CureOrBust wrote:Dr Scalfani, I truly hope this does not come across in any manner as appearing like "second guessing". Would you think a cutting balloon would possibly make a difference in a balloonings "staying" power? And if it didn't, would the use of a cutting balloon affect to any degree the option to stent in the very same location immediately after?
Cece wrote:CureorBust, they do inflate at lower pressures when using a cutting balloon compared to a regular one, so: good question!! Maybe? The advantage of the cutting balloon comes later, when it appears to have less restenosis.
Lower pressure and less force during dilation = more likely to close immediately?
1eye wrote:Was he standing up when it collapsed? Sounds a bit like there was negative pressure. Hoses do not flatten on their own. Either you have to run over them with a tractor, or melt them in the hot sun, or something has to be sucking pretty hard on them. Newer hoses are less prone to flattening but once patent, positive pressure should not collapse them - just the reverse, I would think. Or am I missing something? That seems the most likely. Gravity?
hope410 wrote:Have a great trip, Dr. S. I hope you return full of exciting ideas and a great sense of the wonderful prospects and possibilities ahead for you/us!
scorpion wrote:What is being murdered is science and common sense. Back to the general forum for me where logic still exists.
Zeureka wrote:NZer1 wrote:Once again, we in the MS community have reason to celebrate the amazing genius of Professor Roy Laver Swank.
http://www.takingcontrolofmultiplescler ... icleID=117That's very intersting to hear, NZ ! In fact Swank is in my view another heroe that should have had a noble prize - and I'm on the Swank diet since diagnosis.
And where's the question to Dr Sclafani? Ah, yes, maybe to ask what do you think about this Swank diet?
garyak wrote:One of the neurologists I have seen for my M.S. told me last week that " one of the big holes in Dr. Zamboni's theory is in regards to the source of iron found in MS brains". This neurologist claims ( through his own research ) that " increased iron in the MS brain is an accumulation ( for some reason ) of iron normally found in the brain and is different than iron that would be found there if it's source was reflux of blood from jugular veins".
Now, does anyone know what this difference might be?
I had so many questions for him I forgot to get him to clarify what he felt was different .
There are some on this forum (and elsewhere) that believe that iron loading in the body may have something to do with hemochromatosis &/or iron loading anaemia. Ck out the "phlebotomy anyone?" & "iron metabolism panels should be first" threads. There is also lots of info on the hemochromatosis.org & ironloading.org sites. This intrigues me a little for reasons I won't bore you with! But have a look - maybe your doc might have an interest in some of this??
I used to live near GP, in fact I saw an optometrist in GP...
Dr S. any thoughts here?
Stacemeh wrote:I don't know about iron types but here is something I wonder about:
Hemolysis can occur when normal red cells are exposed to turbulent blood flow in large vessels, an example of which includes tramatic disruption (sounds like reflux to me) of red cells in heart disease.
Hemolysis = rupture of erythrocytes (red blood cells) with release of hemoglobin into the plasma (the fluid portion of blood).
What I wonder is if refluxed blood (due to venous stenosis) is sometimes releasing a bit of hemoglobin and that free hemoglobin is "sticking" to the vessel walls and over years (perhaps in a vicarious luxuriant fashion ) this hemoglobin is accumulating and breaking down leaving iron behind.
From past experience in Vet practice I happen to know that heme staining leave a kinda redish tint, not unlike that in pictures I've seen of MS lesions.
So, I wonder if this might explain the discoloration seen on the plaques formed in MS and if it might also explain why red cells have not been found by pathologists in MS lesions.
But I am not a doctor, I can only speculate.
larmo wrote:I was watching the live feeds from the ROV's working on the oil spill. Whenever the picture was obscured (with oil flow, etc.) they would switch to another format to get a better picture. I think they tried the red, green & blue filters along with infrared. I see weapon/troop testing where they use an infrared camera also with excellent results.
I wonder if something as simple as this would be helpful with different types of imaging to show stuff you wouldn't normally see - that would be more helpful in a diagnosis.
I'm just trying to think outside the box. Any thoughts or comments would be welcome.
I went to the info session that Dr. Zivadinov & Dr. Weinstock-Guttman presented at in Calgary. They described the testing that they do (in laymen's terms) and showed videos & slides of patients with MS as well as normal controls. Can't remember the name of the test but I think it was actually the doppler?? The flow of blood was shown in colors, so that you could clearly see when the blood was refluxing. Is this kind of what you are speaking of?
larmo wrote:1eye wrote:I'm just trying to think outside the box. Any thoughts or comments would be welcome.
Quite right, Larmo. Not to be morbid but maybe more post-mortem stuff is appllicable. The police use great tools, and for this they might use an ALS. Because human eyes don't see some other wavelengths too.
dlb, this is more along the lines I was thinking about. Something that can't be seen with the naked eye in the spectrum's that we humans can see.
mshusband wrote:Today is a BIG day. I'm sure Dr. Sclafani has computer access ... but he also needs to focus on studying ... and (though I don't want to speak for him in any way) he doesn't want to give us hope and the IRB not respond in the way he seems to think they will (approval) today.
He has said there are 2 scenarios where the treatment will be allowed to start immediately, 1 scenario where treatment will be pushed month-to-month until approval, and 1 scenario where the IRB outright rejects CCSVI.
Let's not forget Dr. Sclafani is a researcher, author of papers, author of textbooks, getting him involved in CCSVI will change text books one day ... maybe we should all go out and read his resume today ... this is a great man who knows what he is talking about.
I hope we hear something soon ...
newlywed4ever wrote:In my mind, I envision Holly and Dr S having a space-age office whereas when they get IRB approval TODAY, all they have to do is push a big green button and the ball starts rolling
Users browsing this forum: DippyD