I have been known to make fun of some of the papers on auto-immunity that I have seen, while once I was on a Buffalo list. I think they are doing good work, and I meant no disrespect of Dr. Zivadinov, or I would not have put myself on their list.
I think he has done a good job of trying to stay neutral, but it can't last.
If CCSVI were the cause of MS, the researchers would expect that a constant level of vascular abnormalities would be seen across the entire spectrum of disability levels and duration of disease among patients studied, which is not what their studies demonstrated.
Possibly the researchers who looked, did not see that because they of the way they looked. This kind of a statement needs reference. Another possibility is that their studies were not trying to demonstrate that. Without context or details I cannot say.
MRV imaging in particular has proven to be almost worthless, as yet another study conducted by Dr. Zivadinov and presented at ECTRIMS demonstrated.
I am not sure to what that refers, but I think X-ray venography and MRV are used in two different ways, and neither has proven "almost worthless". The work that Dr. Haacke has done has done a lot toward clarifying CCSVI, and at least one major clinic is including Dr. Haacke's testing as a key part of its protocol. What was the study looking at, where MRV proved "almost worthless"? (Praising with faint damnation?)
In fact, why *is* he saying "a constant level of vascular abnormalities would be seen across the entire spectrum of disability levels and duration of disease among patients studied
"? If one assumed that the disability and duration were directly caused by specific types of abnormalities, and no others (which I don't), surely the number and quality of collateral veins and other physiological responses to insult would be more or less competent and more or less successful, and more or less timely, in different individuals? Genetics surely has a bearing.