jimmylegs wrote:just out of curiosity, can you link to the current bnac study you mentioned above?
I agree with what you're saying but I don't understand the correlation??Cece wrote:Lyon wrote:So these are the caliber of responses to be seen in response to two recent legitimate and unfavorable CCSVI studies??
I joined in January 2010, when everyone was breathless waiting for the BNAC results to come out. We heard the 56% figure in February, 2010, iirc. That is a lifetime ago when it comes to CCSVI.
It is more likely to be a secondary phenomenon, possibly present in other neurological diseases, reflecting chronic brain disease and atrophy. The exact mechanism of such process is unclear, since the extracranial venous system, especially in the spinal cord, has never been adequately investigated in chronic neurological diseases. We hypothesize that chronic degenerative brain diseases resulting in significant brain atrophy and tissue loss might lead to a decrease in the volume of venous drainage, resulting ultimately in venous stenosis. In MS specifically, chronic perivenous inflammation might hypothetically lead to release of certain inflammatory mediators that might alter the venous endothelium or lead to venous valvulitis resulting in venous stenosis."
Welllllll, it seems that the BNAC researcher's take on the implications of that info is the "new" and "recent" part.Cece wrote:not recent, year-old, already been discussed A LOT back then....
You're not wrong and that is something we would seriously consider.......if there was good reason to think that "blocked veins" was something that affected people with MS at a higher rate than "normals" or that people with MS have higher amounts of iron in their brains OR that ANY OF THAT would cause a problem IF proven..WeWillBeatMS wrote:to have his wife at least tested for CCSVI with ultrasound. Not to mention the close proximity you have to Dr. Haacke's facilty in Detroit to test for the quantity of iron she might have in her brain. Maybe I'm wrong and you did already have her checked and you're relieved that she doesn't have blocked veins. I hope I am wrong. Tell me I'm wrong please.
Cece wrote:Oh look the Wall Street Journal has some coverage of it...I just love when WSJ does CCSVI articles...(bitterness still stemming from WSJ's article in March 2010.)
'MS Study Debunks Blocked-Vein Theory'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 37192.htmlMS expert Lawrence Steinman, a neurologist at Stanford University, said, "Certainly the [vein blockage] hypothesis carries less and less evidence the more that it's studied. He cautioned that "people running around the world to get this procedure done ought to look at the evidence and save themselves the money."
I am so glad I did not save myself the money; instead I just saved myself.
(Doing well, 2 months post-procedure.)
muse wrote:“…The results of the UB study are based on 499 participants in the Combined Transcranial and Extracranial Venous Doppler Evaluation (CTEVD) study, which began at the university in April 2009 [/i] Release Date: April 13, 2011 Source: http://www.buffalo.edu/news/12469
“…Concludes Zivadinov: "The differences between our study, the original Italian CCSVI study and other recently published studies also emphasize the need for a multimodal approach for the assessment of CCSVI. In addition to Doppler sonography, use of selective venography, magnetic resonance VENOGRAPHY AND intraluminal DOPPLER methods can provide more evidence for the true prevalence of CCSVI in MS…." Source: http://www.buffalo.edu/news/12469
Those numbers are just the interim results of the DOPPLER EVALUATION (CTEVD) study, from 2009! At this stage there wasn’t any venography done either which is the gold standard to diagnose CCSVI
Please read the notes by Joan/cheer: http://www.facebook.com/notes/ccsvi-in- ... 2748142211
and the latest paper done by Zivadinov/BNAC as well.
http://www.ajnr.org/cgi/reprint/ajnr.A2 ... e=HWCIT&ct
Users browsing this forum: No registered users