This is just my thinking along with you guys but I don't think any of that is a massive stretch logically.
These are great papers Jamie! And I am with you on the logic.
I think we have been taught to disregard logic and thinking, as if to think about the cause of the disease in terms of logical deduction is verboten. In a way this makes sense because you can get far off the path when dealing in theoretical ideas and hypotheses.
However this model has something that we can hang our hats on--stenosis. Once you have that you don't have to pretend like it is only a hypothesis, you can call presence of stenosis a fact because it is.
From there basic physiology ought to be applied and trusted as a solid basis for further understanding.
So this looks like this; get assessed and find stenosis, then it is OK to assume certain things, for example that the circulation is impacted by that and that the possibility for this to cause lesions exists because similar stenoses cause lesions, absolutely positively proven, in legs.
For me every single thing like this adds to my personal feeling this is right. I love the idea that the environment may play into it in such an out of the box way, really interesting you were thinking well!
I can vouch for this too. When I was there he had a stack of papers tossed behind his chair after reading them that was I swear 12" deep in the middle and 4' across on the floor!Dr. Dake's office is full of these studies now, piles and piles of them...he wanted to talk about all of the vascular research that got scrapped for the AI model when we saw him last month. He was flummoxed and a bit angry...