Neurologist and multiple sclerosis specialist Dr. Brad Stewart, an assistant clinical professor at the University of Alberta, says, "there is no evidence linking problems with veins in the neck to MS.
"The notion that MS is caused by vascular problems is fundamentally wrong. I don't believe in Santa Claus, I don't believe in the Easter Bunny and I don't believe in this. I will accept hard data and good studies, but there aren't any."
Bhan says studies conducted by other researchers have not corroborated Zamboni's findings. "For example," he says, "Dr. Robert Zivadinov at the University of Buffalo, usingDr. Zamboni's methodology, found a smaller percentage of MS patients with CCSVI than did the Italian researcher (56 per cent versus 100 per cent). Similarly, studies in Germany and Sweden have failed to demonstrate CCSVI in MS. "
Bhan adds there are major risks in angioplasty on the veins in the neck. "I think that the most confusion for the public comes from the fact that angioplasty is commonly done for heart and stroke patients. But there are structural differences between arteries and veins, with arteries being thick-walled and, as such, can withstand balloon compression from inside, whereas veins are thin-walled and can rupture and lead to many complications."
These two key questions are important but they are not what we should be investigating first, which is "Does improving venous drainage improve the lives of MS patients and is it safe."
Direct-MS wrote:From the perspective of having read over 200 papers on CCSVI and closely related issues and having visited three CCSVI treatment/research centres, I found this article misinformed and basically negative.
Quoting Brad Stewart (who have never published a single scientific paper on MS) on CCSVI is like quoting a wino off the street except the wino may be more objective and better informed.
I am awaiting an intelligent, well informed newspaper article on CCSVI which captures both sides of the argument in a "neutral" manner.
jimmylegs wrote:hyperbole squares off against arch-nemesis semantics! what happens now do we sound a bell or something?
Users browsing this forum: Robnl