By now the official situation is this (correct me if I am wrong)
-it is accepted that CCSVI exists
-it is accepted that appears associated with MS
-it is unknown if it is cause, consecuence or comorbidity respect MS
-it is unknown the effect of angioplasty in the MS evolution
This situation remains exactly the same as it's been since day one in that proponents of CCSVI are in agreement with the above and the rest await some kind of proof.
The conclusions of ECTRIMS that MS societies have quoted several times was "with the information we have, it cannot be supported that CCSVI is the cause of MS". This conclusion explicity admits the existence of CCSVI.
This next isn't going to be appreciated and is going to seem like a cop out but I think we have to try to put ourselves in the shoes of the MS society administrators through this last year or so due to pressure brought to bear on them by the pro CCSVI'ers. While nothing about the theory of CCSVI is proven, the MS Society administrators can't say anything positive about CCSVI and sure's hell don't dare to say anything remotely seeming negative without good reason and their NOT
pointing out continually that the existence of CCSVI remains to be proven shouldn't be construed as acceptance of existence.
Finally, when you say "Neurologists have no interest in treating vascular problems" you are wrong or right depending what you mean. In Canada they are preventing their patients to get diagnosised for vascular diseases. For sure, neurologist show at least a great interest in controlling how vascular diseases are treated (or not treated).
I'm not a Canadian and I'm not entirely familiar with their medical system but it's obvious from reading about it here at thisisms that the issue is complicated and IN NO LOCATION is the answer as easy as saying that neuros are "preventing" diagnosis nor controlling how "vascular diseases are treated".
The Canadian health care system doesn't recognize CCSVI as a disease so why would
neuros send patients for testing for an ailment which isn't proven to exist and how could neuros "prevent" diagnosis of vascular ailments not proven to exist?
I'm not sure how we got to this discussion anyway. I linked to what I thought was an interesting article about ISET with a title that some find inflammatory
The Heart wrote:
Should interventionists treat MS? Patient advocacy drives "wildfire" as experts wait for data
I didn't write the damned thing, although I think it's pretty fair.
Beirut ... you guys used to love this study. (remember, all the skeptics were involved in the discussion of it - topic
NOTICE how the initiator of this thread continues to ignore this study in the posts below - because they aren't "convenient" ...
... even though he clearly read it.
I wonder what his continued harping on the same points re CCSVI, and trying to sell people that "it isn't proven, it doesn't exist, ..." etc. yada, yada, yada - truly are?