Research shows no link among CCSVI and development of MS

If it's on your mind and it has to do with multiple sclerosis in any way, post it here.

Postby MrSuccess » Tue Aug 03, 2010 6:02 pm

hey rainer - good to see you post -

I'm really not interested in diving too deep on this one. :wink:

But I will say once again ... for the benefit of those that missed my post on the German study ............

Take notes if you wish . :idea:

The German study only confirmed one person that the German team could say had CCSVI. So they are dismissing the Zamboni research.

How convenient of them .

Had the German study produced NOBODY with MS and CCSVI ..... then it would be assumed that the German study was incapable of understanding the CCSVI testing procedure and methods .

So .... Hell yeah ....... they HAD to toss ONE in to avoid being dismissed as being incompetent .

Bunch of dumptkoffs ..... if you asked me. :wink:

They are 0 -2 in the really important stuff ............. :twisted:



Mr. Success
User avatar
MrSuccess
Family Elder
 
Posts: 890
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:00 pm

Advertisement

Postby scorpion » Tue Aug 03, 2010 6:10 pm

sbr487 wrote:
scorpion wrote:Once again Sou I encourage you to read the "seven warning signs of quackery". Any of it sound familar? http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRel ... signs.html


Its one thing to say that researchers findings are flawed as far as CCSVI goes, and something else to say that someone like Zamboni, Sclafani, Sinan ... are all quacks ... only someone with a mentality of Freedman or Rose can make such statements ...


Zamboni call for randomized controlled double-blinded trials immediately after his initial results were released. I think he was on the right track until the press and forums like this made CCSVI into some type of "bizarre social movement". That is just my opinion Sou. I do not think at this point that sticking stents in peoples necks who have MS is an ethical treatment. I have said all along that getting the liberation procedure is a personal choice and I have never or will I ever tell people what they should do. Although I am not a scientist I believe IN science and its ability to one day end this f'in disease. We all have different experiences and backgrounds and it seems to me we should embrace what each other says instead of turning it into something personal.
User avatar
scorpion
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:00 pm

Postby concerned » Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:06 pm

sou wrote:Scorpion, you have confused things a little.

Claiming that CCSVI does not exist is completely different than saying that we don't know the relation of CCSVI to MS. The article you posted refers to research that could not even detect CCSVI.


Claiming that we don't know the relation of CCSVI to MS presumes that CCSVI is a 'damned thing' that really exists and that is just as presumptuous as what you accused scorpion of.
concerned
 

Postby concerned » Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:15 pm

sbr487 wrote:Its one thing to say that researchers findings are flawed as far as CCSVI goes, and something else to say that someone like Zamboni, Sclafani, Sinan ... are all quacks ... only someone with a mentality of Freedman or Rose can make such statements ...


What exactly is flawed about Colin Rose's mentality? Are you saying that you've mastered the concepts of cardiology and physiology to a greater degree than him and are comfortable saying that he's wrong about CCSVI?
concerned
 

Postby jimmylegs » Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:04 pm

question: does this line of discussion provide shocking new evidence that effectively lays to rest prior disagreement?
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 9025
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm

Postby sbr487 » Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:24 pm

concerned wrote:
sbr487 wrote:Its one thing to say that researchers findings are flawed as far as CCSVI goes, and something else to say that someone like Zamboni, Sclafani, Sinan ... are all quacks ... only someone with a mentality of Freedman or Rose can make such statements ...


What exactly is flawed about Colin Rose's mentality? Are you saying that you've mastered the concepts of cardiology and physiology to a greater degree than him and are comfortable saying that he's wrong about CCSVI?


Nothing wrong about his line of thinking as far his field of specialization is concerned. But crosses line when he starts saying that Zamboni has deliberately misled people in believing CCSVI.

* Pick up any field you want and show me a capable scientist making similar allegations against a fellow scientist *
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it
- Max Planck
User avatar
sbr487
Family Elder
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: India

Postby cheerleader » Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:30 pm

jimmylegs wrote:question: does this line of discussion provide shocking new evidence that effectively lays to rest prior disagreement?


not really. :)
Last edited by cheerleader on Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
http://ccsviinms.blogspot.com
User avatar
cheerleader
Family Elder
 
Posts: 5042
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: southern California

Postby MrSuccess » Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:18 pm

And Tom Burton is ?

Is this the guy who betrayed you ?

Newspapers and most magazines are ......interesting ........ their goal is to SELL the story. This requires taking liberty with the facts. And an eye -grabbing headline

MAN BITES DOG ..... story on page 11

GRANDMOTHER OF 10 BEATS UP HELLS ANGEL ..... more on the 10 o'clock newscast..........

This is what sells the advertising . Always has ....Always will.

ON THE OTHER HAND ........ Trade journals for medical professionals are part and parcel of the medical profession .

Just TRY using the newspaper - magazine hype in those publications ... at your own peril.

This is probably the starting point - an article printed in a RESPECTED publication - intended for medical professionals only.

And Dr. Scalafani has accomplished this . :!: :!: :!:




Mr. Success
User avatar
MrSuccess
Family Elder
 
Posts: 890
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:00 pm

Postby scorpion » Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:31 pm

jimmylegs wrote:question: does this line of discussion provide shocking new evidence that effectively lays to rest prior disagreement?


I guess not but neither do copious amounts of posts on pharma conspiracies.
User avatar
scorpion
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:00 pm

Postby jimmylegs » Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:42 am

a similarly pointless contribution.
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 9025
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm

Postby cheerleader » Wed Aug 04, 2010 12:04 pm

OK...two studies, the same two studies we've been discussing on here for three months. Nothing new, nothing has changed...they're just getting regurgitated in the press now.

1. German/Doepp/Doppler Study:
In the current issue of the Annals, Florian Doepp, M.D., and colleagues in Germany performed an extended extra- and trans-cranial color-coded sonography study on 56 MS patients (36 female; 20 male) and 20 control subjects (12 female; 8 male). The analysis included extra-cranial venous blood volume flow (BVF), internal jugular vein (IJV) flow analysis during Valsalva maneuver (VM), as well as tests included in the CCSVI criteria.


As I've said before, the problem with the Doepp study was position of the doppler wand. It assessed jugular vein narrowing in the “sagittal” plane (the ultrasound probe is placed parallel to the length of the vessel). The Zamboni technique uses the “transverse” plane ( the probe is placed at a 90 degree angle to the length of the vessel) to look for narrowing, webs, or abnormal valves that Dr. Zamboni believes are often missed in the sagittal plane examination.

If the wand is used in the sagittal manner--it picks up collateral flow...that's how the doppler technician at Stanford gave Jeff a "normal" result, but MRV showed it was a tortuous collateral, not the jugular vein (which was 95% gone) taking the blood back.

Here's Dr. Brandes on it--via Dr. Zamboni:
http://healthblog.ctv.ca/post/When-stud ... mples.aspx

2. Amsterdam/VU/MRV study

The problem with the VU (all MRV) study was addressed by Dr. Roel Beelen of Belgium. He questioned the statistical significance of a small study and the independence of the researchers.

He wrote an open letter to the VU-team, questioning the statistical power and the method of their research. Dr. Beelen MD, checked 107 patients with MS and discovered ccsvi in about 90% of the cases. He also did treatment, including some stents. No complications. Publication will follow later.

Here is his letter---and the link to the thread discussing this on ThisIsMS.com
http://www.thisisms.com/ftopic-11029-15.html


"Through a journalist my attention was just drawn to a report in a Dutch current affairs program on CCSVI.

In this report, there are quite a few disturbing elements.

1. They conclude from a very limited group of 20 people that there is no causal link. I wonder, what's the objective "statistical power" of a series of 20 patients.
2. The evaluation of the 20 patients, was it all done by the same team? Were the results independently verified?

Although our series is a long follow-up, I would like to show some results of our series of patients:

107 patients with confirmed MS were screened for CCSVI, in 97 patients CCSVI non-invasive (CT, Duplex) diagnosed (independently diagnosed by vascular surgeon and radiologist).

81 patients

* 64-balloon dilatation
* 2 Valvulotome
* 8 cutting balloon
* 7 stenting

No complications

29 patients are monitored, using Doppler and using an internationally validated questionnaire (MSQOL-54 instrument) and after treatment as reported by every individual of these 29 patients, the quality of life has improved. Statistically, this is even more significant.

When the last patient in this group has reported, (one year follow up) results will be openly published.

Despite these figures both by us and in other centers, how can you, with a much smaller number of patients, go on saying that there is no link between MS and CCSVI? Would't it be logical to consider this theory, because of the spectacular results? Currently I still believe that CCSVI may not be the primary cause of MS, but in certain forms of MS it surely plays a very important role in the development of MS. I therefore call for a comprehensive inter-disciplinary dialogue so that the MS patients by a combination of classical pharmacological treatment and interventional treatment, can get the optimal treatment of the moment.

Yours sincerely,

Roel Beelen, M.D.
Aalst


We could go back and forth forever...and there will be studies saying aye and studies saying nay. Dr. Brandes' column (linked above) explains this eloquently. My main concern is that when the vascular doctors publish their studies, will they receive the same media and medical community publicity?

But seriously, Jimmy is right. If you're just coming on to poke and prod and not add anything new...it's kinda pointless, right?
whatever,
cheer
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
http://ccsviinms.blogspot.com
User avatar
cheerleader
Family Elder
 
Posts: 5042
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: southern California

Postby scorpion » Wed Aug 04, 2010 1:02 pm

Cheer just to be clear you did not say this:As I've said before, the problem with the Doepp study was position of the doppler wand. It assessed jugular vein narrowing in the “sagittal” plane (the ultrasound probe is placed parallel to the length of the vessel). The Zamboni technique uses the “transverse” plane ( the probe is placed at a 90 degree angle to the length of the vessel) to look for narrowing, webs, or abnormal valves that Dr. Zamboni believes are often missed in the sagittal plane examination. A more accurate statement would be that you found this response to the study online and posted it in your own words. There is nothing wrong with doing that but by I was a little misled when you stated "As I said before". I thought it was something you had come up with on your own.

It just seems to me that when people post positive things avbout CCSVI on here it is looked at as standing up for the cause and when someone posts something critical of CCSVI it is called poking and prodding. Ok no more posts under this topic for me.
User avatar
scorpion
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:00 pm

Postby cheerleader » Wed Aug 04, 2010 1:17 pm

Sorry...to clarify, scorp-- I had quoted Dr. Brandes and Dr. Zamboni before on the Doepp study. Apologies for making it seem like I had said it. I'm not doppler technician, and I had (lamely) attempted earlier to explain the results, but Dr. Zamboni cleared it up, and Dr. Brandes wrote about it.

This actually cleared something up for me - and explained why Jeff's doppler was "normal" at Stanford and yet he had no jugular flow. When the doppler wand is held in this sagittal manner, it sees collaterals. The doppler just sees blood moving, it doesn't tell you "this is a jugular vein" "this is a vertebral vein" or in Jeff's case....this is a crazy curly collateral that is wending around his neck. When it's held in the transverse manner, it follows the architecture of the vein and sees more. At least that's what Dr. Z says. But I am by no means a doppler tech.

I actually popped in because I saw an opportunity to give a little bit of clarity on the vascular doctors' takes on these studies. Especially since I don't think they will be published in the Annals anytime soon. Not to poke or prod. And I'll try to be more accurate in the future--
cheer
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
http://ccsviinms.blogspot.com
User avatar
cheerleader
Family Elder
 
Posts: 5042
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: southern California

Postby patientx » Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:57 pm

As I've said before, the problem with the Doepp study was position of the doppler wand. It assessed jugular vein narrowing in the “sagittal” plane (the ultrasound probe is placed parallel to the length of the vessel). The Zamboni technique uses the “transverse” plane ( the probe is placed at a 90 degree angle to the length of the vessel) to look for narrowing, webs, or abnormal valves that Dr. Zamboni believes are often missed in the sagittal plane examination.


From the Doepp, et al study:

The CSA of the IJV was measured in the horizontal plane using B-mode imaging, carefully avoiding any compression of the vessel by the probe.

Regional narrowing of the IJV and VV was assessed by insonating their entire accessible length using the sagittal plane of the B-mode imaging. For assessment of the IJV additional measurements were obtained in the horizontal plane.
User avatar
patientx
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:00 pm

Postby fernando » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:46 am

All I can say is that a skillful doctor/technician, with more than 15 years of experience working in the Institute founded by one of the inventors of the heart bypass technique, needed 4 months of training and exchanging information with technicians from Italy to start to "see" stenosis.

He has an open mind, also.
User avatar
fernando
Family Elder
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:00 pm
Location: Argentina

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Contact us | Terms of Service

cron