DrSclafani answers some questions

A forum to discuss Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency and its relationship to Multiple Sclerosis.

Re: DrSclafani answers some questions

Postby Sharon » Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:46 pm

Thank you Dr Sclafani for your time today to discuss the results of the UBC trial results. The audio is posted on CCSVI Alliance Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/12589242742911 ... 590161655/

Sharon
User avatar
Sharon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1281
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Colorado

Advertisement

Re: DrSclafani answers some questions

Postby drsclafani » Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:30 pm

Cece wrote:
drsclafani wrote:Yes, because flew is proportional to the fourth power of the reasons, I estimated that there was an 80 per cent reduction of blood flow AFTER angioplasty

Did the diameter of the vein decrease?
Going from 54% stenosed to 39% stenosed would seem to be an improvement albeit a small one but if the diameter decreased, then that could explain your reasoning.

("Proportional to the fourth power of the reasons" is explained here: http://www.cvphysiology.com/Hemodynamics/H003 )

Why would the flow decrease after angioplasty? Was the balloon sized right for the vein? In slide 14 (Procedure 2), it looks like a big balloon. As far as I can tell, the images are immediately after angioplasty when the vein should be at its largest.

I'm unhappy with the results and I like getting an understanding of what went wrong but dang I hope the IRs at SIR see what you're seeing.

Cece, angioplasty improved the blood flow, but not by much.
I estimate that the blood flow reduction from the original stentic lesion of about 55% was about 93% reduction
after angioplasty, the blood flow reduction was improved to about a 80% reduction. But an 80% reduction is still a large amount
I treat the stenosis with the intent to eliminate stenosis completely Getting flow to be 90-100 % I will inflate the balloon as many times as necessary to do that and when I cannot open it up, I consider that a failure

In the Vancouver study, They were able to inflate the balloon two times.

To my eyes, the balloons looked too small but I do not yet have data on range and average balloon size or balloon pressure

Seems like a lost opportunity

DrS
Salvatore JA Sclafani MD
Patient contact: ccsviliberation@gmail.com
User avatar
drsclafani
Family Elder
 
Posts: 3176
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn, New York

Re: DrSclafani answers some questions

Postby NZer1 » Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:48 pm

Hi all,
I have made this comment elsewhere and will put it here as well because of the importance of the basic issue we are seeing in regard of the Neurology and $$ MS Industry bias to discredit CCSVI at any cost, eg $5.4 million study which was doomed from moment 1 to give a negative result with the 'people' chosen to spend the money, clever work by the anti CCSVI/pro-drug brigade! A refund is appropriate, imo!
"It seems that there is an issue that is beyond whether CCSVI is a condition in de-generative diseases?
I would like to see 'someone or a group' take this to a new level where there is a request for a refund of the funds for the study, $5.4 million.
There was talk of similar issues with the Buffalo study and the biased conclusions in the documents and more importantly to the Media.
To present lies as conclusions on Health matters needs to be addressed, imo.
Corruption is occurring masked as Science.
In the study they used a sham arm, BUT the entire study process was a sham, the conclusions where made before the study commenced and the results have been edited to give the 'sham conclusion' air time!"
Nigel
User avatar
NZer1
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1616
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Rotorua New Zealand

Re: DrSclafani answers some questions

Postby pelopidas » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:31 pm

http://video.theloop.ca/news/top-storie ... MEDvhh7H66

I am so glad that i didn't wait for the papers all those past 6 years
getafix
pelopidas
Family Member
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Greece

Re: DrSclafani answers some questions

Postby NZer1 » Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:26 am

Hi Sal, the press releases made by the study authors does not match the information released at the same time, in essence they have lied and that imo is a bias for a purpose.
I cannot understand why people are afraid to confront the authors and ask WHY they have presented this bias!
It's time to stop using politically correct politeness as an excuse that allows corrupt methods of media manipulation for agendas to flourish and greed to rule over us, imo!
The same media that released the statements has a duty, imo, to now go back and clarify this situation because the same media has been used as a tool in the bias being made public.
The insulation used by the authors, because publishing by media gives them protection from being confronted for their lies, is a HUGE problem in so many situations today, whether its in Politics or Medicine ................ :)
Nigel
User avatar
NZer1
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1616
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Rotorua New Zealand

Re: DrSclafani answers some questions

Postby ElliotB » Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:07 am

The findings of this newest study is consistent with other similar studies done in recent years and with the experiences posted by many here on this site.
ElliotB
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1226
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:08 pm

Re: DrSclafani answers some questions

Postby drsclafani » Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:29 pm

ElliotB wrote:The findings of this newest study is consistent with other similar studies done in recent years and with the experiences posted by many here on this site.

Dear Elliot, there has been no similar study ever done to this one. This is the first randomized double blinded trial with sham arm that had power. It is unfortunate that the study did not use modern views of the treatment paradigm but said they duplicated a study done by Zamboni in 2008.

I am looking further at this study to assess additional questionable design flaws that may have led to this outcome.

I am a friend of the interventionalist and know that he did the best job he could given the constraints of the protocol design. However leaving large residual stenoses after angioplasty (as high as 38%) is not good enough to get good results.

Also this study had average duration of disease before treatment that was almost twenty years. The percentage of patients with relapsing remitting disease was rather low and the progressive MS was lumped into one group, rather than stratified into secondary and primary progressives. These two selection choices could easily lead to unfavorable results.

Also the incidence of venous disease, the incidence of multiple vein stenoses and the incidence of no venous disease were all out of sync with my data and experience.

I said many years ago that I would stop performing these treatments if good randomized trials failed to show evidence of benefits. Very sadly I have concluded that this was not a good trial (at least based upon the abstraction provided). I will wait to read the peer reviewed paper before making final comments on this disappointing effort.

DrS
Salvatore JA Sclafani MD
Patient contact: ccsviliberation@gmail.com
User avatar
drsclafani
Family Elder
 
Posts: 3176
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn, New York

Re: DrSclafani answers some questions

Postby NHE » Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:04 pm

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/multiple- ... -1.4014494

"Anybody who knew anything about MS knew the idea was nonsense from get-go," said McGill University neurologist Dr. Michael Rasminsky.

This reads like smug gloating, and biased.

"The theory that impaired drainage from the brain was responsible for causing lesions of MS didn't make sense for a number of reasons," said Dr. Rasminsky

So, impaired blood drainage from the kidneys, liver, or any other organ for that matter, doesn't damage the organ?

We recently learned that the brain has a lymphatic system. Yet for years we were told by the neurologists that this was not the case and that the brain was "immune privileged."

How can they be so smug?

:?:
User avatar
NHE
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 4551
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:00 pm

Previous

Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Contact us | Terms of Service