PubMed lists 136 CCSVI-related studies: the positive ones, which outnumber the negative, tend to be reported by vascular specialists in vascular journals; negative reports tend to be found in neurology journals.
I think she was going for the word unusual!Recently, the University of Buffalo researchers who staged the first randomized, controlled clinical treatment trial (on nine patients) took the usual step of reporting its negative results on YouTube before they’d been accepted for publication.
“CCSVI is far from dead,” [Haacke] says. Haacke, also affiliated with Hamilton’s McMaster University, has screened more than 2,000 MS patients with MRI (he says the operator-dependent ultrasound used in many CCSVI studies is inconsistent). “We see significant abnormalities in the 650 cases we have processed so far,” he says.
This has worried me since I first realized how different the techniques (and possibly results or safety) can be from one IR to the next.But he’s right that CCSVI treatment outside of a clinical setting can be an opportunistic Wild West; standards and quality vary.
CCSVI remains a puzzle. But increasingly it’s clear it’s a puzzle piece–and building block in terms of sparking investigation into the woefully understudied and little-understood venous system.
dlynn wrote:Although I'm not a Facebook member and I can't reply, I can still view what is posted and benefit from it.
erinc14 wrote:okay thanks ! just wanted to make sure .
questor wrote:Or, is there a technical trick you use? If so, I'd like to learn that one.
Users browsing this forum: Robnl