mshusband wrote:They'll say it's from Jordan and that's a 3rd world country and we need to verify the results in a US medical institution ... feet dragging and more feet dragging, as the evidence mounts for the CCSVI side.
It takes a long time to turn a ship ... this ship seems to be turning fast though.
75 years of EAE theory ... CCSVI is only 6 months ... and we're getting there.
mshusband wrote:They'll say it's from Jordan and that's a 3rd world country and we need to verify the results in a US medical institution.
Squeakycat wrote:We are already at a point where anyone will be hard pressed to argue against the fact that many?, most?, almost all? people with MS also have CCSVI. What the causal relationship exists between them is purely of academic, not clinical, relevance
We might drive that home by paying to have the four people with MS who were not positive for CCSVI when tested with doppler u/s tested using catheter venography, the gold standard for this.
I would posit that they would either turn out to be positive, or it would turn out that their MS is somehow different.
Right now, Buffalo is confounding things with their numbers which I suspect simply reflects the fact that it is hard getting this right, not as is being charged, that Buffalo contradicts Zamboni and therefore this is all up in the air.
At this point it also seems a waste of effort to try to persuade neurologists that CCSVI is relevant. Who cares what they think about a vascular problem? That isn't to say they have no role in treating people with CCSVI in the future, but simply to say that since they have no expertise in vascular problems per se, their views on that subject are not really relevant.
And if they have all kinds of questions in their mind about CCSVI which they think requires years of research, more power to them. Let them study it as much as they want because their views on this are simply not relevant, at least clinically.
They can't argue that impaired cerebrospinal blood flow is okay. And how to deal with that is the only thing clinically relevant to patients. Do I have CCSVI and where can I get it treated. Those are the only questions that need to be answered in the short run.
Trish317 wrote:I agree with you completely. But how do patients, and doctors who want to do the testing and perform the procedure, convince the IRB's that MS should be taken out of the equation and people should be treated on the basis that they have a vascular problem?
Users browsing this forum: uprightdoc