Yes, it appears to be an information paper based on an assessment of the possible implications of Dr. Zamboni's findings, I would assume by staff, and consultations with neurologists as to their opinions. It generally suggests that MS and CCSVI may be related, but many neurologists do not think so, and that people who are interested should do their own research and be very skeptical. It also seems to suggest that without scientific trials we can't know if the results are real or what the risks really are, but does not support doing studies. I suspect the same (we can't know how effective the treatment is or its risks) could be said about most drugs when they first come to trial, the difference being that the companies that produce them are both equipped and ready to do the necessary studies that will bring them to market - and to the people who hope they will help.

I referred to the word "conjuror" in that portion of your article because it is a word that implies that the treatment suggested is on the level of a conjuror's trick and could be dismissed as an illusion. I don't recall commenting on the idea of double-blinding.

Nor did I say I had not heard of any 'logical and empirical problems' or health risks - I asked you what they are, and if this was a good basis for dismissing the theory as a whole.

As for doing background research - well, you're the journalist, right? I'm just someone who thinks about what they read and investigates the things they're interested in.

As for proposing scientific double-blind studies, that's probably best left to the scientists, not made into a reality show. And they're working on them.

You'll notice that my comments are to your arguments, and not aimed at you personally.

"Given the logical and empirical problems with Dr. Paolo Zamboni’s theory"
What are these? Implying logical and empirical problems without making clear what they are is a convenient way of dismissing the theory as a whole.

"and the special risks of venous angioplasty and stent insertion"
Couple this with the idea that there are special risks associated with the procedure - something that can only be borne out by the studies you don't wish to see done - and you have another hit against the whole idea that there could be some scientific validity to the ideas.

"There is no reason why the world should settle for his mere assurance that he can do so, since this ability ought to be simple to prove. And if he can do it he has no reason to be afraid to demonstrate it."
This ignores the fact that Dr. Zamboni himself suggested that others should do studies. His only caveat being that they should learn and follow the protocols he himself developed and followed. And suggest that for some reason he is afraid to demonstrate both the protocols he developed and the results found when following them - something he has already done. There is no reason that the world should settle for his mere assurance - nor has he asked us to do so.

"It does not make much sense for the world to perform countless multi-million-dollar trials of his treatment before we check out the most basic, inexpensively verifiable element of his claims. (It certainly does not make sense to let people buy MRIs and other scans for “venous insufficiency” until we know whether that phrase has any practical meaning.)"
I would point out that the world is doing trials of his treatment - unfortunately in some cases it is MS patients, already struggling with their health, who are paying for real world trials - and keeping track of the results. Scientific trials of his protocols are also taking place, and where the methods he has developed are followed the results are promising.

"Have clinicians (and, preferably, some conjurors) present to establish proper, bulletproof double-blinding."
And here you imply that the whole thing is nothing more than smoke and mirrors - or why the reference to conjurors?

And in the end the way you have suggested is neither legitimate nor would it be statistically powerful. For that it would have to be a scientifically valid study. Which you seem to oppose.

And finally:
"they-laughed-at-Einstein Mad Libs"
Why do you find it necessary to denigrate people in order to dismiss the theory on which the Liberation Treatment is based and call into question the intelligence and character of those who are following the developments related to it?

In other words, your dismissive approach and the language you use could be regarded as an attack on the very thought that Dr. Zamboni's work could have a legitimate scientific base, and suggests that those who believe that there is a possibility that a new way of treating MS may result from it are essentially foolish and deluded.

Do you have some comment specific to the material posted above, or is that just something you cut-and-paste into all comments that question the basis of your opinions?

If you want to know if a scientific theory is valid, it might be good idea to examine the theory itself, not quote someone else's opinion of it. Also to read what the scientist themselves had to say about future research, not make assumptions about what they did say.

I do wish that those intent on attacking Dr. Zamboni and his theories would do two things - take the time to actually read his work, and then explore the ideas presented in there with the intent of trying to understand the implications for individuals with MS, their families and society as a whole. It's easy to take the facts that support your case and present them as if you and they were the true authorities; less easy to do the necessary research to present a more balanced point of view. But then I suppose it's not considered necessary to base opinion on research, and it's so much easier and more fun to be sarcastic and cutting. Facts might get in the way of a good opinion.

MS patients, being well ahead of politicians and many others, are already working to develop and maintain that database. The reaction to this treatment is not all hysteria, it's a search for a working solution which does not pose the dangers so many of the drugs do (and has anyone investigated the research on which those treatment decisions were made, as opposed to just accepting that large-scale, unbiased clinical trials provided uncontested evidence that the benefits outweigh the dangers?)

It is obvious that drug companies have an interest in funding research into drug-based 'solutions'; perhaps they also have an interest in discouraging/disparaging solutions which they cannot control and which may affect their profits. Just a thought.