Ottawa Citizen paper needs a rebuke

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

Ottawa Citizen paper needs a rebuke

Postby NormB » Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:55 am

This is a columnist that has his facts in need of some alignment. If someone with more vocabulary than I possess to redress this guy. 1eye?
His email is at the bottom.



Patients' anecdotes are not evidence

Dan Gardner
The Ottawa Citizen


Friday, September 10, 2010


Judging by the controversy surrounding the refusal of the federal government to fund clinical trials of the "liberation treatment" of multiple sclerosis, the media and the public have forgotten one of the biggest health stories of the early 1990s. A reminder is in order.

The issue then was silicone breast implants. In the 1980s, case studies of women who got sick after getting implants started to pop up in medical journals. Their illnesses were serious -- mostly connective tissue diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and lupus.

News of a lawsuit against manufacturers was widely reported. More stories surfaced in medical journals and the news media.

In 1990, CBS journalist Connie Chung produced an hour-long special on the controversy. It was a parade of tragic stories, with one tearful woman after another describing how she got sick after getting the implants. Chung's tone throughout was angry and accusatory. It was obvious that silicone breast implants were killing women.

A flood of stories followed. "Toxic Breasts" and "Ticking Time Bombs" were typical headlines. Advocacy groups demanded a ban.

Lawsuits started to go against manufacturers. In one, Dow Corning was ordered to pay a woman who claimed her implants sickened her $7.34 million.

Under intense pressure, the United States Food and Drug Administration told manufacturers they had 90 days to provide evidence the implants were safe. That was impossible so, in April 1992, the FDA banned them -- while emphasizing that the implants had not actually been proven unsafe and the ban would be lifted if the manufacturers could prove them safe.

Activists wanted more. "We are the evidence!" sick women would shout at rallies and in the audiences of talk shows. They were healthy; they got implants; they got sick. And there were thousands of stories like theirs. What more evidence was needed?

Journalists were convinced. So was the public. Surveys showed that people considered silicone breast implants to be far more dangerous than a long list of substances and activities. They even deemed having implants to be almost as risky as smoking a pack of cigarettes a day.

But the FDA was right. Implants hadn't been proven dangerous.

"There are thousands upon thousands of women who have breast implants and complain of terrible pain," an ABC reporter said in 1995. "Can they all be wrong?" Indeed they could. At the time there were roughly 100 million women in the United States. Of those, one per cent had implants. And one per cent had connective tissue diseases. Thus, 10,000 women could be expected to have both implants and disease by coincidence alone.

This is a fundamental problem in medicine. Indeed, in all science. People find stories about other people deeply compelling. It's human nature. A story about one suffering woman feels like significant evidence. A collection of such stories feels conclusive.

But these stories are quite misleading. Indeed, the actual scientific value of a single anecdote is effectively nil. Even a collection of such stories can prove nothing. "Anecdotes aren't data," scientists like to say.

But human nature shrugs. "Data aren't anecdotes," it says.

In the early 1990s, journalists and the public went with human nature. Then science started to deliver results: Starting in 1994, one major study concluded silicone breast implants do not cause connective tissue disease.

In 2006, after more than a decade of needless fear and suffering, the FDA lifted the ban.

Paolo Zamboni's "liberation treatment" is a powerful story. One patient after another comes to the physician who sought a cure for his beloved wife, and one patient after another seems to have the weight of terrible suffering lifted.

Nothing could be more moving. Or more intuitively persuasive.

But this is not science. And when scientists examined the treatment, they were not impressed. A joint report of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the MS Society of Canada issued two weeks ago came to four major conclusions: Zamboni's work is flawed; he has weak evidence; the treatment is dangerous; and there is little reason to think that the theory underlying the treatment is correct.

Many commentators accepted all that but insisted that it is unreasonable to deny funding for research on the grounds that there isn't enough evidence. Want more evidence? Fund the research!

This would be a compelling argument if "liberation treatment" were the only one of its kind. But it's not. Far from it. Nothing is more common than putative treatments and cures unsupported by solid scientific evidence of efficacy. All that sets Zamboni's treatment apart is the enormous media attention it has garnered.

Given that we have only a limited amount of money available for medical research, and given that money spent on clinical trials of one possible treatment is not available for another, we have to direct money where it's most likely to produce positive results. And that doesn't include "liberation treatment."

The scientists were right. And the government was right to listen to the scientists.

That's deeply dissatisfying, of course. But it is rational. And ultimately, it is rationality, not anecdotes and intuition, that saves lives.

Dan Gardner's column appears Wednesday, Friday and Saturday. E-mail: dgardner@thecitizen.canwest.com.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2010
'92 diag RR - '05 SP
On LDN since Sept. 2012 with better quality of life.
User avatar
NormB
Family Elder
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: Near Ottawa Canada

Advertisement

Postby 1eye » Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:49 am

This is from Facebook, I believe: (sorry unattributed)

Dr. Alain Beaudet and the Pharmaceutical Industy---what you need to know
by CCSVI in Multiple Sclerosis on Wednesday, September 1, 2010 at 7:33pm
Dear Canadian friends---
I believe it is of the utmost importance that you understand who is making health care decisions for you.
There are several things you need to know about the president of the CIHR---all of this information is public record.
Dr. Alain Beaudet, President ,†Canadian Institutes of Health Research †Ottawa, ON†
Here is some press about Dr. Beaudet's appointment:
"The Canadian Institutes of Health Research has named Montreal physician†Alain†Beaudet†as its new president, effective July 1st. †Beaudet†is currently president and CEO of the QuÈbec government's medical research funding agency, called Fonds de La Recherche en SantÈ QuÈbec, or FRSQ. He takes over for acting president Pierre Chartrand, who has been filling in since CIHR head Alan Bernstein resigned in October to serve as executive director of the Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise.
Dr. Beaudet served as CEO of FRSQ--
Here is the website for FRSQ--the research funding agency that Beaudet worked for as CEO and President:
http://www.frsq.gouv.qc.ca/en/index.shtml
Note that Pfizer, the world's largest drug company (marketer of Rebif, maker of Neurontin, Zoloft, Lipitor) is one of the most important partners of the FRSQ--
http://www.frsq.gouv.qc.ca/en/financeme ... iche.shtml
http://www.frsq.gouv.qc.ca/en/financeme ... 2010.shtml
Managing of chronic illnesses is one area where research is funded by Pfizer
Here is a press release regarding the FRSQ working with pharma to help chronic pain--
Dr. Beaudet set up the first-ever collaboration between pharma and the Social Services Ministry.
"Two of Canada’s leading pharmaceutical companies are joining forces with the Fonds de la recherche en santÈ du QuÈbec (FRSQ) and Quebec’s Health and Social Services Ministry (MSSS) to help in the battle against chronic pain and give a boost to Quebec’s pain researchers and clinics affiliated with Quebec’s four medical-research universities.
The partnership – a first in Canada – is designed to strengthen what is already the country’s leading pain research and treatment network, the Quebec Pain Research Network (QPRN), which links pain clinics at Quebec’s four university-hospital networks and more than 75 doctors and researchers specialized in chronic pain.
Under the partnership, Pfizer Canada, AstraZeneca, the FRSQ and MSSS will provide $4.35 million over four years to fund research and education that will improve our understanding of chronic pain and help doctors diagnose and treat pain more effectively."
“The battle against chronic pain is really a collective effort uniting researchers in the public and private sectors, front-line medical professionals and patients themselves,” said Alain Beaudet, President and CEO of the FRSQ. In leading the partnership, the FRSQ’s goal is to support Quebec’s pain research, particularly to advance understanding of prevalence, incidence and the natural course of different pain syndromes, and to ensure that this knowledge is transferred to the clinic to benefit patients.
“This initiative takes us to the next level by bringing our research knowledge and excellence onto the front-lines to help doctors and patients manage pain more effectively,” Beaudet said.
http://www.pfizer.ca/en/media_centre/ne ... rticle=259

Here's a picture of Dr. Beaudet with his industry partners, at a pharmaceutical convention in San Diego-
Again, Dr. Beaudet establishes a FIRST in Canada--the Quebec Consortium for Drug Discovery!!
http://www.merckfrosst.ca/mfcl/en/corpo ... _2008.html
"At the prestigious BIO 2008 conference under way this week in San Diego, Raymond Bachand, QuÈbec Minister of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade (MDEIE), Minister of Tourism and Minister responsible for the MontrÈal Region; Paul LÈvesque, President and Chief Executive Officer of†Pfizer†Canada; Mark S. Jones, President and Chief Executive Officer of AstraZeneca Canada; and Dawn Graham, President, Merck Frosst Canada, announced the creation of the QuÈbec Consortium for Drug Discovery (CQDM). They were accompanied by Dr.†Alain†Beaudet, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Fonds de la recherche en santÈ du QuÈbec (FRSQ), the province's public-sector health research funding agency, and by Mr. Max Fehlmann, director of CQDM.
This consortium, a first in Canada, is dedicated to stimulating research into drug development in QuÈbec, with a focus on the pre-competitive stages-which represent a critical step in the process. By bringing together eminent scientists from industry, university, hospital and government circles, the CQDM will foster synergy between university and industry research. The resulting collaborative network will help create tools that are better adapted to the development of safer and more effective drugs."
†And here's yet another study initiated by Pfizer under Dr. Beaudet, now on the CIHR---
Pfizer†Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and UniversitÈ Laval are today announcing the creation of an international research chair aimed at understanding and explaining insulin resistance and the risk of cardiovascular complications in diabetic obese patients.†Pfizer†Canada is injecting $1.05 million, and the CIHR close to $600,000, both over a 5-year period, into this innovative research project headed by Dr. AndrÈ Marette. A first in Canada, the†Pfizer-CIHR Research Chair on the Pathogenesis of Insulin Resistance and Cardiovascular Disease is being set up in the Cardiology Unit of HÙpital Laval, a UniversitÈ Laval-affiliated hospital, in Quebec City.

“The awarding of this research chair reflects the CIHR's strategy of emphasizing excellence for developing advanced research,” says Dr.†AlainBeaudet, President of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). “Dr. Marette's work concerns the juncture of research on diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular disease, three areas in which Canadian publications have had a major impact at the international level. There is no question that research generated by the research chair will significantly help advance our knowledge in these areas and improve the health of Canadians."


This next connection to the pharmaceutical industry comes from published analysis of the Canadian conflicts of interest in the CIHR--note the mention of Pfizer once again--one of Dr. Beaudet's first appointments was the vice-president of Pfizer to the CIHR governing council-
The entire paper, published in Open Medicine can be accessed here:
http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/download/371/337.
"The appointment of Dr. Bernard Prigent,†vice-president of Pfizer Canada, to CIHR’s governing†Council—the first pharmaceutical representative to be†so appointed 25–29—andstatements by CIHRpresidentDr.†
Alain Beaudet in the context of this appointment, emphasizing the need to intensify collaboration and even†
to align CIHR’s “agenda” and “vision” with the pharmaceutical industry,30 do raise the question whether CIHR†
remains sufficiently independent from industry to operatetheDSEN.Asoneofus(TL)suggested at a hearing of†
the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health†related to this appointment, Dr. Beaudet’s justifications†
provided in support of this appointment are worrisome†rather than reassuring.31 Steven Lewis has remarked on†
this appointment that “Pfizer has an obvious interest in†the flow ofCIHR funds to science that may lead to drug†
development,andanobviousinterestindivertingCIHR†fundsawayfromsciencethatmayrevealthecomparative ineffectivenessofoneofitsdrugsorchallengethepharmacological therapeutic paradigm.”28 We therefore recommend that CIHRand the ministerofhealth,towhom†CIHR reports, carefully evaluate the impact of such appointments and ofincreased collaboration withindustry†ontheDSEN,andensureitscontinuingindependence."
Here are other reports outlining the conflict of interest in the appointment of a Pfizer executive to the CIHR---
Abstract†The appointment of Dr. Bernard Prigent, vice-president and medical director of Pfizer Canada, to the Governing Council of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, outraged many Canadian health researchers. Pfizer has been a "habitual offender," persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results. Since 2002 the company and its subsidiaries have been assessed $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. The $2.3-billion settlement in September 2009 – a month before Dr. Prigent's appointment – set a new record for both criminal fines and total penalties. A link with Pfizer might well advance the commercialization of Canadian research – unhindered by law or morality. Is that now the only mandate, Dr. Beaudet?
http://www.noveltechethics.ca/site_beyo ... 147&page=6

And here is a story about Dr. Bernard Prigent, the inside man for Pfizer---who turned out to be a LOBBYIST for the pharma company--
http://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/bernard- ... id=1503474
"But the parliamentary committee did not have a crucial piece of evidence: not only is Prigent a vice president of Pfizer, but he is also a†registered lobbyist for Pfizer. That information is only now coming to light, and has never been previously reported. According to the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada, the government agency that regulates lobbyists, Prigent's position as Pfizer lobbyist is to sway policy at the "Canadian Institute of Health Researchers (CIHR) and other Research Oriented Spending Programs as it relates to private/public research and development partnerships," and Prigent is to achieve these aims through both oral and written techniques.
In other words, Prigent the Pfizer lobbyist is paid to lobby Prigent the CIHR official."
We have been discussing the importance of objectivity in science of the freedom from the constraints of pharmaceutical influences in medical research. †I am not Canadian, but just one afternoon of googling has provided me with †enough information to make my stomach turn. †Canadian investigative journalists, Canadian ethics committees, Canadian people---I ask you, what's the next step?



That will have to do for my canned answer to you, Dan Gardner.

Except for a couple of things:

1. This treatment saves lives. There are two dead as of yesterday that were in waiting lists. One was the father of a 5 year old girl. I know the anecdote argument. Try telling that to the daughter.

2. I would have thought the independent press in Canada could pick up this story of the selling of the CIHR, to the dupes in the Canadian Press and in Parliament, or some political party might. Not sure why this did not happen. Is it less free than we think?

Deaths are anecdotes too. Everything is an anecdote. Things only get to be non-anecdotal when someone keeps track. The people with CCSVI are starting to do their own keeping track. So are the doctors performing this operation. It might not be within the scope of CIHR or NIH, but there is a new organization of IRs who is on the case too.

It's all evidence when someone starts keeping track. Census-takers know that.

I guess I have to start tracking death. Oh, well, it might save lives.

Google the CCSVI Alliance. Always a good place to start.

-Chris Sullivan
"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: 2932
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada

Postby bruce123 » Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:54 am

I actually think this is a very well written piece. His arguments are persuasive and much of what he says is true.
But this is not science. And when scientists examined the treatment, they were not impressed. A joint report of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the MS Society of Canada issued two weeks ago came to four major conclusions: Zamboni's work is flawed; he has weak evidence; the treatment is dangerous; and there is little reason to think that the theory underlying the treatment is correct.


If we ignore the obvious conflict of interest of the controlling members of the two "expert" groups, it is true that Zamboni's initial research was weak. It was a small sample size, it was not a blinded study and there was no control group. What it was was an initial study of a hypothesis that provided dramatic results and therefore, as Zamboni himself states over and over, demands further study. The research is not "flawed". It is simply preliminary.

The assertion that the treatment is dangerous is, as we all know, absurd. A risk/benefit analysis would come out heavily in favour of the treatment. People who believe otherwise do not live with MS.
To state that there is little reason to think that the theory underlying the treatment is correct is simply a case of professional disagreement. It’s the old story of electricians vs. plumbers.

Here's the real problem I have with this article;
"There are thousands upon thousands of women who have breast implants and complain of terrible pain," an ABC reporter said in 1995. "Can they all be wrong?" Indeed they could. At the time there were roughly 100 million women in the United States. Of those, one per cent had implants. And one per cent had connective tissue diseases. Thus, 10,000 women could be expected to have both implants and disease by coincidence alone.

The liberation treatment is providing dramatic improvements to 1/3 of those treated. There is no "coincidence". People with MS do not sometimes get better. There have been only 3 things that have ever been found that can reverse the symptoms of MS. One is the Liberation Proceedure, the second is very risky and expensive stem cell replacement and the other is miraculous intervention from God. While I'm a big fan of God, it seems that the Liberation Treatment is a bit more accessible.

We have all read the testimonies of our friends here on TIMS. There were two great ones posted today. One from Magoo and one from Skincoll. We know that these are not typical remissions or placebo effects or anything else that has ever been seen in MS treatments short of stem cell replacements.

Let's not get too worked up about these nay-sayers. It's an uphill battle but we've got the momentum. We must keep pushing forward.

Bruce.
User avatar
bruce123
Family Elder
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Postby Rokkit » Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:11 am

Is Connie Chung still available? I have another story idea for her.
Rokkit
Family Elder
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 3:00 pm

Postby MrSuccess » Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:58 am

another opinion ..... another newspaper ....

Let's not give this guy too much importance... :idea:

He is simply repeating other previously published newspaper stories ...

Which would YOU choose to decide if CCSVI has merit ? A study published by a Professor ..... or a horseshit newspaper article that cost you buck ?

Give the guy his 15 minutes of fame ..... then forget about him . :idea:





Mr. Success
User avatar
MrSuccess
Family Elder
 
Posts: 890
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:00 pm

Postby scorpion » Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:57 am

[quote="MrSuccess"]another opinion ..... another newspaper ....

Let's not give this guy too much importance... :idea:

He is simply repeating other previously published newspaper stories ...

Which would YOU choose to decide if CCSVI has merit ? A study published by a Professor ..... or a horseshit newspaper article that cost you buck ?
Give the guy his 15 minutes of fame ..... then forget about him . :idea: [quote}





Just my two cents but the more you guys cuss, swear, and try to belittle people the less people want to listen to you. Of course I am not talking about fellow CCSVi'ers but about the people you need to convince like the gentleman who wrote the article above. He is not the first one to bring these points up so maybe there is something valid to this article? You can give the guy fifteen minutes of fame and forget about him but the points he brought up will not disappear. Until CCSVI can be proven scientifcally all the yelling and screaming in the world will not help. Take my opinion with a grain of salt if you want but some of you really take away from whatever legitamcy there is to CCSVI through your nonsense. Once again just my opinion. :)
User avatar
scorpion
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:00 pm

Postby PCakes » Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:25 pm

So well said...
bruce123 wrote:The assertion that the treatment is dangerous is, as we all know, absurd. A risk/benefit analysis would come out heavily in favour of the treatment. People who believe otherwise do not live with MS.
Bruce.


Some relevant blah blah..Although the battle was lost, my mom, late in life suffered a failing aortic valve. The attending cardiac surgeon along with her GP, aware of groundbreaking research and technology, took extraordinary steps to try and save mom's life. These attempts included ambulance transfers to a research facility in the midst of a clinical trial proposal for purcutaneous valve replacement. Although a desperate attempt, all efforts were made to fast track her in, despite the fact that the procedure was not yet approved. It was a no brainer..this was her only hope. No bodies tried to intervene. There were no threats of disciplinary action. What I witnessed were compassion and heroic effort. What I gained, was a renewed faith and trust in our healthcare system.
Mom was 90.
Yesterday, a young man died, and a little girl lost her dad. Were all efforts made to save his life?
Tell me, what am I witnessing now? :(
User avatar
PCakes
Family Elder
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Direct-MS » Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:17 pm

This was sent to Mr Gardner

Dear Mr Gardner,

I am the president and research director of Direct-MS, Canada’s second largest MS charity. Our charity strongly supports the need for CCSVI treatment research and this is based on scientific evidence, not anecdotal stories.

I just want to point out the main flaw in your comparison of the women with connective tissue disease and implants with persons with MS and CCSVI. All studies that have used venography as the method of CCSVI detection (gold standard) have found >90% of those with MS have CCSVI. This compares with 1% of those with connective tissue disease having breast implants (your quoted data).

When you have a 1% association, it is very doubtful if cause be ascribed but not impossible. However, with a >90% association you start to think a causal relationship may be quite likely. I doubt if you have read Bradford Hill’s (1965) classic paper on how to determine if an associated factor is a causal one but what you need are 1) close association, 2) the associated factor to occur before the disease process, and 3) plausible biological mechanisms which relate the associated factor to the disease process. When all three criteria are met you can say a causal relationship is highly likely and you need a clinical trial for the final proof.

Notably all three of Hill’s criteria are met for CCSVI and MS.
1) CCSVI is highly associated with MS (>90%).
2) The venous malformations which cause CCSVI are congenital and thus precede the MS disease process (Lee et al, 2009: Lee et al, 2010).
3) Biologically plausible mechanisms related to CCSVI (iron deposition, hypoperfusion, upregulation of endothelial adhesion molecules) can be readily related to the MS disease process

Thus we can say CCSVI is most likely a causal factor of MS (only one of a number). Given this and the results of Zamboni’s pilot treatment trial (procedure completely safe, possible efficacy), the obvious next step is a proper clinical trial which tests the efficacy of CCSVI treatment. There is no need for any more delay. The science is in and the science says we need such a trial to make the final decision on whether or not to use venous angioplasty for MS. The anecdotal stories by themselves don’t mean much, but in combination with solid science that says relief of a causal factor should be of benefit, they have some significance.

Many people with MS do not have the luxury of 3-5 years for the trial results to be gotten so, on the basis of the current science, they are applying the Precautionary Principle and are getting it done now. I expect if you or a loved one was in the same situation, you would make the same decision. It is only common sense.

Direct-MS will be releasing a detailed In-Depth Analysis of the Beaudet Report on Monday. It will look at the validity and thoroughness of the scientific information and interpretations offered in the Report as well as any ethical problems associated with it. If you would like to receive a copy let me know. If you are going to quote the report, you should know if it is valid or not.
User avatar
Direct-MS
Family Member
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:00 pm

Postby Lyon » Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:23 pm

.
Last edited by Lyon on Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby Rokkit » Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:41 pm

Lyon wrote:It's not within my ability to guess what results will be found upon proper testing but at this point it remains nothing more than assumption that the venous systems of the general public are unsullied by stenosis.

I've thought a lot about this. My theory is that venograms are so common for other purposes that if the stenoses existed in any significant number of the general public, they would have been encountered by IRs and said IRs would now be screaming about it.
Rokkit
Family Elder
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 3:00 pm

Postby Lyon » Fri Sep 10, 2010 4:02 pm

.
Last edited by Lyon on Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby Rokkit » Fri Sep 10, 2010 4:46 pm

Lyon wrote:My assumption was that in using the word "venography" Ashton was referring to catheter venography in order for him to be correctly referring to it as the gold standard test. If correct, catheter venography isn't commonly used and even those cases involve going in to repair damage to the veins caused by dialysis so seeing problems would be taken for granted.

Yeah I'm definitely talking about catheter venography. You don't think it's commonly used? I thought that was basically all IRs did. I know it's usually the arteries, but still there has to be an awful lot of exploration into the jugulars for, as you said, dialysis and who knows what other issues. As far as problems being taken for granted, I doubt inverted valves, valves sticking out of places they shouldn't be, etc. would be taken for granted. It just seems to me these things would have been noticed. It's just a hunch though.
Rokkit
Family Elder
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 3:00 pm

Postby Lyon » Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:05 pm

.
Last edited by Lyon on Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby Rokkit » Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:16 pm

Lyon wrote:Maybe the average venous system really is perfect or near perfect but assuming isn't good enough because certainty is essential to any veracity that CCSVI might have.

Not assuming, just theorizing. Another thing is the collaterals. The collateral veins on my MRV and catheter venogram were extensive. It just seems it would have been noticed to some extent, enough of an extent that some IR somewhere would be talking about it.
Rokkit
Family Elder
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 3:00 pm

Postby Lyon » Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:57 pm

.
Last edited by Lyon on Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

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