There are scientific THEORIES about CCSVI but as of yet there is no sound science behind CCSVI so what do we talk about? When we tried to disucss Zamboni's original results people who wanted to talk science were looked at as enemies of CCSVI. When we try to talk science about recent studies undermining Zamboni's original findings we are said to be under the control of pharmas. For all the skepticism on this board it is surprising no one is questioning Zamboni's actions as being a bit desperate. Zamboni, to save face, should admit he was wrong and allow new research to try and build, if possible, on his hypothesis.
I fully agree with you, scorpion. It is quite surprising to me that people here in tims are more interested in "top IR sayings" than discussing science behind CCSVI.
These were some of the attitudes in Canada, most people agree that there needs to be research into the issue. The neuro's and the MS society were the exceptions and that showed me where the bias was.
I do not know any Canadian neuros, but I know some in Europe. They are waiting for results. It is not their fault that proper results have not been published yet. There have been lots of treatment ideas in the past, many of them are quite strange, so do not be surprised that neuros do not support something that has not been proven yet. They can not support different tratment options (many of the are even invasive) every day without any proven track record.
Even a greater issue that dr Z could not yet convinced his fellow vascular specialists about his theory. Those doctors who are doing the CCSVI operaions are very quiet about the science behind what they do.