Mark, I'm one of those who've made the stupid comment that I'll go straight to catheter venogram, thank you.
While I agree with your reasoning for those who might need the other tests to get their insurance companies to pay, I'm not in that situation.
Based on my history, symptoms and research, I'm 95% certain that I have vascular issues that may respond favorably to angioplasty by an experienced, knowledgeable CCSVI treatment provider. I have nowhere nearby (that I've been able to locate) to get a Doppler ultrasound a la Zamboni, or an MRV a la Haacke. I have limited funds, and a catastrophic health insurance policy with a $10,000 per person, per illness deductible. So, effectively, I'm paying out of pocket any expenses up to $10,000.
The real clincher is that, if I had a negative Doppler and MRV, I still wouldn't believe the results, and would go for the catheter venogram/plasty anyway. (The number of false negatives has not been insubstantial, from what I gather.) To me, that's the classic situation that some doctors refer to when prescribing tests: if the results aren't going to change the plans or treatment going forward, then is the test really necessary? My conclusion, for myself, is that I can forgo those tests.
Perhaps naively, I'm hoping to keep my expenses below $10K. I believe, in a best case scenario, if I go with Dr. Siskin's treatment plan (clinic, not hospital), I can do that. Not so with Dr. Haskal, and I doubt it but don't know about Dr. Sclafani. I'm on all three waiting lists.
If anyone has some insights that might change my way of thinking, I'm all ears.
I'm very aware that my reasoning is simply not applicable to many others, who need to base their decision on their particulars.
BTW, Mark, I appreciate all the helpful and informative posts you make on this forum. Just happen to disagree a bit with this one.