For a good study, you need to know what you are going to do, you need to be clear in your mind what you want to investigate, what your objectives are. If you are not clear, you get a system of what we call rubish in, rubish out.
Sometimes, when I come across new (PhD) studies on MS, I get the impression that the oversight on the bigger issue has been lost. Likewise, when browsing through the programme of the last ECTRIMS meeting, I start to seriously wonder whether and how all this could be put together. http://www.congrex.ch/fileadmin/files/2 ... press.html
I am not going to claim here that the system in MS research is like rubish in rubish out, but to me it has the smell of it and I am not completely ignorant in managing large programmes including research programmes albeit in a different sector.
The fact that they went off in the wrong (auto-immune) direction will not help either and may have created a complexity so huge that things have simply become unmanageable. Add to this the neuro research culture that has grown over the last several decades, and the huge weight of the status-quo (e.g. see the ECTRIMS programme) and one can see a glimpse of the obstacles on the way.
We should not be fooling ourselves. Of course ccsvi is a problem closely related to MS. There is already too much evidence and this is not just the US or Canada, but the experiences are world-wide and not placebo (I believe together with some doctors this has nothing to do with placebo..).
To the Canadians who are sceptical about this new study, I would say: please ask for the terms of refence of this study, and if you believe the approach is wrong, is tendentious, is too much rooted in old believes or is "doomed to fail", call them to order. There must be some accountability along the path, we have missed that for too long.