sbr487 I had a fourth grade teacher who always expressed to us the importance of making connections. While reading an article on the web entitled the "the warning signs of quackery" I noticed some similarities between CCSVI and the information in the article so I posted it. Please believe me I was not trying to guide anyone but I was presenting what I thought was a diferent perspective on CCSVI. Honestly what continues to make me such a huge skeptic of CCSVI is Zamboni himself. I was recently reading a CCSVI patients blog and he stated The examining physician, a colleague of Dr. Scalfani’s who was trained just a few weeks ago at Dr. Zamboni’s clinic in Italy, still considers the test somewhat subjective(meaning Zamboni's ultrasound protocol." Is this important for people to know or will it be perceived by others as an attack on Zamboni? I never have a clue what to expect. Anyway I hope everyone has a nice day and I appreciate you guys making me aware of how my posts sometimes make you feel but I swear they were never intended to hurt anyones feelings or suggest the people who come here can not make up their own minds on what is the best course of treatment options for themselves.
Scorpion, I am too not a person who would jump to anything if I am not comfortable. In my 17 years of MS, I have not tried any of the DMD's. During desperate times, I was tempted but my natural tendency has generally prevailed (I don't normally disclose that I don't take DMD's because people tend to look down upon MSers who don't follow a tested path).
I have myself felt that Dr. Z has faltered or has been off the mark in some areas (I don't have the luxury of directly interacting with these people, so this is all based on what I have read or from the news clips).
For example, Dr. Z should have better explained why he found 100% specificity (very rarely the case). I also feel that some of his stance is more political in nature than good science.
Irrespective of that, as DR's around the world have joined the effort and reported their findings (mostly informally), the credibility has increased.
But my initial interest was mainly not because what Dr. Z said but mainly due to the fact that venous connection was always hypothesized all along.
And to top that, the auto immune kind of reaches dead end when trying to explain lot of things associated with MS.
For example, BBB breach. I can understand that immune system can malfunction but why should BBB lower its filtering.
For example, if its auto immune, why is that immune activity is present (relapse) only once in a while and not always.
For example, if its auto immune, by this time we should have a clue about the gene that is causing this to happen. I think this has been researched by many groups and have found nothing to suggest.
Things like these are better explained if CCSVI is treated as the part of the MS puzzle.