A neurointerventional radiologist would be a good choice for blood vessel blockages actually in the brain.
For god's sake, can we really weigh what we are saying sometimes? We talk about intervention in veins in our brain, when the whole CCSVI hypothesis is not proven yet. Why not a brain surgery right away?
A neurologist is a good choice if you want some nuvigil or provigil (good stuff) or have an inflammatory component to your MS and want disease modifying drugs. They are also good at tracking you through EDSS and MRIs as you decline.
Whether CCSVI is a major factor of MS or not, MS affects our nerves and many of our symptoms related to nerve damage, so just because some of you have an aversion to neuros, it is still their table.
In my view the neuros are not treating MS they are prescribing drugs that supposedly treat the symptoms but that has been disproved in recent studies.
Just as endocrinologists do not treat diabetics. Doctors can only do what is available for them. Your neuro won't prescribe any drug that is not approved yet and as some of you indicated even approved drugs might have very serious side effects. This is what we would like to avoid with CCSVI operations. As we could see even here there are lots of complications after CCSVI operations and no long-term positive results yet.
Why do we think that anyone who raises some questions about CCSVI is against pwMS? Why many of you think of neuros as our enemy? Can they not have legitimate concerns about a procedure that messes around with veins which have a direct connection to our brain? Is the link between MS and CCSVI as strong as we originally thought? Many MS patients have no CCSVI and many healthy persons have CCSVI.
We should not mix our hopes with our believes.