Hi there. I am not thinking well these days (holes in the brain, etc.) but if I am following this properly it sounds like you are suggesting that it's possible that the improvement from the liberation procedure could be from some other element of the procedure besides ballooning or stents -- perhaps the contrast, perhaps the anticoagulants, perhaps the hospital experience, etc.
It's an intriguing thought, and I've wondered the same thing. Just like I sometimes wondered if people who took the ABCR's might actually experience improvement from the NSAIDs that they usually take along with the shots, instead of from the shots themselves.
Some things that make this less likely with CCSVI:
*Protocol on anticoagulation has varied widely, from none to a little aspirin to minimal to injections to months of serious stuff, and yet the results seem the same across the board.
*People with MS have contrast procedures all the time, and it does seem like someone would have noticed improvement from this by now. I have personally had contrast with no effects on my MS and definitely no improvements like what I've read about. But this is where a central database would be wonderful, to really gather all the possible variables.
*People with MS also go on anticoagulants and have catheter procedures. Again, such a common thing -- certainly there should have been some observation of improvement. I have had two catheter procedures for tachycardia followed by mild anticoagulation for three months and there was no improvement in my MS. Tachycardia improvement, yes; MS, no.
But it's a great question, and very logical. Sometimes something simple and incidental turns out to be really important.
But in the end, of course, as others have already said, a blocked vein in a vital organ just seems like bad news from sheer logic. How much data do we need to decide to open up the blockage and give the brain some oxygen?