Crawford, 78, of Woodbridge, is seeking liberation therapy, a procedure -- offered in many countries -- that reduces the effects of MS. The treatment will cost her family $14,000.
"I'm hoping to get my balance so I can walk on my own and, hopefully, it can help my right hand which doesn't function and, of course, I would like to have less pain," Crawford said.
"There is this woman ... who went to the same place that I am going. She had progressive MS and after her treatment she was able to start swimming."
My problem with this is what we read here, 'they seem better', 'they feel better' but nothing more measurable then that. Almost anything you believe in (or desperatly want to believe in) can do that.
That's part of it, no question, but I see that as a benefit.
My mom is, however, measurably better. Her numbness is gone, and her speech has been improving somewhat. She's not as tired, and doesn't experience migraines as bad as she used to. I wouldn't say that she's all of a sudden cured, but hopefully it has stopped the progression of the disease, which is what 90% of the procedure is all about.
I'm not speaking for all the patients that have had the therapy (I don't know any others) but in my mom's case it's improved her life significantly.
My problem with this is what we read here, 'they seem better', 'they feel better' but nothing more measurable then that. Almost anything you believe in (or desperatly want to believe in) can do that.
you don't even know what you are talking about. it isn't just "feeling better" or "seeming better". People who haven't walked in years are walking. Is walking not measurable progress especially after having no mobility for years?
it's not some hocus pocus backyard voodoo solution.
you don't even know what you are talking about. it isn't just "feeling better" or "seeming better". People who haven't walked in years are walking. Is walking not measurable progress especially after having no mobility for years?
it's not some hocus pocus backyard voodoo solution.
Indeed, this procedure is nearly as powerful as Benny Hinn's jacket.
Where do joint replacements fall then? repairs of hernias, hysterectomies for reasons other than birth control?, etc etc etc.....?
Did you even bother to read the thread?
Its been mentioned about a dozen times that the government is in cahoots with the drug companies to further cause pain and suffering in a bid to increase the sales and share value of drug companies. All in their effort to take over the world might I add
However I wonder what the level of testing was in this treatment. Are there possible side effects, what are the long term effects, is this a temporary measure. What are the possible surgical difficulties.
Its terrific to me that it reduces symptoms, but from my understanding this hasn't gone through the standard clinical trials, or even followed the Canadian Protocals to get approved for funding.
So while I get that this is the latest miracle cure, it also goes counter to what the understood causes of MS are, so I can understand why the government is unwilling to fund until it becomes a proven technique.
If its the miracle cure that its hoped to be then I don't see an issue with the funding of it. But there has to be a level of comfort that this is really what it purports to be before the government is going to kick money into it.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
you don't even know what you are talking about. it isn't just "feeling better" or "seeming better". People who haven't walked in years are walking. Is walking not measurable progress especially after having no mobility for years?
it's not some hocus pocus backyard voodoo solution.
Not neccesarily, any chronic pain disease is affected by the mental state of the patient, you may not walk for some time because it is painfull and you have lost hope and got used to the idea you are an invalid, then something comes along that makes you believe you can walk again, and even though it isn't really any better the fact you believe it is gets you moving again, it still hurts but in your mind it hurts less because you are 'getting better'.
However I wonder what the level of testing was in this treatment. Are there possible side effects, what are the long term effects, is this a temporary measure. What are the possible surgical difficulties.
Its terrific to me that it reduces symptoms, but from my understanding this hasn't gone through the standard clinical trials, or even followed the Canadian Protocals to get approved for funding.
So while I get that this is the latest miracle cure, it also goes counter to what the understood causes of MS are, so I can understand why the government is unwilling to fund until it becomes a proven technique.
If its the miracle cure that its hoped to be then I don't see an issue with the funding of it. But there has to be a level of comfort that this is really what it purports to be before the government is going to kick money into it.
While I agree with a lot of your post, you need to understand that
a)this sort of technique has long been used in cardiac procedures and other areas.
b) I can't see there being any major long-term side effects (complications aside), as you're just improving blood flow through certain areas.
c) Even if there was some potential big side effect, how could it possibly be worse than....I dunno, MS?
you don't even know what you are talking about. it isn't just "feeling better" or "seeming better". People who haven't walked in years are walking. Is walking not measurable progress especially after having no mobility for years?
it's not some hocus pocus backyard voodoo solution.
Actually, it's very clear from your posts YOU don't know what you are talking about on many levels.
While I agree with a lot of your post, you need to understand that
a)this sort of technique has long been used in cardiac procedures and other areas.
b) I can't see there being any major long-term side effects (complications aside), as you're just improving blood flow through certain areas.
c) Even if there was some potential big side effect, how could it possibly be worse than....I dunno, MS?
See my previous post regarding cardiac angioplasty.
There certainly can be long term side effects, especially if the procedure is botched and you rupture the vein. Veins are also thinner and less elastic than arteries, so there is a higher potential for injury compared to angioplasty. You injure a vein and you have a subsequent higher risk of clotting off leading to a complete blockage, or worse throwing clots into your lungs. We see this quite frequently in IV drug users that are bold/stupid enough to inject into their own jugulars.
Some people don't understand that health care resources are limited, especially in Canada. With a huge baby boom demographic retiring and getting sicker, an already scant pool of funds is only going to get more depleted. We don't have the luxury to divert limited funds towards unfoundedtreatments and work ups! We have enough trouble maintaining timely access to already founded diagnostic and therapeutic procedures!!
Are you really using a sensationalist tabloid like the Sun for scientific information? They, and you, clearly don't understand the insignificance of anecdotal evidence. Furthermore, most MS is relapsing-remitting, so >50% of MS sufferers should see a worsening<->improving fluctuation of symptoms as a natural disease course, regardless of "treated" or not. Being not able to walk/swim one day, but suddenly regain that function days/months later, can mean nothing because this is what MS does on its own!
Read something about MS that is actually found in a library.
Then re-read the myriad of posts by multiple posters explaining why this liberation treatment is not ready for primetime, and then see how that fits into your own misunderstanding of MS, health care, and scientific merit.
The Following User Says Thank You to NuclearFart For This Useful Post:
I think listening to Dr.NuclearFart is the smart thing to do here. He obviously is more knowledgeable than the rest on this kind of stuff.
The biggest issue i have with the treatment is that all the results are Anecdotal at this point. It is in everyones best interest that we do our due-diligence to ensure we are not putting patients at unnecessary risk with this procedure. It is not a simple procedure like most of you are saying.
I can relate an eye-related example to this. Radial Keratotomy. Before LASIK and PRK there was a refractive surgery, out of Eastern Europe, shown to correct Near-sightedness. This was Radial Keratotomy (or RK). Basically, you use a blade to make 4 to 8 incisions along the peripheral cornea in order to flatten the cornea (thus correcting near-sightedness). There was excellent anecdotal evidence out of Europe of patients not needing glasses. It was started in North America but stopped a few years later due to patients' eyes creeping more far-sighted and large amount of Astigmatism being induced. Many patients have poorer vision after the procedure than before.
The worry here is that there are no studies trying to determine the long term effects out yet. What if the post-surgical anecdotal evidence is because it lifts people out of a depressed state knowing something could be done ? Depression is shown to increase the symptoms of MS. It would be irresponsible for Canadian Health Care to pay for this until more evidence is shown.
Let me frame this a different way. If a new AIDS medication came out of Europe showing Anecdotal improvements in symptoms of patients and elevated T-cell counts right away, should the Canadian Government rush the funding on it ? Even if we do not know what the long-term effects are ? Or. What the safety profile is like ?
For my peace of mind (selfish, I know), I would ask those who are or know someone who is going to try this new procedure to go to an established academic center to have it done. By academic center, I mean a hospital that is additionally affiliated with a university. These hospitals tend to be more up-to-date on the best practices, and tend to have a more skilled group of clinicians.
You're paying out of pocket anyways, so please don't go to some small clinic located on the 4th floor of a random office building. Angioplasties are art as much as science, and should be performed by skilled, practiced clinicians (preferably a vascular surgeon or an interventional cardiologist) rather than a general physician.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flames Fan, Ph.D. For This Useful Post:
