dreddk wrote:so you can't extrapolate that from the air (as the skeptics have questioned others who have done that from studies) ...
All I'm saying is, my wife was diagnosed with, and treated for CCSVI before she had an MS diagnosis. She had a web in her veins, a stuck valve, and narrowing.
CCSVI treated, symptoms go away ... what caused the symptoms, it would seem CCSVI. Sounds "causal" in my books.
I take your point CCSVIHusband and I was merely speculating.
Coming back, as you suggest, to the hard facts, CIS subjects did not exhibit stensosis relative to LMS patients. If you broaden the criteria then yes, more people may be defined as CCSVI (and probibly more false positives too which may explain the Buffalo study controls). However the fact will remain that most CIS people do not have CCSVI.
The inference from this must be that CCVSI cannot be causing MS. This would also explain why a large percentage of those who have the liberation procedure experience no relief from their MS symptoms.
As Spock said " Logic is wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad"
PS I would have thought CCSVI believers would be heartened by this. It appears to show CCSVI does exist. Surely thats better than the alternative even if it doesnt cause MS.
Again I would say that even if it increased CIS positives to 25% it would increase LMS to 100%. Unless CIS is 90% as well, CCSVI cannot be the cause of MS.
Conclusion About 10-15% of CIS patients may develop MS on MRI criteria only, without further clinical events for up to two decades
dreddk wrote:Just thought I would add
1. This seems to correlate reasonably well with the buffalo study where it appears a lower threshold for ccsvi was used. 38% of cis had ccsvi and 80% of advanced msers which one might speculate ties in with LMS in this study.
Cece wrote:I'm throwing my lot in with MegansMom, with the CCSVI always being present but worsening as we age.
dreddk wrote:Hi Mark
Agree it definitely suggest venography is the way to go for late MSers given this study.
On point 1 the issue it raised is, if CCSVI caused MS, one would expect to see around 80% of CIS subjects exhibit CCSVI - which they don't. It suggests that either MS causes CCSVI, or they share a common cause.
Irrespective, it appears CCSVI exists and no matter what causes it, trials on efficacy of treatment options are now critical. It will also be interesting to see if there are a specific spectrum of side effects of MS that treatment relieves.
dreddk wrote:PCcakes/cece - if this is the case I guess it raises the question- why aren't the studys detecting these defects in early stage msers
Users browsing this forum: Robnl