CCSVI conference

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

CCSVI conference

Postby scorpion » Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:05 pm

I do not see what conclusions can be reached at this conference besides there needs to be more clinical trials. Seems to be a pretty balanced article although I believe the author has jumped to a few conclusions that may or may not be accurate. I am still not convinced that some sort of stenosis can not be detected in ALL adults if it is searched for hard enough. This seems simple to test and maybe it has been suggested before but wow would this save a lot of time and money. My suggestion is get 100 people, 50 with MS and 50 without. Put them in a room with Zamboni and his super CCSVI identifier and have him identify the patients with CCSVI. If it correlates highly with MS than case closed; CCSVI is in some way connected to MS. If he does not make the connection than there is a problem. Cheer you seem to have some connections. Any chance you could pass this suggestion along?


http://www.heraldscotland.com/life-styl ... -1.1063560
User avatar
scorpion
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:00 pm

Advertisement

Postby CCSVIhusband » Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:24 pm

I'm willing to be a person without who has "invasive" (as the skeptics here would put it) venography ... to prove I don't have reflux. In fact when my wife and I went for her procedure, the doctor did the test on me ... guess what ... no reflux in mine ... easily detected in hers.

He spent more time on mine and pointed out how the flow should look, and then went back and showed how hers was different ... now I'm allowing them to go into my veins to prove it also ...

The end ...

Find a doctor to do it on me Scorpion ... I'm in and I'll pay all expenses ...

I know a lot of others who would as well ...
User avatar
CCSVIhusband
Family Elder
 
Posts: 474
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA

Postby sou » Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:56 pm

Let us not confuse stenoses with CCSVI. CCSVI can be caused by many factors, including, but not limited to, stenoses.

The real question is: Does blood leave the CNS as fast as it should? If not, there is a problem, no matter what causes it. Why should the blood not drain normally from any organ, especially from one with a very high energy demand, such as the brain?
Shortest joke: "We may not be able to cure MS but we can manage its symptoms."
User avatar
sou
Family Elder
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:00 pm
Location: Greece

Postby Lyon » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:09 pm

..
Last edited by Lyon on Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby CCSVIhusband » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:27 pm

Talking doppler only ... not venography ... I didn't have that done.

Read between the lines sometimes.
User avatar
CCSVIhusband
Family Elder
 
Posts: 474
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA

Postby scorpion » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:37 pm

CCSVIhusband wrote:Talking doppler only ... not venography ... I didn't have that done.

Read between the lines sometimes.


The problem is still that the person running the doppler knew you did not have MS. What i am talking about is a study where the investagators are blinded to who has and does not have MS. Since Zamboni was the one who made the initial discovery I think he would be the best canidate for the trial. It would be a very simple trial and it would answer a lot of questions. Simple.
User avatar
scorpion
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:00 pm

Postby Lyon » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:51 pm

..
Last edited by Lyon on Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby PCakes » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:14 pm

sou wrote:The real question is: Does blood leave the CNS as fast as it should? If not, there is a problem, no matter what causes it. Why should the blood not drain normally from any organ, especially from one with a very high energy demand, such as the brain?


Percent of total body weight that the brain represents = 2% (avg.)
Percent of body’s oxygen consumed by the brain = 25%
Percent of body’s glucose burned up by the brain = 70% Average
Percent of body’s nutrients consumed by the brain = 25%

"Feed me Seymour"
User avatar
PCakes
Family Elder
 
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Canada

Postby scorpion » Mon Oct 25, 2010 2:42 pm

CCSVIhusband wrote:I'm willing to be a person without who has "invasive" (as the skeptics here would put it) venography ... to prove I don't have reflux. In fact when my wife and I went for her procedure, the doctor did the test on me ... guess what ... no reflux in mine ... easily detected in hers.

He spent more time on mine and pointed out how the flow should look, and then went back and showed how hers was different ... now I'm allowing them to go into my veins to prove it also ...

The end ...

Find a doctor to do it on me Scorpion ... I'm in and I'll pay all expenses ...
I know a lot of others who would as well ...



There is no need for an invasive procedure. Zamboni and his machine figure out who has MS and who does not by testing 100 individuals 50 with and 50 without MS. Really really simple. I am not sure what method Dr. Sclafani uses to test for CCSVI but I throw the same challenge out to him. Show me you can identify the people with MS vs. the people without MS and I will believe what you are selling. There is no reason why this should not be done ASAP.
User avatar
scorpion
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:00 pm

Postby Rici » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:08 pm

sou wrote:Let us not confuse stenoses with CCSVI. CCSVI can be caused by many factors, including, but not limited to, stenoses.

The real question is: Does blood leave the CNS as fast as it should? If not, there is a problem, no matter what causes it. Why should the blood not drain normally from any organ, especially from one with a very high energy demand, such as the brain?


The most important thing is to compensate for the blood pressure in the veins of the Interior. http://www.ms-info.net/dawson_popup.htm
Regards
Rici
User avatar
Rici
Family Elder
 
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Poland Bialystok

Postby 1eye » Mon Oct 25, 2010 3:24 pm

I very much dislike the assumption of dishonesty and the presumption of either incompetence or lying. I think the people who accepted the paper for peer review and publication assumed both competence and honesty.

I also think it would be very difficult without fakery and collusion to show a statistically significant reduction in gadolinium-enhancing lesions.

If someone is hell-bent on proving this man a liar, let them bear the expense. The presumption of innocence is fundamental to modern law, for a good reason. The burden of proof of wrongdoing is squarely on the shoulders of the accuser.

Find an experiment that will prove the CCSVI theory right, and increase our knowledge in this area, and come back if there is a problem.
"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: 2852
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada

Postby concerned » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:01 pm

1eye wrote:I very much dislike the assumption of dishonesty and the presumption of either incompetence or lying.


WHAT??? That's the single most popular pass-time of the general population of this board. You should have specified that you meant "the assumption of dishonesty and the presumption of either incompetence or lying" in the context of Zamboni et al., because I think you all like to do that very same thing towards the "non-believers", and furthermore find such behavior commendable.
concerned
 

Postby debp » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:02 pm

There is no need for an invasive procedure. Zamboni and his machine figure out who has MS and who does not by testing 100 individuals 50 with and 50 without MS. Really really simple. I am not sure what method Dr. Sclafani uses to test for CCSVI but I throw the same challenge out to him. Show me you can identify the people with MS vs. the people without MS and I will believe what you are selling. There is no reason why this should not be done ASAP.


Did you read the interview w/ Dr. Salvi on ccsvi.org??

I think he said he sent Zamboni 30 patients one week to scan with the doppler and didn't tell them which ones had MS. Apparently Zamboni picked out the ones with MS without any trouble.

So I think that test has already been done?
User avatar
debp
Family Member
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 3:00 pm

Postby scorpion » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:48 pm

debp wrote:
There is no need for an invasive procedure. Zamboni and his machine figure out who has MS and who does not by testing 100 individuals 50 with and 50 without MS. Really really simple. I am not sure what method Dr. Sclafani uses to test for CCSVI but I throw the same challenge out to him. Show me you can identify the people with MS vs. the people without MS and I will believe what you are selling. There is no reason why this should not be done ASAP.


Did you read the interview w/ Dr. Salvi on ccsvi.org??

I think he said he sent Zamboni 30 patients one week to scan with the doppler and didn't tell them which ones had MS. Apparently Zamboni picked out the ones with MS without any trouble.

So I think that test has already been done?


I think this is what you are referring too? I am not sure what Salvi is trying to say but I do not believe it was a blind study. What does he mean the "measure of MS and other than MS patient"?? 1eye I would think you would be begging for this type of study to be completed to quiet the "skeptics". In fact if cost is an issue how about using only thirty people as he supposedly checked for free for Salvi? What about Dr. Friedman sending him the 30 patients, 15 of which would not have MS at all, and let Zamboni find which ones have MS. A group of his peers could stand by as he uses his doppler to identify the MS patients so that there can be no "cheating". Once again this would be VERY simple to do. In fact I can think of no reason NOT to do it.

DR. SALVI: Yes, we agreed first to see many patients together. There were three things I needed to see, to prove.

The first was identifying MS patients with the echo Doppler (duplex ultrasonography). So I sent him 30 patients in one week, and I sent him not all MS patient, but patient with other disease too.

CCSVI ALLIANCE: Oh, and he did not know this?

DR. SALVI: Yes (he did not know), but his test result was exactly the measure of MS and other than MS patient (corresponding with the patients I sent). So I was very, I was impressed.
User avatar
scorpion
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:00 pm

Postby vivavie » Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:54 pm

Et Vlan!
Good job debp!
I read that to! Dr Salvi being a neuro he did not became a believer just for Dr Z good look (!?!) but yet it will never be enough for "some"...
User avatar
vivavie
Family Elder
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: QC, Canada

Next

Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users