They want so bad to discredit CCSVI that they support it

A forum to discuss Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency and its relationship to Multiple Sclerosis.

They want so bad to discredit CCSVI that they support it

Postby frodo » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:28 pm

A book that you shouldn't read is this one:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 3.297/full

To save you from loosing your time, I reproduce the abstract which says it all:

“Liberation treatment has no proven efficacy, may exacerbate underlying disease activity and has been complicated with SAEs"

But ....

If “Liberation treatment” can exacerbate MS, it is clear that MS is a vascular disease!!! They admit it.

I wonder if they will follow this research path in the future....
User avatar
frodo
Family Elder
 
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:00 pm

Advertisement

Re: They want so bad to discredit CCSVI that they support it

Postby 1eye » Tue Nov 25, 2014 3:56 pm

CCSVI research is being done, even by NASA! The propaganda is preaching to the the neurology choir, who will probably keep it on display in their offices. But it is obvious now that CCSVI may be causing the immune activity that characterizes "MS". Low blood vessel reactivity, which worsens blood vessel problems like CCSVI, may also be what's behind "MS" neural degeneration.
"Try - Just A Little Bit Harder" - Janis Joplin
CCSVI procedure Albany Aug 2010
'MS' is over - if you want it
Patients sans/without patience
User avatar
1eye
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2999
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada

Re: They want so bad to discredit CCSVI that they support it

Postby Cece » Wed Nov 26, 2014 1:57 pm

frodo wrote:If “Liberation treatment” can exacerbate MS, it is clear that MS is a vascular disease!!!

I bet that's based on the PREMiSe research. There was that trend toward worse results in the treated arm vs the sham arm but it did not rise to the level of statistical significance.

In phase 2, higher MRI activity (cumulative number of new contrast-enhancing lesions [19 vs 3, p = 0.062] and new T2 lesions [17 vs 3, p = 0.066]) and relapse activity (4 vs 1, p = 0.389) were identified as nonsignificant trends in the treated vs sham arm over 6 months.

chronic-cerebrospinal-venous-insufficiency-ccsvi-f40/topic25315.html
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 9054
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:00 pm


Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mystery1980


Contact us | Terms of Service