Lyon wrote: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" . . .
But isn't the fact that MS causes CCSVI reason to get tested? It seems that Zivadinov is in fact saying that "blocked veins" [are] something that affected people with MS at a higher rate than "normals," 2.5 times higher according to this study.
Zivadinov wrote: "Our findings are consistent with increased prevalence of CCSVI in MS, but substantially lower than the sensitivity and specificity rates in MS reported originally by the Italian investigators."
More than half the people with MS have CCSVI according to the study and it gets worse as MS progresses reaching rates as high as 89.4% when you are Primary Progressive. I don't think anyone has suggested rates that high for "normals."
So I think we have to conclude that if you have MS, you are going to get CCSVI since they show the incidence increases as the disease progresses.
Those vascular folks clearly don't know what they are talking about when they suggest that the kinds of malformations they see in people with CCSVI are congenital. How could they know anything about veins? They aren't neurologists after all.
The reason this was news for the Wall Street Journal is that it means people with MS need drugs.
The way to treat malformed valves and the other problems associated with CCSVI is to take drugs that ameliorate MS symptoms which will reduce CCSVI problems. It will also eliminate all the dangers associated with venoplasty.
I'm also fascinated by the thought that all those healthy controls which Buffalo found had CCSVI must have had MS in their past since MS causes CCSVI. We should be studying these people to figure out how they rid themselves of MS, but not yet CCSVI.
Champagne all around now that we know that CCSVI couldn't possible cause MS since it is far more likely to be the result of MS.