Dear Mark,

I was recently forwarded a copy of an email which you had sent to one of your patients regarding the CCSVI issue.

I was not surprised by your unwavering belief that CCSVI is nonsense but was slightly taken aback by your over-the-top view that all those who think that CCSVI treatment may be of value are nothing more than frenzied, cult members. I was also somewhat surprised that you mentioned me but was glad you asked an important question ”who am I to question the word of the many self-acclaimed experts who feed this frenzy like the rock doctor Embry whose lifelong study of lifeless objects has given him the wisdom to comment on such complex issues?”

You are correct that my primary scientific research activity for the past 42 years has revolved around inanimate rocks, mainly those in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. I’ll be glad to send you some of my published geological papers if you have an interest in such things.

I must point out that it has not been my geological studies which have “given me the wisdom” to comment on complex issues associated with multiple sclerosis. My knowledge on MS comes from reading thousands of scientific papers and countless abstracts on MS and related subjects (e.g. nutrition, autoimmunity in general, and more recently vascular issues). My pursuit of scientific knowledge in regards to MS has been driven by a desire to ensure my son is doing everything he can to prevent the progression of his MS.

I would emphasize that I try hard to make sure any written comments I make on MS, especially recommendations on how to help control disease progression, are backed by solid science, including both empirical data and critical, rational reasoning. I suppose you could say that many years of geological research have instilled this hard-core, scientific approach so perhaps you are not entirely wrong with your statement that the source of my MS “wisdom” is my geological research.

I thought it might be useful if I discussed how we sharply differ on three important scientific issues which dominate decisions regarding the treatment of MS. These issues are CCSVI, vitamin D and the CRAB drugs. These differences show how we significantly vary when it comes to doing science and to using science to guide actions. Following this, I will wrap-up with a few possibilities on why such differences between us exist, despite the fact we both would claim we are scientists wanting to understand MS so as to allow us to make recommendations on how to treat it.