Like we've said all along ... science will work this (CCSVI) out - no matter all the negative neurologist studies cited by certain people/groups who have an obvious hatred for this new(OLD) thought on what causes "MS".
It's not the skeptics' fault these negative studies keep coming out. One or two positive studies, okay just one, would go a long way right about now.
We've had ten positive abstracts presented at 2010 ECTRIMS (publications in vascular journals to follow), but the negative neurological ones get more press and are picked up and regurgitated on pharma sponsored web sites. For all of the recent publications (pro and con) go to
http://ccsvi.org/index.php/advanced-top ... smaterials
The other fact is that it usually takes a year to 18 months for papers to be written and accepted for publication. Most of these negative studies are completed in three months and accepted for publication in 6 weeks to 3 months. That is an unbelievable acceleration in the publication process.
Neurological journals hope to bury this vascular research in piles of paper. But the vascular doctors are moving slowly and steadily and are not letting go. The Cooke Stanford paper is a new modern model of MS...and will be published in a vascular journal. Will neurologists consider a vascular journal worth a read? So far, they haven't.
This is why CCSVI Alliance is reaching out to neurologists such as Dr. Burks, and trying to forge open communication across disciplines. If neurology and MS specialists believe they can make this go away, they have an ever-increasing and committed group of vascular doctors who will prove them wrong.
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
dual stents placed 5/09
CCSVI in MS