This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

A recent article suggests that CCSVI may be a result of chronic MS, not a cause of the disease. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21041329
This has huge implications for whlether to treat it.

It still seems to me that treating CCSVI to restore normal bloodflow may be important for symptoms, but the cause may still out there to be discovered.

This of course is just one study, but at least studies are being done. Also the high number of late MS patients who had the condition indicates that it is not a fluke. The difference between late and early MS is another possible explaination for the differfence being seen in frequency (Zamboni 100%., some studies 10%) in the dilfferent studies.

Personally, I was never conviced by a mere unsupported statement by the International Society of Phlebotomy that it was congenital. We'll see.

There is a discussion of this already (at length) in a thread started by Dreddkh (sorry - credited the wrong person) I believe. It has been going on since yesterday ...


Can we please not re-do it here as well?

Dr. Sclafani (I saw you posted there also) has already stated - and it's been proven in studies that as the cardinal veins grow, the malformations that he has seen in them lead to webs and the like (congenital).

But I'll let him answer for you.

Please consolidate this thread with the other one though. There are too many threads in this forum that say the same thing far too often.

Thanks.

I disagree. We treat spasticity, fatigue, depression and insomnia, which are all caused by MS. Why shouldn't we treat a physical manifestation such as ccsvi?

Sorry. I didn't see the other thread. Please ignore this thread and go to "Extracramoa; vempis stempsos is an unlikely cause of of MS"

my bad...I missed it here.

If it helps as well as the evidence shows ... TREAT IT... what is the other option - life threating drugs ??

g

How can MS cause the formation of a membrane i have had since the 3rd month of my life? How can it cause hypoplasia 30 years before diagnosis?

Are we talking about a time-space distortion or something? Any proof? Am I having CERN in my head and I didn't know? Am I Doctor Who? Gosh! I am! I have two hearts! I am regenerating and hope not to have MS next time!

* The membrane existed at the other IJV, too, but luckily it did not touch the opposite wall and did not grow.

** I don't know if CCSVI causes MS, but MS can't cause CCSVI. There is no evidence, nor just an indication!

_________________
Shortest joke: "We may not be able to cure MS but we can manage its symptoms."

Doctor Sou Who

Yes, the MS-causes-CCSVI gambit is from those who don't understand these are congenital malformations and what that means, added to the fact that CCSVI appears like it may actually worsen as we age, based on the very few studies with problematic methodology that we have to go on.

.

A membrane and hypoplasia are commonly accepted by vascular experts, which we are not, to be congenital.

We have noticed a tiny membranous anomaly at the wall of the healthy rIJV exactly at the same position where a huge membranous web was found at the lIJV. According to the radiologist, this is an anomaly that can only happen during development, similarly to moles on the skin.

It seems that this tiny malformation touched the opposite wall of the lIJV but not of the rIJV, when I was still an embryo, and grew forming a web. Of course these are speculations, but it is a very reasonable explanation. It is a very strong indication of anomalies in the IJVs.

A friend has had a hypoplastic underdeveloped lIJV with abnormal diameter (less than 1 cm when supine) which simply can't but have happened during development, too, long before MS emerges.

Again, I don't know if CCSVI causes MS, but badly developed IJVs, hypoplastic and aplastic IJVs and membranous webs inside IJVs cause CCSVI. For now, it seems that, in most cases, CCSVI coexists with MS.

_________________
Shortest joke: "We may not be able to cure MS but we can manage its symptoms."

.

........

Why would this be considered an abnormal finding? A diameter of 1 cm works out to a cross-sectional area of .79 cm sq. Zamboni used a threshold of .3 cm sq, and your friend's jugular is much wider than that.