

What's the matter, Olaf? People aren't giving you enough attention?
Lord Kitchener's Own

What's the matter PolJunkie? Leave your sense of humour somewhere?
Lord Kitchener's Own

OMG

Minus six for that first one? Minus three on this one? GEEEZ.

Get a sense of humour people!!!

Cats

Sigh Emily.

OF COURSE! Of course you'd find a reason to hate a conservative woman! You hate them the most don't you ?

Bottom line:

Any $$$ going towards THIS study means cuts in OTHER STUDIES.

Its not as you put it whether the government funds studies or not. (How idiotic. Seriously? Educate yourself before posting).

The issue is WHICH STUDIES do you we fund ??

Sigh. Exasperated Cats!!

Emily

Cats…why is it that Cons never see an underlying principle?

It doesn't matter to me if the minister is male or female….the point is that the decision is pro-ignorance, pro-not knowing or even wanting to know….and the point is the same on all topics with this party.

Of course it involves money…what decision doesn't?

Vested interests never want their funding lowered….so a good govt, interested in saving lives and advancing medicine…would fund both.

If there's one thing this country should be putting money into it's research and education….instead we get crap like fighter planes.

If you want something to be exasperated about….that choice should be at the top of your list.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Of course, the definitive answer from research might end up being "the experts were right, we shouldn't have wasted federal money on a clinical trial to prove that this risky treatment is bollocks".

Emily

Yes, and then we'd know. Otherwise this question will hang around for years. And if there is anything to it, some other country will discover it, and again we'll have lost the chance to advance.

Mike R

The question is, of course, which studies do you fund and which do you not? There is not an infinite amount of funding that could be made available, and even if there were, do you simply fund proposals that your own experts think do not have any merit? Judgment has to be made somewhere. Deperate people naturally hope for simple solutions, but their desperation can't be the basis on which governments make this type of decision. That has to be based on the evidence and expert opinion. In this case it appears the right decision has been made.

Emily

As I said, fund both.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Both, as in all of the trials that the experts say should be done, and all of the trials that the experts say shouldn't be done? And how much risk needs to be involved before we heed the advice of the experts?

Sorry, but if our experts say that this procedure is too risky for us to move forward with clinical trials yet, I think the government should listen to them. I'm not going to spend half my time mocking the government for not listening to the experts, and then the other half mocking them for listening to the experts.
Emily

What is it, country of origin that offends you?

It's a serious medical question….of course it should be looked in to.

How else will we know?

The one time the govt listens to experts….and suddenly all the other occasions of wrong judgements are okay.

No one asked for a definitive opinion on the procedure….it's just a proposal to check it out.
madeyoulook

A study involving human subjects that can not be supported by the science is inherently unethical, and the source of funding doesn't even enter into the equation.
Emily

Oh rubbish.

It can't be supported or unsupported until it's tested.
madeyoulook

I fear Olaf may be right about how various commenters take turns assuming that "my conversation with Emily will be different." Go ahead and snicker, Olaf, but I am taking a run at Lucy's football now:

Balancing Harms and Benefits: The analysis, balance and distribution of harms and benefits are critical to the ethics of human research. Modern research ethics, for instance, require a favourable harms-benefits balance—that is, that the foreseeable harms should not outweigh anticipated benefits. Harms-benefits analysis thus affects the welfare and rights of research subjects, the informed assumption of harms and benefits, and the ethical justifications for competing research paths. Because research involves advancing the frontiers of knowledge, its undertaking often involves uncertainty about the precise magnitude and kind of benefits or harms that attend proposed research. These realities, as well as the principle of respect for human dignity, impose ethical obligations on the prerequisites, scientific validity, design and conduct of research. These concerns are particularly evident in biomedical and health research; in research they need to be tempered in areas such as political science, economics or modern history (including biographies), areas in which research may ethically result in the harming of the reputations of organizations or individuals in public life.

From the "Guiding Ethical Principles" section of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans.
http://pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/tcps…
Emily

Nice…totally irrelevant to this discussion ….but nice.

You may want to go preach to Saskatchewan though. That should keep you busy
madeyoulook

Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans appears to be totally irrelevant to your thinking. Since the CIHR is one of the three Councils, however, I'll go out on a limb and defer to their reliance on such a position statement.

And yes, Premier Wall needs a slap upside the head for injecting crass politics into this. The end-run he has pulled off around guidelines for ethical research is shameful.

But I'll henceforth let LKO carry on in his futile quest for a meaningful conversation.
Emily

No one is discussing your book of ethics, and I don't know where you got the idea we were.

It's like any other religious book….used as a substitute for thought.
madeyoulook

LKO! Emily just lobbed a high fastball down the middle of the plate. It's all yours!
Emily

Thank you.
Lord Kitchener's Own

Are you kidding?

You know, I've always thought it would be cool to have some sort of bat-human hybrid (a "batman" if you will) but I didn't think that it would be ethical to carry out such risky experiments with precious little scientific evidence of real benefit to the subject (I mean, sure, anecdotal evidence would seem to indicate that a bat-human hybrid would be super cool, but that never seemed to be enough for the ethics board at my university). Emily has now convinced me that "ethics" are nothing more than fascist religious dogma meant to keep us in the dark ages of no batmen, and a complete and utter lack of adamantium-based human skeletal structures! I mean, if it SEEMS like experimenting on another human being might be a good idea, why am I letting some outmoded religious text from those freaks at the Panel on Research Ethics keep my progress (and, let's be frank, HUMANITY's progress) in check? Come on! The Canadian Institutes of Health Research?!?!? I might as well take my medical research advice from Osama bin Laden!

My experiments begin tonight, and the Office of Research Ethics at U of T can kiss my a$$!
madeyoulook

Attaboy, LKO.
JamesHalifax

EMily demanded:
"As I said, fund both. "

Well, Emily…..when you start paying taxes maybe you'll change your mind about funding everything that sounds good.

sourstud

So you're suggesting we fund every dubious theory out there just as a way of disproving it? You do realize that by doing so, some other less dubious theory would not be researched, leaving us knowing what doesn't work, but not knowing what works. I think that most Canadians would rather spend money on researching things that could help people, not researching what won't work.

Emily

'Dubious theory'?

Actually this is fairly major. And it needs to be looked at.

Remember when ulcers were thought to be from stress, and they removed parts of people's stomachs after having them on drugs for years?

Turned out it was a simple bacteria, and all it needed was antibiotics.

You don't know what will 'help people' until you look at new ideas.

MarionKl

But you still have to take the appropriate steps. The MS society and the provinces are funding studies to determine that MS patients do, in fact, have abnormal veins more frequently than non-MS sufferers.

Once that is established, I'm sure there will be funding for plenty of clinical trials.

As much as I would love for this to be it, from the testimonials I have read, I have serious doubts. I hope I am proven wrong and they have actually found a cure.
Emily

Yes, it would be wonderful. But without clinical trials, we'll never know.
MarionKl

If the diagnostic studies the the MS society is funding now show there is a link, then there will be clinical trials.
Emily

Yeah, cuz they were right on top of this, right?
MarionKl

No, because MS patients will be putting enough pressure on them. Also, because many people are traveling abroad and getting the treatment anyway. If there is harm in doing that (or if people are just spending money in vain), they will want to let people know.

Even if there is a link, what if the relationship is inverted? What if MS causes CCSVI, and not the other way around? Apparently, people who had the ballooning angioplasty were showing re-stenosis, and that's why they are now considering stents, even though they are more risky.

Kaplan

Do you even understand the issues being discussed here? You've written yourself into a rather fantastically self-defeating response here.

Emily

Oh puleeze.
Kaplan

I wasn't talking to you, Emily.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Well, yes, and then we'll know, but only AFTER trying this risky treatment out on a bunch of real people first.

Sorry, if experts say this treatment is too risky for us to move on to clinical trials yet, I don't have much of a problem with the government deciding to listen to those experts.

Emily

People volunteer for 'risky' treatments all the time.

Would you deny them that chance?

madeyoulook

In the absence of enough evidence on safety and efficacy… YES, most definitely. See above, where I point out that a research project on humans that cannot be supported by existing scientific knowledge is inherently unethical.
Emily

Fortunately for MS patients, you're being ignored.
Lord Kitchener's Own

Fortunately for MS patients if this treatment actually has anything whatsoever with MS, and isn't related to some completely unrelated phenomenon that may or may not have any impact, positive or negative on said patients, you mean.

What if we just plow ahead with a clinical trial, and the results of said trial conclude that, no, this treatment had nothing to do with MS, and the procedure addressed an entirely separate phenomenon with no causal link to MS, and furthermore the treatment ended up doing more harm than good for the majority of the patients who received the treatment? Would you still think it was the right thing to do to ignore the experts and perform a clinical trial that ended up hurting a bunch of people for no benefit, so that we could know FOR CERTAIN that the treatment doesn't work?
Emily

Well what if we had magic, and knew the answers to everything….then we'd never need to do ANY research, right?

Jenn_

But there already IS a study going on. That is different from a clinical trial, which you do AFTER the study! We don't need to fund a study that's already being funded, surely? Would it not be better to hang on to the funds so that if the study warrants a clinical trial we could fund that?

Emily

Hey, we retest everything in Canada…no trusting them pesky foreigners.

The US and the UK do the same with our findings….cuz we're the pesky foreigners then.

What…are we broke?

How are we affording all Harper's goodies then?

BGLong

Not a unanimous favourite ….

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/health…

Stewart_Smith

Of course when someone rips into you with lines like

"Ms. Aglukkaq is an intelligent, thoughtful politician; she has a superb grasp of the health file…"

its gotta hurt.

BGLong

Of course you could choose to stop reading there ….. but you don't really have to.

Stewart_Smith

The article seems to go of its way to describe Aglukkaq only flaw as being in the cabinet of a horrible PM. I didn't find it an overpowering argument and yet I largely agree with the conclusion.

BGLong

I don't think we know anything about her. In any public situation she comes across as calm
and composed and in control. But the usual pattern is to read a brief statement and then
hand off to a gaggle of expertise that trails along with her. Not a bad thing nor a complaint.
It's just that I don't recall a situation where she had to wing it.
But the difference with her cabinet cohort is striking. It just doesn't tell me anything.
Stewart_Smith

I think she is a crappy politician and would probably be run over if she had to start in a major urban riding in the south. However, I also think that she is a superb Minister who understands how to support her best people. At this stage, her reputation in the north (and increasingly in the balmy south) has been well established and her political limitations are not much of a detriment.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Yeah, I've gotta say, I'm no fan of the Harper government but to me, that column just REEKS of a columnist trying to stir up a controversy for the sake of stirring up a controversy. It feels like he spent all day asking every doctor at that conference "doesn't it bother you that the federal Minister of Health isn't here?" and then even when every single person he asked said "no, not really" he just submitted the column anyway with just a quote from the editor of the CMAJ criticizing the feds for SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY.

BGLong

That's fine. But Mr. Picard is probably the best reporter on the health beat in this country.
Of course, given the current state of the media that may be in comparison to a reduced
field. He's been doing it a long time. He may have been a little perturbed that the minister
wasn't there to respond to the jaw-jaw that the docs have been putting out lately. And how
the minister and the docs are choosing to interpret the Canada Health Act.

sorethroat

The responsibilities of the federal Minister of Health is to ensure Canadians benefit from life-saving treatment.

Not being in the medical profession, she is relying on others with a vested interest in not seeing this treatment be extended to Canadian MS sufferers.

Whether or not the procedure is invasive is moot; those electing to undertake the procedure are aware of and accept the risks of the surgury as do any other surgical patients.

This is manipulism of the health care of Candians by a medical establishment that does not want MS victims to get well.

This so-called panel is an entity of the federal govenment, and anyone believing its recommendations would conflict with those of the minister's office is clearly delusional.

Thank God Sask. has the sense to recognize the potential benefits of this procedure, and is continuing with its study, regardless of the Federal Conservative's position.

madeyoulook

Ah, yes. Took a while, but there it is. The "medical establishment" wants sick Canadians to stay sick. I am surprised it was this low on the page for the conspirazoid nonsense to show up.

Emily

I don't see it as any conspiracy, but they are a vested interest.

Reverend_Blair

I'm not sure why they (the experts, not the Harperites) don't want to run clinical studies. Wouldn't that be a logical step in testing the efficacy of the treatment? What needs to be done first? Are the various levels of government willing to fund that? Somebody with more scientific/medical training want to explain?

Stewart_Smith

I don't have medical training… however I did work my way through some thick material in conjunction with an exchange with Cash (Colby not Johnny (which would be awesome))

I think the issue is that the treatment of unblocking the veins is associated with a theory of MS.A fair bit of the response has been a careful analysis of that theory which has been found to be not plausible (i.e. runs against too many known attributes, lacks internal consistency etc, makes predictions inconsistent with observations).

That means we are left with a treatment option that has anecdotal reports of success disconnected from any rational explanation of why it works. Some of the related work from the Italian lab is suspect i.e. a claim that examination of the veins is a 100% infallible method of diagnosing MS. These have been shown to be false, there is a correlation but certainly not 100%. Of course, that negative result weakens the reported treatment successes from that group.

In spite of the above, I am still in favor of limited trials (but not widespread treatment). I believe that enough of these are occurring worldwide that if there is an overwhelming positive impact such as has been suggested we will know in less than a year. If there is something significant but more subtle then it could take a lot longer.

A lot of this is conjecture so any experts please feel free to correct me.

Jenn_

I'm a lot less of an expert than Stewart Smith, but I think I can explain it in more simple terms (although I agree with Stewart completely)

This Italian guy says that MS is caused by blocked veins. Except that other people have looked at MS sufferers and found a large number of those looked at do not have blocked veins. Of the ones that do, how do we know it isn't a symptom or side effect of MS/MS medication and not its cause?

The next step is to see if we can determine another explanation for the blocked veins. Or are the veins blocked more often in severe MS, or long diagnosed MS, or older people/younger people? Why don't all MS sufferers have them? etc.
hosertohoosier

Didn't the panel take issue with the safety of the therapy? I should think that our scarce resources could be better deployed elsewhere.

Reverend_Blair

Ah…why we all need more science training.

My take is pretty much like yours. Run some trials and see what happens. Get some real data. Get some peer reviews. See if more and larger trials are warranted.

My fear with waiting and not doing trials is that people are going to go overseas and get taken for a ride. My fear with doing trials is that it will lend credence to false claims even if the trials show the claims are baseless, so people will go overseas and get taken for a ride. Complicating that is my distrust of the North American medical establishment, especially the influence of the drug companies, who seem to have a record of taking us all for a ride.

I trust the scientific method to figure things out eventually…my experience has been that science kicks ass…but if it's hard for me to wait with relatively minor arthritis, it has to be hell for an MS patient.

Emily

Exactly. We won't know for sure unless we check it out….and it's cruel to the patients and their families to just dismiss it cuz it costs money.

Yeah, people will go elsewhere for it

chet

If you're on death's doorstep, then I say folks should have access.

If you're not close to death, then it makes sense to wait given that the "cure" could be worse than the disease.

Seems this should be our guideline, give or take.

hosertohoosier

But MS is not a fatal disease, although sufferers do experience a shorter lifespan. It is rare for somebody to die from MS directly.

Emily

No, it's a horrible crippling disease that lets people linger in a dreadful state.

Emily

So there is no reason to 'delay'….just because it isn't killing you instantly.

madeyoulook

You are confusing medical treatment and research. If the treatment has not been proven, then they shouldn't have access because nobody should be offering the risks and the false hope. And if it's so far out there that the very premise is under debate, then there should not be a clinical trial.

Emily

Will you please give the Dark Ages logic a rest?

'It's not science if it's not proven by tests'

'We can't test it until it's proven by science'

madeyoulook

I yield to Olaf's astute observations on the false sense of optimism various commenters conjure up when clicking on "Reply" to any of Emily's posts.

Emily

Hey, it's your logic, not mine

Hold the woman underwater. If she lives, she's a witch, so burn her at the stake.

If she drowns…she wasn't a witch. Oops. Oh well.
Lord Kitchener's Own

But there's anecdotal evidence that that's the only way to determine who's a witch and who's not!!! You want us to continue to live with the scourge of witches just because your "ethics" say we shouldn't be experimenting on people without scientific evidence that our experiment is worthwhile???

Fascist.

Ask the families of all of those women. They were willing to take the risk. Better to have tried the procedure and drowned than to have held back progress by waiting for some study to show a causal link between the ability to breath underwater and witchcraft.
Emily

Hey, it's your logic not mine.

The woman may be a witch. Hold her underwater.

If she lives, she IS a witch, so burn her at the stake.

If she drowns, she wasn't a witch. Oops. Oh well.

Emily

Go Saskatchewan, go!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/defi…
Phil_King

There could be multiple causes for MS based on the literature I've read, so there's no reason why all the experts here couldn't be partially correct.

It is also entirely possible that blocked veins are a side effect rather than a cause, but in any case, if someone has seriously blocked veins that are restricting blood flow it should be treated, because it can cause all kinds of other problems.

The lack of oxygen due to a slower flow of blood through the arteries can cause damage to the heart muscle. This can eventually lead to a heart attack or stroke.

I've read a number of accounts now where people without MS have their blocked veins cleared because their doctors consider it a dangerous thing, especially in the case of people with hemochromatosis.

So I don't understand why we wouldn't AT LEAST be funding studies to see if the treatment helps. It doesn't have to be a cure if it helps people stay functional. How much would YOU pay to not have to wear a diaper and have some other adult wipe YOUR butt everyday? Just sayin.

This decision is not something I can support. I don't think it demonstrates a broad understanding of the issue.
Phil_King

I can tell that some of you don't know anyone with MS. I do. It's a horrifying thing to see someone who's progressed to the point where they can't walk, can't wash themselves, use the toilet, eat, etc etc.

They're eventually trapped in their bodies and can linger for years in that terrible state.

If there's ANYTHING that can possibly slow the progression and ease symptoms like this, why WOULDN'T we be doing a large clinical trial to determine if it works?

And that's the problem here. The government isn't just saying they won't fund the treatment, which makes sense, but they're saying they won't even fund a study to find out what's what.

THAT's messed up in the extreme.
JamesHalifax

EMily wrote:
"Well what if we had magic, and knew the answers to everything….then we'd never need to do ANY research, right? "

You never do any research, Emily…..and yet you insist your answers are always the correct ones.

curious, that.
Ariadne

If they want a bang for their buck, they should fund a study in looking at the root cause of veinous blockage. No matter how you unblock the veins (which is a procedure with much risks), it will just reoccur, if why it happened in the first place is not being addressed.