mshusband wrote:Absolutely right on with my thoughts too Gordon.
Time with deoxygenated blood is what is the problem (causes dead blood/iron to build up which the immune system attacks and hurts the CNS next to it since the jugulars and azygous are right next to the CNS (often passing through it)).
CCSVI is what causes that deoxygenated blood in those areas.
The body heals itself (or finds new pathways and relearns) IN TIME ... so stop the deoxygenated blood early enough in the MS process and the body should heal (again IN TIME) ...
I don't think it's more complicated than that ...
concerned wrote:Giving people a dangerous procedure for a condition that may or may not exist outside of a controlled study is probably unethical.
nicknewf wrote:concerned wrote:Giving people a dangerous procedure for a condition that may or may not exist outside of a controlled study is probably unethical.
at what point do we get the comfort that (a) this is only as dangerous as angioplasty; (b) the condition exists.
From the testimony in Canadian parliament this week; 1000 people have been tested and 500 people treated - albeit not all in the trial setting. Was all of this untrial treatment - unethical. The patients sound generally better off, and rarely worse off, informed of the risk and responsible for their own care.
At what point should the public be satisfied that parallel treatment and research can go forward - as seems to be happening in Albany - but in less specialized research centres (albeit still by qualified NIRs)?
I'm not trying to be flip or argumentative - really looking for your opinion on this.
Well even if it is only as dangerous as angioplasty that is still pretty dangerous and new research is showing that angioplasty is an overused and under-effective surgery. Secondly, when Zamboni or whomever posit a mechanism for venous "reflux" that is accepted by other medical researchers and give a quantifiable measure of "narrowing" or "stenosis" or "reflux" then i think your queries should be answered?
And what is showing that the patients sound generally better off?
Users browsing this forum: melko321