This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

I thought this was important enough to put this study in the general forum. Of course some will disagree..

http://ccsvinews.blogspot.com/2011/01/n ... ffalo.html

.

Hello gentleman--
Dr. Zivadinov has presented a few papers now on the problems with MRV technology. He spoke about this in April during the webinar, and also at ECTRIMS. He and Dr. Zamboni are very much against using MRV technology and for doppler and transcranial doppler. Dr. Haacke is providing a different viewpoint, because his MRV technolgy provides real time flow data....very different than stagnent MRV. He is also showing the difference in blood flow to the brain of pwMS vs. normals. As Dr. Zamboni stresses, it's not about venous architecture, it's about flow. If people are angry at Dr. Zivadinov, they should read his research more thoroughly.

Dr. Haacke and Zivadinov are both on the board of the International Society of Neurovascular Disease, and will be discussing their methods at the first meeting in Italy.


http://www.isnvdannualmeeting.org/


This is the way science goes. It is not a straight shot, but rather bumpy....but all of these studies will further illucidate the connection between venous outflow and perfusion of the brain.
And with that...I'm sure we'll be moved to the hinterlands of CCSVI
cheer

_________________
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
dual stents placed 5/09
CCSVI in MS

Well, CCSVI is in the title of the post/thread....

.

I don't know Lyon we are told that CCSVI's role will be "elucidated" as time goes on but everything just keeps getting murkier. The murkier things get the more people fall back on posting about pharmas, MS Society, etc. as to reasons why studies can not confirm the existence of CCSVI. The three "experts" on this forum can not agree on what CCSVI is but yet we are supposed to believe things are "moving forward." Am I missing something?
I also posed this question on the CCSVI forum: So what does this say about the Kuwait study? Didn't they use MRV? The criteria used in order to be approved for the procedure was" proven MS with positive Doppler and MRV (> 50% stenosis). "

.

CCSVI isn't treated by MRV.

CCSVI isn't treated by doppler.



CCSVI IS diagnosed by venogram.

CCSVI IS treated by angioplasty (and stenting).


Why do you CONTINUE to confuse people (seemingly intentionally judging from your verbiage) by implying CCSVI doesn't exist because you link studies on ultrasound and MRV studies that people agree are imperfect and often unnecessary ... when they could go into the veins and see what is actually wrong with them from the inside, instead of looking at improper images (MRV in this case) from the outside.

Ask the treating doctors if CCSVI exists from the venograms and angioplasty - they all say it does.

Ask them the same thing from MRV images and ultrasound and it would be inconclusive, because that's just a different (imperfect) picture.

Ask the patients TREATED by angioplasty (or stenting) if they feel different and get results in relief of their CCSVI symptoms (or "MS symptoms").

Ask the patients scanned by ultrasound or MRV if they feel any different and get results in relief of their CCSVI symptoms (or "MS symptoms") ... just by getting scanned - which does nothing to TREAT the CCSVI condition.

Come on ... you two are smarter than the things you're posting with an obvious slant.

Besides, you have stated you want doctors to follow Dr. Zamboni's original protocols. Those never included MRV. So why the hub-bub? - oh, because it's negative CCSVI skewed. Got it.