The 'thirds' division of pwMS response to treatment for CCSVI syndrome is fascinating. I heard the same 'thirds' division of pwMS by a neuro who was describing response to DMDs.
Why should IRs expect to predict the impact of their treatments on pwMS ? We do not know how MS is going to progress, so any treatment is probably unpredictable, as well.
I question if a full catheter venogram has been undertaken how can a decision of 'no treatment' be decided upon. If the catheter has ruptured a septum in a vein then treatment has occurred even if the envelope says 'no treatment'. I would like that explained.
Rather than leave the no treatment group waiting, I feel that a cross over trial at 6 or 12 months is more ethical. MS is not life threatening but it is progressive so the no treatment group must be treated at some stage.
Mark Walker - Oxfordshire, England. Retired Pharmacist. 12 years of study around MS.
Mark's CCSVI Report 7-Mar-11: