This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

New data on CCSVI and vitamin D underscore the need for taking action - By Ashton Embry Direct-MS - http://www.msrc.co.uk/index.cfm?fuseact ... ageid=2954

As I have critiqued Direct-MS before. I now will defend him from the incorrect inferences drawn by MSRC. I have copied Ashton Embry's actual words and add my thoughts on them.

AE> The combination of the Buffalo results with those from Georgetown
allow us to draw three main conclusions:

AE> *1 Given 25% of healthy controls and only 56% of those with MS have CCSVI, it would appear that CCSVI is not the primary cause of MS.
MW> I agree but it is early data, so not conclusive.

AE> *2 CCSVI is definitely associated with MS and, given that CCSVI precedes MS onset, this means CCSVI must contribute to the MS disease process.
MW> if you add the words 'in some pwMS' I will agree. There is too little data to say this with any scientific certainty.

AE> * Having CCSVI makes MS worse. The increasing presence of CCVSI
with increasing disability level means CCSVI is a significant driver of the MS disease process. Thus if CCSVI is part of a person’s MS, they have a much higher chance of major disease progression.
MW> if you add the words 'in some pwMS' I will agree. However, there is too little data to say this with scientific certainty unless unpublished Georgetown data has a very large sample size.

MW> Data on vit D is not conclusive in scientific terms BUT 5000iu of D3 a day is cheap so if you have MS it makes sense to take it daily and sunbathe safely.

I trust MSRC will update their website very soon.

MarkW

Mark, with respect I am not sure what you are refering to with regards the MSRC?

All we have done is report the start of Ashton's new article, with a link to the whole article on Ashton's website......................

So not sure what the problem is exactly?

squiffs
MSRC webmaster

MSRC's quote is contradicted by Dr Embry's conclusions in the next section of his paper. In the paper these words are written:

AE> Given 25% of healthy controls and only 56% of those with MS have
CCSVI, it would appear that CCSVI is not the primary cause of MS.

The MSRC website only quotes:
AE> The second study at Georgetown University looked at the nature and origin of the venous malformations responsible for CCSVI. The vascular researchers found that the venous malformations are of congenital origin and are not the product of post-birth, environmental insults or the MS disease process itself. This in utero formation of the venous malformations means CCSVI occurs BEFORE the MS disease process begins, an important constraint for understanding the cause/effect relationship between MS and CCSVI.................

It is a question of words out of context, which will mislead people who just read the MSRC website.

Kind regards,
MarkW

MarkW wrote:MSRC's quote is contradicted by Dr Embry's conclusions in the next section of his paper. In the paper these words are written:

AE> Given 25% of healthy controls and only 56% of those with MS have
CCSVI, it would appear that CCSVI is not the primary cause of MS.

The MSRC website only quotes:
AE> The second study at Georgetown University looked at the nature and origin of the venous malformations responsible for CCSVI. The vascular researchers found that the venous malformations are of congenital origin and are not the product of post-birth, environmental insults or the MS disease process itself. This in utero formation of the venous malformations means CCSVI occurs BEFORE the MS disease process begins, an important constraint for understanding the cause/effect relationship between MS and CCSVI.................

It is a question of words out of context, which will mislead people who just read the MSRC website.

Kind regards,
MarkW

If that is the case then direct-ms is contradicting itself since all msrc has done (as far as I know) is to put an excerpt of the article ...

Mark you left off the most important piece at the end of our "taster"

The second study at Georgetown University looked at the nature and origin of
the venous malformations responsible for CCSVI. The vascular researchers
found that the venous malformations are of congenital origin and are not the
product of post-birth, environmental insults or the MS disease process itself.
This in utero formation of the venous malformations means CCSVI occurs
BEFORE the MS disease process begins, an important constraint for
understanding the cause/effect relationship between MS and CCSVI.................

More - http://tinyurl.com/yfzhs4o (22/03/10)

sbr, you are correct, the article portion is produced "as is" from the Direct MS website, as it is quite long and contains images we cannot reporduce, hence the above.

squiffs.

To me, the simplest model for MS, which fits all the data, is that MS is an
autoimmune disease which is greatly exacerbated by the chance (and
common) presence of CCSVI. Thus, almost all those with high levels of
disability are likely to have CCSVI whereas most of those with benign MS are
likely not to.

Frankly I am pretty disappointed by the article. It almost gives a completely new spin to CCSVI. The article tries to say that you have MS and on top of that if you have CCSVI then you are likely to have lot of problems. Kind of tries to say that CCSVI in MS patients is a chance occurence.

I think it would be improper to build conclusions until we have more studies like Buffalo. Any conclusions drawn solely based on that study might not be correct. For example, there is still a possibility that the method used for ccsvi screening might not uncover all cases of blood flow issues. The other thing is that about the healthy controls having CCSVI. What is the guarantee that they will not develop MS eventually. Where is the study that shows that their immune system must be less sensitive.

sbr487 wrote:The other thing is that about the healthy controls having CCSVI. What is the guarantee that they will not develop MS eventually.

The guarantee comes from the fact that no where near 25% of the general population develops MS.

Please read my post once again ...

What is the guarantee that they will not develop MS eventually. Where is the study that shows that their immune system must be less sensitive.

Both the above things need to be true to conclude that ccsvi does not lead to MS ...

I wonder how many of the controls were related to the MS patients?