This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

Welcome to the world's leading forum on Multiple Sclerosis research, support, and knowledge. For over 10 years, This is MS has provided an unbiased community dedicated to Multiple Sclerosis patients, caregivers, and affected loved ones.
It is currently Fri May 24, 2013 7:03 am


All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 6:14 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 690
Quote:
BNAC is the only site in the world who is performing blinded studies of CCSVI. It will be their results that will convince the academics


that's why it's so awful that they are doing substandard work. It really speaks to me of 'the guy with the most expensive machine must be right' and in truth they have dealt a large blow to the credibility of the entire project by arrogantly doing it wrong and saying it's right.

Even I having rrms and heading to poland am unsure if the 'missing 40%' from buffalo is because all the membranes and valve issues others find are just missed by buffalo or because they are not there. The reason I think they are there and buffalo just can't see them has more to do with believing in Putnam than anything else.

Clearly buffalo is out to prove the other model where neurology still reigns supreme, ms causes ccsvi, and using mrv is not only smart, it's better!
not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 6:45 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:00 pm
Posts: 1273
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Billmeik,

Why do you think the BNAC results are wrong ? Why do you think it is substandard ? What is the basis for such a statement ?

ozarkcanoer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 7:17 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:00 pm
Posts: 249
Location: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Ozark ... I think EVERYONE believes the Buffalo results are not necessarily wrong ... but INACCURATE.


I'm glad they found CCSVI in you - that means they're getting better.

But why is everyone else finding CCSVI in the 90%s of people with MS ... whereas Buffalo can only find 60%?

Because they're not getting inside the veins and finding what's wrong.

WHY would - in the future - IF CCSVI is proved to be FACT in regards to MS would anyone ever need a doppler or MRV? Why not just go in there with the gold standard (Venography like Dr. Siskan will be doing for out of state patients) to find the problem right away.

It's a question of methodology. MRV and Doppler have found it in some (60%) ... but everyone actually going in is finding it in 90+PLUS%.

That's the difference.

IF Buffalo's intent is to be able to find CCSVI ahead of MS ... then their study IS GOOD. IF Buffalo's intent is to find CCSVI after MS ... then why not just go to the gold standard even if it is minimally invasive?

It's like using an X-Ray (doppler) when the bone is sticking through the skin (MS diagnosis = CCSV) ... you know it's broken ... now get in there and fix it right away - don't wait for the XRay (VENOGRAPHY - procedure).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 8:07 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:00 pm
Posts: 465
In my mind, the reasons for using MRV and ultrasound for detecting CCSVI are twofold:

1) the "gold standard" a venogram is invasive and involves a hospital procedure---a vastly bigger scale of testing.

2) in the USA, it's MUCH more expensive to do a vengram than a MRV and ultrasound.

The $4,500 cost cited for BNAC is less then 10% of a venogram procedure.

It understandable that a Doctor would want some prior basis for CCSVI before ordering a venogram just on a cost basis alone.

Donnchadh

_________________
Kitty says, "Take that, you stenosis!"

Got MS?.....Get Liberated!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 8:23 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 690
Quote:
Why do you think the BNAC results are wrong ? Why do you think it is substandard ? What is the basis for such a statement ?


I really don't have the tech chops to say, but when they get 60 and others get way more, it puts up red flags. Since I have rrms I am part of their 'lost 40%' and would be given a negative. (maybe)


The fact that they're getting higher numbers now is just more reason to not take the 60 seriously when all gp's and neuros take it very seriously. It's nothing personal against bnac I almost have to challenge their results if Im going to go to poland next week and believe in the tissue/valve issue simka found on me at false creek. My thoughts are that politics not science make publishing faulty low numbers smart.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 8:38 am 
Offline
Family Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:00 pm
Posts: 90
Location: Michigan
Donnchadh wrote:

The $4,500 cost cited for BNAC is less then 10% of a venogram procedure.

It understandable that a Doctor would want some prior basis for CCSVI before ordering a venogram just on a cost basis alone.

Donnchadh


Wow! A venogram costs over $45,000?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 8:48 am 
Offline
Family Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:00 pm
Posts: 47
A venogram costs about 10,000 in US.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 8:59 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:00 pm
Posts: 465
bretzke wrote:
Donnchadh wrote:

The $4,500 cost cited for BNAC is less then 10% of a venogram procedure.

It understandable that a Doctor would want some prior basis for CCSVI before ordering a venogram just on a cost basis alone.

Donnchadh


Wow! A venogram costs over $45,000?


Mine did. That was for the hospital; another $13,700 for the Doctor.
However these figures do include the balloon treatment when my stenosis was discovered. It doesn't make much sense to do just a venogram, find the problem and then do nothing.

Donnchadh

_________________
Kitty says, "Take that, you stenosis!"

Got MS?.....Get Liberated!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 9:07 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:00 pm
Posts: 465
Bear2 wrote:
A venogram costs about 10,000 in US.


Where? You could PM me if you don't want it public. $10K is bargain basement pricing.

Donnchadh

_________________
Kitty says, "Take that, you stenosis!"

Got MS?.....Get Liberated!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 9:46 am 
Offline
Family Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 44
Billmeik,

I don't see that anything you wrote offers support for your statement that "Clearly buffalo is out to prove the other model where neurology still reigns supreme, ms causes ccsvi, and using mrv is not only smart, it's better! not." BNAC's publications, public presentations, and direct conversations are all opposite to what you wrote.

Prairie


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 10:55 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:00 pm
Posts: 1273
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
There is a lot of bias in Dr Simka's patients and in Dr Sclafani's patients and in Dr Dake's patients. Goodness gracious I love all three of these brave doctors so this is NOT a slam against them. In all three of these cases the patients selected and elected to have the procedure and the physician knew they had MS ! People with mild MS do not go to Poland or Bulgaria or Stanford for treatment but they stay at home and wait for the science to play out. People who can't afford the treatment do not take these routes either and many of them are severely disabled and wouldn't go to Poland. There are no controls among the patients. If BNAC found 20% of controls have CCSVI then maybe that is good information. It isn't clear what the distribution of people are in BNAC's 58% (or is it 62%) OR in the 40%.

I am ready to run out and be liberated as much as anybody but don't say BNAC is doing sloppy research because YOU DON'T KNOW. Dr Zivadinov is going out on a limb and risking his reputation in order to study CCSVI. If he doesn't give you the results you want that's your problem. I support BNAC 100% !!! Who else is doing double blinded CCSVI studies ?

ozarkcanoer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 12:19 pm 
Offline
Family Elder

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm
Posts: 8509
Donnchadh wrote:
Bear2 wrote:
A venogram costs about 10,000 in US.


Where? You could PM me if you don't want it public. $10K is bargain basement pricing.


I heard from someone who had the procedure done in New York that they were charged $15K, to their insurance company.

_________________
"However, the truth in science ultimately emerges, although sometimes it takes a very long time," Arthur Silverstein, Autoimmunity: A History of the Early Struggle for Recognition


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 12:29 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:00 pm
Posts: 465
Cece wrote:
Donnchadh wrote:
Bear2 wrote:
A venogram costs about 10,000 in US.


Where? You could PM me if you don't want it public. $10K is bargain basement pricing.


I heard from someone who had the procedure done in New York that they were charged $15K, to their insurance company.


Was that just for a venogram? Or did include treatment also?

Donnchadh

_________________
Kitty says, "Take that, you stenosis!"

Got MS?.....Get Liberated!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 12:52 pm 
Offline
Family Elder

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm
Posts: 8509
Treatment also.

_________________
"However, the truth in science ultimately emerges, although sometimes it takes a very long time," Arthur Silverstein, Autoimmunity: A History of the Early Struggle for Recognition


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 27, 2010 1:06 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:00 pm
Posts: 1273
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Remember everybody that when Dr Dake was doing the procedure that it was reported here on TIMS that he was charging $80,000 for the testing and procedure. Some people, back in the Dark Ages, were getting insurance to pay for this because they had the right level of venous malformation covered by their insurance. I'm not sure that would happen today. So $4500.00 is not out of line at all for BNAC to charge for the self-pay program. It is a shame that this program can only handle a few people at a time, just like Dr Simka !!!! But give them time. And remember that BNAC is planning a clinical study of the procedure on 30 patients. I'm not sure what that involves but it's more science. There are many many MS patients who will benefit from what BNAC is doing. There are only a few of us MSers who are actively looking at CCSVI. Please support BNAC in their efforts to understand CCSVI so EVERY MS patient in the world will benefit !

ozarkcanoer


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Related topics
 Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. CCSVI fundraiser for BNAC!!

BooBear

3

817

Sat Jun 12, 2010 12:01 am

pegmegrund View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. BNAC » CCSVI Diagnostic Testing

LoveActually

7

1480

Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:05 pm

AlmostClever View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Update on self-pay BNAC CCSVI testing

[ Go to pageGo to page: 1, 2, 3 ]

pegmegrund

34

4234

Mon May 24, 2010 6:07 pm

pegmegrund View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Another Important New BNAC CCSVI Study

[ Go to pageGo to page: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

Squeakycat

56

3265

Tue Oct 16, 2012 9:26 am

1eye View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. BNAC - Risk factors for CCSVI in volunteers

prairie

2

424

Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:03 am

prairie View the latest post

 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: