How long has this theory REALLY been around?

A forum to discuss Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency and its relationship to Multiple Sclerosis.

How long has this theory REALLY been around?

Postby thornyrose76 » Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:47 pm

I fail to remember but how long has this theory REALLY been around, circulated among neuros but been poo poo'd? Since the late 1970's or the late 19th century :?
What has been the history?
User avatar
thornyrose76
Family Elder
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:00 pm

Advertisement

Postby PCakes » Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:57 pm

User avatar
PCakes
Family Elder
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Trish317 » Wed Jun 23, 2010 12:57 pm

"The concept that MS is primarily a vascular disease can be traced back to 1863 when a researcher named Eduard Rindfleisch proposed that “the primary cause of MS is an alteration of individual blood vessels”. He based this interpretation on his consistent observations that a vein was present in the centre of each lesion. Over the next 100 years, the vascular basis for MS resurfaced every so often based on the close association of lesions with veins but never really took off due to a lack of any convincing evidence. The last main champion of the concept was Dr Roy Swank who thought venous blockages and resultant breeches in the blood-brain barrier were due to fat globules. This led him to advocate for his well known dietary therapy for relieving the fat-induced, vascular problems."

http://www.direct-ms.org/magazines/CCSV ... oughts.pdf
User avatar
Trish317
Family Elder
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:00 pm
Location: Rhode Island

Postby concerned » Wed Jun 23, 2010 2:55 pm

Wouldn't fat induced vascular problems affect inuit especially?
concerned
 

Postby Cece » Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:01 pm

Fat-induced vascular problems is a previous theory.

Congenital truncular vascular malfomations is the current theory of ccsvi.

It seemed important to keep that clear.
"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
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 9022
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby Trish317 » Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:05 pm

Cece wrote:Fat-induced vascular problems is a previous theory.

Congenital truncular vascular malfomations is the current theory of ccsvi.

It seemed important to keep that clear.


I think it's also important to remember that, until recently, the technology did not exist to identify or treat the vascular malformations.
User avatar
Trish317
Family Elder
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:00 pm
Location: Rhode Island

Postby TMrox » Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:17 pm

Transverse Myelitis (a demyelination of the spinal cord only, monophasic)was also thought to be vascular.

Transverse lesions of the spinal cord were attributed to thrombosis caused by arteriosclerosis, syphilis, and other infections by Bastian in the 1880s (Follis and Netsky 1970). Foix and Alajouanine also believed that transverse myelitis had a vascular etiology (Foix and Alajouanine 1926). They described 2 patients with subacute necrosis in the sacral or thoracolumbosacral cord associated with massive dilatation and endomysial hypertrophy of the extramedullary veins and similar but less marked changes in the intramedullary vessels. The lumens were not obliterated, and the arteries were not involved. The term "angiodysgenetic necrotizing myelopathy" is sometimes applied to this condition (Follis and Netsky 1970). A similar syndrome is believed to be caused by spinal dural arteriovenous fistulae, although Mirich and colleagues found no arteriovenous malformations in 4 typical cases of subacute necrotizing myelopathy (Mirich et al 1991).

Paine and Byers were the first to report a large clinical series with follow-up exams and used the term “transverse myelopathy” (Paine and Byers 1953). They also postulated a vascular cause but did not present any pathological evidence. In most of these early reports, 1 or 2 patients were studied, and the autopsies were performed months to years after the original illness (Jaffe and Freeman 1943).

In more recent series, autopsies from patients with acute transverse myelitis seldom show significant vascular alterations. Lipton's series of 34 contained only 2 cases with infarcts of unknown etiology and one with hemorrhage plus telangiectasias (Lipton and Teasdall 1973).

http://www.medlink.com/medlinkcontent.asp

Nowadays Transverse Myelitis is considered a neurological disorder causing acute spinal cord injury as a result of acute inflammation, often associated with para infectious processes and autoimmune disease."

Well I have TM (not MS) and I used to have CCSVI. That sounds pretty vascular to me.
User avatar
TMrox
Family Elder
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:00 pm

Postby concerned » Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:50 pm

So, would you say it's a big stretch of the imagination then to say that this theory dates back to the 19th century? That neuros have been poo poo-ing it for that long? (Even the 60's-70's)
Last edited by concerned on Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
concerned
 

Postby Cece » Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:52 pm

TMrox wrote:Transverse Myelitis (a demyelination of the spinal cord only, monophasic)was also thought to be vascular.

That is really interesting, that's very similar to MS having its original vascular theory.
"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
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 9022
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby shye » Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:11 pm

@Cece
Fat-induced vascular problems is a previous theory.

Congenital truncular vascular malfomations is the current theory of ccsvi.

It seemed important to keep that clear.


But most important is to keep in mind that both are only theories

As I see it, the fat induced theory holds much more credibility--much more research behind it--than the recently, seemingly pushed through in excitement over CCSVI, congenital theory.
User avatar
shye
Family Elder
 
Posts: 758
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: NYC

Postby concerned » Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:15 pm

How do Inuit fit in to that theory then?
concerned
 

Postby Trish317 » Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:15 pm

concerned wrote:So, would you say it's a big stretch of the imagination then to say that this theory dates back to the 19th century? That neuros have been poo poo-ing it for that long? (Even the 60's-70's)


No, it isn't a stretch to say that the theory dates back to the 19th century. The vascular connection has existed since the time of Charcot who is considered the father of modern neurology. I don't know if I'd say that neurologists have been "poo poo-ing" it for that long. But they've certainly been stuck on the auto-immune theory since Thomas Rivers came up with the EAE model of MS in the 1930's.
User avatar
Trish317
Family Elder
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:00 pm
Location: Rhode Island

Postby Cece » Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:19 pm

shye wrote:But most important is to keep in mind that both are only theories

I especially like applying the same logic to autoimmune THEORY. :)

The different types of malformations Dr. Sclafani has described (backwards valves, atresia, membranes, ets) all seemed to be malformations, not build-ups of fat plaque. Which would fit with the congenital ccsvi theory?
"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
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 9022
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby Trish317 » Wed Jun 23, 2010 4:31 pm

Cece wrote:
shye wrote:But most important is to keep in mind that both are only theories

I especially like applying the same logic to autoimmune THEORY. :)

The different types of malformations Dr. Sclafani has described (backwards valves, atresia, membranes, ets) all seemed to be malformations, not build-ups of fat plaque. Which would fit with the congenital ccsvi theory?


Maybe I'm over-simplying things but I believe there's credence in both theories and it's a cause and effect thing. It's really no wonder, to me, that there has never been anything conclusive to determine the cause of MS. It has to be one of the most complicated diseases known to man. It can be congenitally caused or trauma caused. It's vascular and it's auto-immune. We need doctors and researchers in a variety of different fields working together to learn more. I believe that's finally going to happen now because of Dr. Zamboni's discovery and because patients are more knowledgable now than ever before.
User avatar
Trish317
Family Elder
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:00 pm
Location: Rhode Island

Postby shye » Wed Jun 23, 2010 6:30 pm

Cece wrote
The different types of malformations Dr. Sclafani has described (backwards valves, atresia, membranes, ets) all seemed to be malformations, not build-ups of fat plaque. Which would fit with the congenital ccsvi theory?

If i understand the fat-induced theory, fat emboli act as an irritant to the endothelium, and this trauma to the endothelium is a large factor in the BBB breakdown. The emboli cause aggregation of blood cells, which further occlude the smaller vessels and capillaries, and you get slowing down of flow of blood. With the accumulation of fat emboli, you get a hyperplasia (thickening) of vascular walls--which includes the small arterioles, capillaries and venules in the brain and spinal cord--as they thicken,they often became twisted, nodular, and alternately constricted and dilated.
As far as the autoimmune part, the fat-induced theory would explain this I think by the fact the emboli and aggregated blood cells also cause hypoxia (low oxyygen) and ischemia (low blood supply), which would shift the blood and tissues to acid, which would activate the digestive enzymes in the lysosomes--which in turn could result in the erosion of the surrounding tissues, incl myelin. So it is not an autoimmune reaction that destroys the myelin.

As an overall scheme for CCSVI, I think this theory is much more reasonable than congenital CCSVI.

But I'm not sure where some of the malformations found when doing Liberation procedure would fit into the fat-induced theory--I see them as not congenital, but environmental--that is, dietary deficiencies as underlying cause. (might look like congenital, because often mother and child have same nutrient deficiencies).
User avatar
shye
Family Elder
 
Posts: 758
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: NYC

Next

Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Contact us | Terms of Service