New paper from german neurologists

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

Postby Lyon » Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:57 am

.
Last edited by Lyon on Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Advertisement

Postby patientx » Sun Apr 18, 2010 9:02 am

sbr487 wrote:Apart from the fact that improper or less than efficient methods being used for the study, another thing that is slowly coming out is that it seems sometimes stenosis appear one day and look normal the next day. So, a negative need not be always negative but a positive always is.

This statement contradicts itself. If a positive result for stenosis disappears the next day, then it can't always be positive.

By the way, how do you know the methods were improper or not efficient?
User avatar
patientx
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:00 pm

Postby cheerleader » Sun Apr 18, 2010 9:55 am

Salvatore24 wrote:Neuros should not be studying the vascular system, intervential radiologists/vscular surgeons should not be investigating neurological conditions. Both professions should be working in tandem on CCSVI, concentrating in their field of expertise ie. Neurologists should be monitoring future MRI scans, EDSS scores and general symptoms, the interventional radiologists/vascular surgeons should be looking at vein health and stenosis.

In short, neuros should not be writing a paper on a vascular condition.


this is actually a very good point. Dr. Zamboni and Dr. Salvi worked in cooperation--each contributing in their area of expertise when studying and writing up their research. Hearing them speak together in Bologna was very illuminating. It is too bad Dr. Salvi was not able to speak at the AAN conference (I guess because his English is not as good as Dr. Zamboni's)

were any vascular doctors involved in this study? Who tested the patients?

Also--agree with Bob--we need a means to measure vascular changes in real time when going from supine to seated. (Why the transcranial doppler seems essential) I'm wondering how the vertebral veins- the venous drainage when upright- fit into this theory, since Mitch (enjoyingtheride) showed stenosis in his vertebrals when tested in Brooklyn. But that's another thread another day...
cheer
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
http://ccsviinms.blogspot.com
User avatar
cheerleader
Family Elder
 
Posts: 4940
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: southern California

Grasping at straws

Postby Gordon » Sun Apr 18, 2010 10:07 am

In the world of statistics, their study is insignificant. After 30 years of intense engineering, it is my opinion that the should not have even published their paper.

Waste of time, and they are grasping at straws.

G
User avatar
Gordon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby sbr487 » Sun Apr 18, 2010 10:36 am

patientx wrote:
sbr487 wrote:Apart from the fact that improper or less than efficient methods being used for the study, another thing that is slowly coming out is that it seems sometimes stenosis appear one day and look normal the next day. So, a negative need not be always negative but a positive always is.

This statement contradicts itself. If a positive result for stenosis disappears the next day, then it can't always be positive.

By the way, how do you know the methods were improper or not efficient?


You tend to get stuck with petty semantics and overcomplicate things when they are not necessary.
When you find a -ve, you need to sample many more times.
When you find a +ve, you can probably leave it there.

Medicine is full of such methods. When a test for a bacterial infection comes out -ve and Dr still strongly suspects same issue, he repeats after sometime.
User avatar
sbr487
Family Elder
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: India

Postby cah » Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:46 pm

cheerleader wrote:were any vascular doctors involved in this study? Who tested the patients?


I've listed the names and professions in the second entry of this thread. No vacular experts here. I assume they did the tests themselves, as it isn't stated otherwise in the study. But they used Dr. Zamboni's protocol and looked for the five patterns Dr. Zamboni has defined for CCSVI in upright and supine position.
"There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." Socrates
User avatar
cah
Family Elder
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Germany

Postby patientx » Sun Apr 18, 2010 3:01 pm

sbr487 wrote:You tend to get stuck with petty semantics and overcomplicate things when they are not necessary.

This is not petty semantics. Many of these testing methods (MRI, MRV, ultrasound, etc.) are open to some interpretation, coupled with the facts that not so much is known about the venous system, there's some disagreement among vascular experts on exactly what is abnormal, and CCSVI is a pretty new concept. So a "positive" result may not really indicate any problem, and besides leading to unnecessary intervention, just muddies the water about what causes MS. This why I think this issue is just more than petty semantics.

When you find a -ve, you need to sample many more times.
When you find a +ve, you can probably leave it there

Medicine is full of such methods. When a test for a bacterial infection comes out -ve and Dr still strongly suspects same issue, he repeats after sometime.


I don't know what your calling ve. But are you saying that if you get a positive test result, then it's correct, but if you get a negative one, further testing might be necessary? If so, you can't be serious.
User avatar
patientx
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 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