I decided to comment on this column because it was a curious mix of the author getting a few important points correct while at the same time getting a number of important points completely wrong.

Such a mix of good and bad is not uncommon and reflects the limited knowledge most reporters have about science in general and CCSVI in specific. I would emphasize that they cannot be faulted for this and I do not expect to see a truly insightful and scientifically correct article on CCSVI in a newspaper. One might hope for such an article in a scientific journal but it seems CCSVI carries too many major financial threats to the pharmaceutical industry and the neurological profession to allow a dispassionate and accurate analysis of the issue to be published at this time.

So what did I like about Rob’s article? The biggest contribution was Rob’s criticism that the recently announced observational study on CCSVI is highly flawed .and that it was proposed for political reasons rather than scientific ones. It is impossible to disagree with this analysis and, as Rob notes, even the leader of the highly questionable study, Dr Tom Feasby (disclosure -he and I went to high school together almost 50 years ago), admits that the study will produce little of value and that it was political pressure from patients that forced the issue of doing something on CCSVI regardless of its worth.

So it appears that everyone (reporters, study leader, anyone with common sense) agrees that the planned CCSVI observational study will produce nothing of value. The only one point I would make here is that financial considerations also were part of the creation of such an absurd study and I have discussed this in detail in the essay “The Sad, Sad, State of CCSVI Research in Alberta” . The bottom line is that the neurologists designed a long term, worthless study with the purpose of claiming something was being done while at the same time delaying any meaningful research on CCSVI in the near future (5 years).

I doubt if Rob appreciated why such an obviously flawed and unscientific study was being pushed by neurologists who have a good knowledge of science. The neurologists know full well no good science will be forthcoming from the “observational” study but that it will buy them 5+ years in their struggle to stop CCSVI from upsetting their lucrative financial relationships with the drug companies.

It is nice to see that Rob reads the odd scientific paper on CCSVI and even on other aspects of MS research. However, if one wants to comment on a scientific topic with any credibility, it helps to be well versed in the literature and I am sure Rob is not (for starters I doubt if he has read most of the 200+ important, scientific papers on CCSVI-related issues). His reference to the Dorne et al, 2010 editorial in the Journal of Neurointerventional Surgery misses the key point that the authors state in their conclusions “If more solid clinical evidence can confirm that the CCSVI/MS relationship is real, randomized clinical trials will be required to assess the benefits of endovascular interventions.”