Rokkit wrote:Apparently, detecting these venous stenoses in living people has become possible only recently. Admittedly I have no clue what goes on in an autopsy, but it seems reasonable that such a stenosis would be easy to see in that setting.
Hasn't the history of MS research included numerous studies involving autopsies? So if CCSVI is closely associated with MS, why didn't the correlation become apparent a long time ago?
(I'm trying to be a critical thinker, not a wet blanket.)
The story began in 1973, at the University of Innsbruck, when F. Alfons Schelling, M.D. began investigations into the causes and consequences of the enormous individual differences in the widths of the venous outlets of the human skull. The results of this study appeared, in 1978, in the official organ of the German-speaking Anatomical Societies, the "Anatomischer Anzeiger".
F.A. Schelling's 1981 discovery, at the Hospital for Nervous Diseases in Salzburg, of a striking widening of the main venous passageways through the skulls in victims of multiple sclerosis were to occupy the author's thoughts through the following decades of his quite diversified medical career. And in putting together, bit by bit, all the observations on the venous involvement in the emergence of the specific, and, in particular, cerebral lesions of multiple sclerosis, he was able to recognize their causes.
abstract:Summary An old joke about the response to revolutionary new scientific theories states that there are three phases
on the road to acceptance: 1. The theory is not true; 2. The theory is true, but it is unimportant; 3. The theory is true, and it is important – but we knew it all along. The point of this joke is that (according to scientific theorists) new theories are never properly appreciated. The ‘false’ phase happens because a defining feature of a revolutionary theory is that it contradicts the assumptions of already-existing mainstream theory. The second ‘trivial’ phase follows from a preliminary analysis which suggests that the new idea is not in fact contradicted by the major existing evidence, but the new theory seems unimportant because its implications do not seem to lead anywhere interesting when explored in the light of current theory. A stronger version of this second phase happens when the implications of a theory are regarded as not merely unimportant but actually dangerous, because a scientific revolution is certainly
destructive (especially of established reputations) yet its potential benefits are conjectural. However, once a new and revolutionary theory is in place, its importance is ‘obvious’ such that it becomes hard to imagine how anybody could ever have believed anything else. Theory for scientists is like water for fish: the invisible medium in which they swim.
Observations and experiments, on the other hand, are like toys in the fish tank. New toys are attention-grabbing; but when the tank gets cloudy, its water needs changing.
daniel wrote:I think I'm going to have difficulty convincing my neurologist of the whole CSSVI model... her reply regarding my sending her information about it was:
"There is no solid evidence for this theory. There have been countless autopsies, MRIs and so on, no venous blockages ever found."
just slightly anxious and hopeful for any new discoveries I read about
In these three patients, common symptoms were gait disturbance and sensory disturbance of the extremities, and these symptoms slowly worsened. The clinical diagnoses varied and included spinal cord intramedullary tumor, cervical spondylosis and multiple sclerosis. At autopsy, all the patients showed enlarged, tortuous venous vessels on the dorsal surfaces of the spinal cord at the affected levels. In the affected spinal cord parenchyma, necrotic lesions manifested by various degrees of neuronal loss and gliosis, with increased numbers of hyalinized vessels, were evident.
This statement is a classic catch-22. There's no evidence for the CCSVI theory, but we won't investigate to try to get some evidence because there's no evidence.
patientx wrote:I just don't understand this reluctance not to look into the CCSVI possibility; how neurologists are just dismissing it out-of-hand. If they would do studies into it, and determine that it has nothing to do with MS, at least they've determined one thing doesn't cause MS.
about some dr's in new york a couple of years ago that did autopsie's on ms patients when they died. one thing was common. in all of them the lesion formed right next to a vein. i think i was doing reseach on diet and ms. i will try to find the article. interesting none the less.
It's because neurologists are practitioners, not researchers. As such, they aren't going to wander too far (if at all) from the "standard of care."
Users browsing this forum: Shamrock