This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

Many many questions in here... http://www.albertahealthservices.ca/fea ... -sheet.pdf

I'll start...


Are there any vaso-constricting characteristics of this drug? and how long did it take to get this trial up and running?


further down..


?? contradictory and confusing??

This is a fairly interesting read on this from the Vancouver Sun.

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Albe ... story.html

The article emphasizes "dangerous" risks with procedures and talks about AHS discouraging all ms sufferers from going out of the country to have it done. I had lunch with Neil Pierce mentioned in this article about 6 weeks ago. They want me to be part of their advisory committee ...hmmmm . I found out preliminary results yesterday from the Hubbard foundation. I will get the final results from Dr.Haake soon. The results showed significant reflux in both jugulars-enough to initiate a referral to an I.R. This could be a valuable experience for me if I ever do get involved with our local MS society.

what's refreshing about this is later he contradicts himself and says ms causes ccsvi. That is something science can test. No on has dared to say it but it's been there since buffalo.

that's why it's big to find patients like the kid at georgetown with bad ccsvi and just mild ms. This would be proof of it going the other way.

Of course putnam needs replication. Even if the animals don't get lesions when their veins are clamped that's the study we need.

Of course that 56 goes up to 62 when you eliminate borderlines.By quoting the lower number you are showing your opinions in this discussion.

The Buffalo study is in quesion because of their extensive use of ultrasound and mri. Venography is the gold standard.








If we're going to talk about the replications, the score is zamboni 100, Simka, 95, Jordan 88, Kuwait 82,Kosteki 84, India?,Costa Rica?,Scotland? Buffalo 62, Germany 0, Sweden 0.


Good thing this is the world cup or we wouldn't be winning.








I think zamboni is now finding around 12%? Other sites are reporting 14%

As we go my key arguement is "CCSVI is truncular. 40 vascular experts agreed. Lots of patients have bone involvement. I really like your paper because it clearly states the other logic. Breaking down that logic using science is all Im trying to do.

So I guess you didn't mean it when you said




This mistake is a good sign. It shows you just sat down at a typewriter and wrote off the cuff. We need that from 'the other side'. Thank you.

For me causation comes down to putnam, and whether his work from 1936 will be replicated at stanford. If occlusions in jugular veins cause enephalomyelitus then we know the venous theory of ms is true. If not, we lose.

Restenosis is the other strong evidence of ccsvi->ms .

Patients experience ms symptoms when their veins close up. All over the world in dozens of cases. I know ignoring this is the official way but if you think of all these people as lab rats, restenosis can prove causation.

good morning..

Such a poorly written paper.. am i biased, yes, but setting that aside the contradictions (highlighted by myself and billmeik) along with the scare tactics makes this painful to read.
I find this to be a blatant misuse of power and trust. There are still many msers counting on the MS society and Health Canada for information.
I wonder if the author(s) will come forward?

Congrats on your results Gary!
Yes, please, join that advisory board! ..their need for your help is apparent.

Yes, painful!! That was my reaction too.

_________________
"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

It is good to hear this put into words. Lots of docs have been saying it but is there a chance that ccsvi is a build up of scar tissue? Is stenosis somehow caused by brain lesions?


Yes. I want to know. On with the tests and the probing of ccsvi causation.


btw assuming the former was the case, is there still an arguement towards
clearing the blockages for therapeutic reasons? Perhaps...

This is where I go onto a system's comparison of my pick up truck and how it stopped running because of a clog in the catalytic. The tail pipe got blocked and so the engine stopped. The output had ccsvi and that caused the central processor to fail.


geek talk. Dunno if it's true.

I think maybe causes of CCSVI are within modern research's grasp. It will not be necessary for anyone to rub salt in the wound, and say why congenital venous abnormalities can't be caused by MS. But applying a fraction of the research and sacrifice of animals should give us an idea where it comes from. It could be fetal alcohol, or fetal smoking...maybe lead or strontium 90? I figure genes are a good start.

_________________
"Try - Just A Little Bit Harder" - Janis Joplin
CCSVI procedure Albany Aug 2010
'_MS' is over - if you want it
Patients sans/without patience

Wow are we getting to see frequent examples of the media just "going off" on this ccsvi being total placebo. This one from the Edmonton Journal ;

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/ ... story.html

The author claims that not one neurologist in Canada has measured any improvements in patients post liberation - really???

..my last visit to the MS Clinic had me 'out on my ear' for uttering the evil acronym.
Little chance of documenting improvements if healthy dialogue is rejected.

It is all so puzzling...

However, my faith and conviction remain solid.

oh my...sigh..

Avis Favarro had the facts alot more accurate back with the original news story. Who is adding such garbage info into the mix, why is there coverage of bad study results...where is the open and honest look at this? Why would the MSS write the gov to tell them to ignore CCSVI unless they say to look at it...why did Yves say he doesn't know about a world recognized phlebology organization...and that he could support a pharmacological treatment for CCSVI...???
Sure is hard to feel things are being presented without a bias.