An additional push has been the numerous, well documented accounts of substantial improvements of MS symptoms, including fatigue, brain fog, balance and walking ability, enjoyed by people with MS have had CCSVI treated.
Well-documented? From where?
Finally, it must be stressed that the recommended treatment for relieving CCSVI is balloon angioplasty. This is a very safe procedure which carries very low risk.
According to whom? I believe one member of TIMS suffered complications from angioplasty, and your organization deferred when he asked for help.
Unfortunately, the availability of CCSVI testing and treatment for persons with MS is being strongly opposed by neurologists
Which neurologists are opposing CSVI treatment.? Yes, many of them don't buy into the theory. And a few deride the idea. but how many are actively opposing CCSVI treatment? It is wrong to paint a picture of all neurologists acting in collusion. What about Dr. Zivadinov in Buffalo? What about the neurologists working with Dr. Zamboni?
Given the current data, there is a very good chance CCSVI relief will provide substantial benefits for persons with MS. Thus, if such treatments are available soon, persons with MS will experience a major gain. If the treatment is delayed, they will suffer a major loss. Of course, there is a chance that the treatment may not be of value and in this case persons with MS will suffer either a minor loss if treatment is made available (very rare, adverse effects of the treatment) or no loss or gain if it is not done.
What data? And how do you know that adverse affects will be rare?
One might have thought, given the very low effectiveness of the current drug treatments, the neurologists would have welcomed a new, safe, low cost and potentially effective option for MS treatment. However, I have yet to hear anything positive from the neurological community regarding CCSVI.
Because there has been little documented evidence that the CCSVI treatment is effective for MS.
When one is looking for motivation, it is can be helpful “to follow the money”. It is reasonable to assume that a person or profession will be in favour of actions which will enhance their opportunities to increase their intake of money. On the other hand, they will understandably be against actions which have the potential to decrease their future earnings.
Given that, if CCSVI treatment results in major improvements in their patients, it will replace the current drugs as the first line of MS treatment. In fact, CCSVI treatment holds the potential for many newly diagnosed people to not have to ever use an MS drug. Most importantly, interventional radiologists will replace neurologists as the primary care physicians of persons diagnosed with MS.
There can be no doubt that neurologists are aware of the above possible outcomes, all of which will negatively impact neurological practices. The other factor that has to be mentioned is that most neurologists have very close ties to the pharmaceutical industry which is currently raking in almost ten billion dollars a year from MS drugs. Such ties include substantial funding from the pharmaceutical companies and company sponsorship of most neurological scientific and social events. Any decrease in drug sales would negatively impact the neurologists.
Then why don't you mention the fact that vascular specialist and interventional radiologists stand to gain financially from performing CCSVI procedures? They can charge their fees, all the while claiming this may in no way affect the patient's MS symptoms. Yet, they will still get paid.