Thank you.
Yes, I think the problem espoused by Dr. McDonald, the comparison between drug studies to treat the stroke versus a direct correction and arterectomy, is a very good analogy to what is happening today.
Double-blinded studies are critical, but there is a very nice paper that was just published on when randomized trials are necessary. Once you have enough evidence to proceed with this, you don't need tens of thousands of cases in order to get started.
So I think the problem here is that someone has to step up to the plate with OHIP and with the other provincial governments to create a province-wide, if not Canadian-wide, plan on how to collect the data that goes with the surgery, because you're going to get constant resistance by the neurologists in this if you don't have some form of research plan associated with it.
I think that having two arms of this, a clinical arm and a research arm running in parallel, is the way you need to do this within the provinces. I don't think the provinces should be stopping the surgery, but they should have some form of monitoring of the surgery that allows the data to be retrospectively analyzed, so that you can follow it on a month-by-month basis and then you can make better determinations as you move forward with this surgery.
But I do agree with Dr. McDonald. This is a very experienced area, so there's really no reason not to be doing that surgery on severe cases.