Cece wrote: IRs are the guys in charge of the treatment itself. I think this puts them first and foremost in terms of what we need and what's best for pwMS. For figuring out all the cascade of effects and what's been going on in our veins and brains, that takes the team of specialists across disciplines.
fernando wrote:Asher wrote:Great post! And this is what dr Sclafani will not tell us. There was/is a lot of ranting about the neuro/pharma 'conspiracy'. Well, I wonder what effect CCSVI has had on the net value of some interventional radiologists?
This is incorrect and unfair as anyone who has been reading Dr. Scalfani's posts could say. Not to mention those who were intervened by the Dr.
bluesky63 wrote:Hi griff. I am not sure you had a chance to see my question on your other thread, but I had a sincere question. Where in Europe do you live? What is your native language? Thank you.
First, let's look at a realistic assessment of the "benefits" in having a stent inserted in an artery.
You may be surprised by this 2009 New England Journal of Medicine study that followed nearly 2,400 patients. Half the subjects received drug therapy (statins, aspirin, beta- blockers, etc.), while half received drug therapy and angioplasty.
After five years, researchers found no significant difference in rates of death, heart attack, or other major events. And this research confirmed similar results of a 2007 Department of Veterans Affairs study.
No significant difference. Hmmm...
Users browsing this forum: Kathryn333