MS therapy divides

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

Postby Billmeik » Sat Aug 14, 2010 2:27 pm

i have read zamboni's findings in detail. Still it is a valid hypothesis that ms causes ccsvi. Restenosis allegorically occurring before ms attacks is not enough. Faith is not enoght . I am liberated, still I need proof.
User avatar
Billmeik
Family Elder
 
Posts: 694
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:00 pm

Postby Cece » Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:29 pm

Billmeik wrote:
What I find the most interesting of all ....... were those pwMS that upon examination for re-stenosising [sp ] < 4 those watching for correct grammar .............. when Dr. Zamboni repeated his Liberation treatment ..... once again ..... the pwMS regained some improvements .

Some in hours .... others in day's ...... remarkable .... amazing ..........



ya but we need to trap for causative order. What if the ms attack happened first causing restenosis? This could be ruled out if someone got a dated image showing restenosis and then had some kind of proof when the ms attack happened...hmmm.

Depending on how much weight you give the consortium uni0n of phlebology consensus document with its statement that CCSVI is a congenital truncal vascular malformation (with 47 international experts in the vascular system agreeing to this), I don't think we need to be bothering with the whole 'maybe MS causes ccsvi' angle.

Still, you are right that a good research design might involve a lot of post-treatment screening so as to capture when the restenosis happens and when the MS attack happens. But: if a doctor screened you and found restenosis, would he let it sit and then see if a MS attack happened? Not sure that would pass the irb ethics or hopefully the researcher's own ethics.
"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: 8994
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby Billmeik » Sun Aug 15, 2010 5:49 am

you know in a sidenote my gp wife also said that truncular doesnt necessarily mean congenital. Does too right?
User avatar
Billmeik
Family Elder
 
Posts: 694
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:00 pm

Postby shye » Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:35 am

re:
the consortium uni0n of phlebology consensus document with its statement that CCSVI is a congenital truncal vascular malformation

interesting article:
http://www.lymphnet.org/lymphedemaFAQs/ ... _10_04.htm
What is a congenital vascular malformation?

A: Congenital vascular malformation,often referred to as "CVM" among clinicians, is an inborn defect resulting from the arrest of normal development of the vascular structure, and/or failure of orderly resorption of the embryologic primitive vascular element and subsequent persistence of the immature anomalous vascular structure. In other words, when this primitive vascular structure, which is essential for the rapid development of embryonal life, should fail to continue to develop normally and/ or remains even after birth following failure of the normal resorption of this embryonal vascular structure (which is no longer needed after birth), this anomalous vascular structure/embryonal remnant jeopardizes normal life after birth. Therefore, depending upon the stage of the embryologic morphogenesis at which the arrays stop, various types of vascular malformation can occur. Hence, "vascular malformation" seems to be enough to define this inborn abnormality without further addition of "congenital," because all vascular malformations are the result of an inborn error, after all.
User avatar
shye
Family Elder
 
Posts: 758
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: NYC

Postby 1eye » Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:47 am

Somebody at one time posted a link to a paper on CVMs with pictures of the circulatory systems of fetuses and descriptions of malformations. I assume most of the CCSVI ones are not the nasty ones shown in the photos.
"Try - Just A Little Bit Harder" - Janis Joplin
CCSVI procedure Albany Aug 2010
'MS' is over - if you want it
Patients sans/without patience
User avatar
1eye
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2885
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada

Postby 1eye » Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:53 am

truncular just means they're in your trunk. malformations means they were formed wrong. I guess after you reach adulthood new collateral veins may form, and malform, but I think the ones we are talking about are structural problems in non-collateral veins.
"Try - Just A Little Bit Harder" - Janis Joplin
CCSVI procedure Albany Aug 2010
'MS' is over - if you want it
Patients sans/without patience
User avatar
1eye
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2885
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada

Postby Cece » Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:58 am

I once posted that truncular meant 'of the trunk' and I got shot down! :)

Apparently there is a second meaning of truncular which means it formed in the stage of embryonic development after extratruncular. Extratruncular would mean it went wrong very early and those cells can continue to grow and grow; truncular means it went wrong after the 'off' switch on that sort of growth happened, so if it's truncular it will grow at the same pace as the rest of the body as a person grows up but it will not have excessive/'tumorous' sort of growth that an extratruncular malformation might have.
"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: 8994
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby 1eye » Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:21 pm

Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I'd better pull up my trunks and get going. :)

This from cheerleader on another thread:

So far, we've seen cysts, double jugulars, bony and tissue obstructions, faulty valves, and now an absence of presacral venous plexus. And what do all these people have in common? They all have a variety of venous malformations and have MS. MS didn't give Lew a double jugular with an extra valve. MS didn't give my Jeff a tight, muscular neck and I don't think MS made your husband's presacral venous plexus disappear, or his jugulars collapse. I think you have a smart doctor, why...checking the veins that far south. I still want my hubby's legs scanned.
"Try - Just A Little Bit Harder" - Janis Joplin
CCSVI procedure Albany Aug 2010
'MS' is over - if you want it
Patients sans/without patience
User avatar
1eye
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2885
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada

Postby concerned » Thu Sep 02, 2010 8:28 am

patientx wrote:
PCakes wrote:..please cite an example of 'bullying' someone who had a negative treatment experience? Is offering up support by means of suggesting why the treatment failed bullying? Granted, sometimes we should just 'listen' but it's the nature of this beast to try to help.
Sorry, I've never witnessed such a response on any of these sites? Other forms of attack, yes, but this? I hope you can not prove me wrong.


http://www.thisisms.com/ftopic-9176-day ... asc-0.html
(You only have to read through the first 2 or 3 pages.)
An example:
My bet is the damn loose stent that the one guy had and his complaints that Dake didn't tell him he was even getting it. I'm not a gambling girl but I would bet on this one.


And this type of stuff is probably only the tip of the iceberg. Sometimes the really bad stuff isn't posted out in the forums.



http://www.thisisms.com/ftopict-10332-chris1967.html


This is the one I was looking for.
concerned
 

Previous

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