scorpion wrote:Ok can anyone tell me WHAT kind of study would coclusively either rule CCSVI in or CCSVI out. I thought that the venogram being the "gold standard" was what everyone was pushing for but now that is not good enough either? I will say I am FAR from an expert on the veinuous but for a disease that can render someone in a wheel chair, unable to swallow, and blind should it really be this difficult to identify CCSVI?
When the Doppler Ultrasound studies came out they were dismissed because they were prone to operator error, unlike an MRV. When the MRV study came out it was dismissed because it wasn't a venogram. Now that a venogram comes out, it's dissmissed because it's not a Doppler Ultrasound.
This is not how one wins friends and influences people in the scientific community.
The venogram is the gold standard. I think for CCSVI to be found there should be an obstruction or narrowing that causes backflow (or poor drainage). I think Cece's point is that anything that could create an obstruction in a neck vein should be in play such as a faulty valve. For me it should also include a venous malformation because that's what I think I have. No one wants to be left out of a study.
That being said, all these studies have to be taken into account and weighed. They each have limitations to be highlighted and each can be debated. But they each are published peer-reviewed papers. Thus far, they haven't exactly been a ringing endorsement of Zamboni's theory.
There are still many more studies to come in. So though us CCSVIers may be behind a bit in the score as far as independent validation goes (well actually a lot
) at these early stages, we're confident that CCSVI will rally and storm back for the win.