Dr. Levy talked about a continuum of treatment and a subset of 'MS' (only treating RR). I think that is to allow for the possibility of CCSVI treatment failure, at which event neurologists get the case back. See these guys are promoting the point of view that not only are neurology specialists required to 'authorize' the procedure (testing) but also to control treatment, and thus, to assess when drug treatment is the only option left. Also, when drug treatment is the better option (if it is very successful without requiring 'minimally invasive surgery').
That, I think, is because they even now are not considering the possibility that 'MS' patients will vote with their feet and decide for themselves what kind of specialist they need. They will, anyway. Does anyone think people who have the option of a Dr. Sclafani or a Dr. Mehta, will let their GPs tell them they must consult a team of neurologist and neurosurgeon? These doctors all publish papers, and it is going to be the doctors with the best treatment record, and the best explanation of it, to whom people will go. All options are back on the table, in free countries, such as the ones where people are traveling.
I am frankly surprised that in 2010, we still don't know if a spinal lesion is caused by blood, or whether disability is caused by problems in motor centers in the brain, or by problems in the spinal cord. Doesn't handedness reverse outside the brain? I have never heard of any direct mapping between brain locations and symptoms, though I do believe the technology must exist to do this (PET scans?).
I think we have been too long drug-focused and spent too much money developing drugs, without learning enough mechanism. But that's just me.
"Try - Just A Little Bit Harder" - Janis Joplin
CCSVI procedure Albany Aug 2010
'MS' is over - if you want it
Patients sans/without patience
I am not a doctor. Do not take anything I say as medical advice.