For example, it is now apparent that after
endovascular therapy, certain constitutional or
general symptoms common to MS patients,
such as fatigue, heat intolerance, clouded cognition,
urinary problems, cold distal extremities
etc., respond in a tempo that ranges from
hours to days rather than the usual weeks or
months typically necessary to achieve full benefits
and clinical stabilisation with pharma -
cological disease-modifying therapies.
I experienced this. And it is a bit overstated to say that the pharmacological disease-modifying therapies could achieve the same symptom abatement that endovascular therapy achieved. Nothing has ever been offered to me that improved my symptoms the way CCSVI venoplasty did.
It is in everyone’s interest to contribute to the
development of new therapeutic concepts
capable of delivering improved treatments that
yield greater benefits for MS patients and their
This should seem obvious, yet it would seem that it needs to be stated. CCSVI research needs intellectual contributions, not roadblocks.
In terms of CCSVI, this involves the
performance of high-quality randomised controlled
trials incorporating objective analyses of
results using standard measurements of outcomes
established in the MS literature while
taking into account other potentially positive
responses related to the endovascular
management of venous obstruction.
Ok, I had to read that one twice. Did I mention that Dr. Dake owns a lot of words? The standard measurements of outcomes established in MS literature would be reduction of relapses, QOL questionnaires, and white matter lesions as measured on MRI. But what would be the other potentially positive responses related to the endovascular management of venous obstruction? A color hue test would've worked for me! As would a vision test, since my vision improved to the extent of needing a new prescription for my contacts.