This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

ttt1 wrote:

Persistent wrote:Similarly, not every person with CCSVI may have MS ( perhaps 20% ).

According to Zivadinov's numbers, less than 0.37% of people with CCSVI have MS.

Huh?

According to my admittedly drunken interpretation, some 62% of people with CCSVI have MS (Zivadinov). Further, those numbers are not clear, as Zivadinov, et al,, where not using the same imaging techniques as Zamboni and Simka are using - which point to a 90%-100% correlation between CCSVI and MS.

ttt1 wrote: According to Zivadinov's numbers, less than 0.37% of people with CCSVI have MS.

U.S. MS prevalence 133 per 100.000, (133*0.62)/(100000*0.22+133*0.62) = 0.0037; possibly less, once one includes stenosis prevalence in other neurological diseases etc

Goood observations, in other words, in a group of 267 persones with (so called) CCSVI only one (1) of them have a MS.

That says preliminary results of the serious clinical study performed under surveillance of the most competent experts (Zivadinov, Zamboni...)

Best regards,

M.

Take 100 lung cancer patients: You will get 85-90% are smokers.
Take a healthy control goup: About 25% are smokers.


These values come relatively close to the ccsvi data from Zivadinov.

Smoking is the main cause of lung cancer.

So the 0.0037 value alone doesn't mean much.

R.

se1956 wrote:Take 100 lung cancer patients: You will get 85-90% are smokers.
Take a healthy control goup: About 25% are smokers.


These values come relatively close to the ccsvi data from Zivadinov.

Smoking is the main cause of lung cancer.

So the 0.0037 value alone doesn't mean much.

R.

good analogy

Johnson wrote:

...as shown by Zamboni's study where 20% of healthy controls had CCSVI but not signs of MS...

I think you mean Zivadinov and the BNAC study. Zamboni did not find CCSVI in healthy controls. Or did he? (my mind is muddy these days)

haha, your mind is not as muddy as mine you are right I meant the other studies you mentioned.

se1956 wrote:Take 100 lung cancer patients: You will get 85-90% are smokers.
Take a healthy control goup: About 25% are smokers.


These values come relatively close to the ccsvi data from Zivadinov.

Smoking is the main cause of lung cancer.

So the 0.0037 value alone doesn't mean much.

R.

Ok... lets then play more with analogy:

- Stoping of smoking after geting lung cancer doesn't cure cancer.
(performing Liberation procedure AFTER geting MS doesn't cure MS.)

- Stoping of smoking before geting lung cancer prevents cancer.
(performing Liberation procedure BEFORE geting MS prevents MS.)

Conclusion:
Treat 1/5 of human population (except those who allready get MS) with Liberation procedure and MS in near future will be history.
(according to Zivadinov/Zamboni/others... preliminary study results: 20% of healty population have so called CCSVI).

M.

se1956 wrote:Take 100 lung cancer patients: You will get 85-90% are smokers.
Take a healthy control goup: About 25% are smokers.


These values come relatively close to the ccsvi data from Zivadinov.

Smoking is the main cause of lung cancer.

So the 0.0037 value alone doesn't mean much.

R.

That should read that smoking is a contributing cause of lung cancer. There are people who smoke their entire life and live a long time and never develop cancer. This mirrors CCSVI where we know that healthy people have CCSVI but no MS. So what does this mean? There must be another factor, when combined with CCSVI, that causes MS.

You are right: In most cases Smoking + x(genetics, influenza...??) triggers the lung cancer.
But in the majority of cases cases X alone will not be enough.

Interpreting statistical data is not an easy task (no black an white, it's more or less grey).

To expand the analogy:

- Patients with lung cancer: 85-90% smokers
- Healthy controls: 25% smokers
- You can easily find someone with lung cancer, who never smoked
- In a group of smokers, there will be (nearly) no one with lung cancer
- In a group of smokers, only a minority will die from lung cancer
- In an animal model with a normal concentration of cigarette smoke, you will get no dramatic results
- Germany's ex chancellor just celebrated his 90th anniversary, he is a heavy smoker.

At a first glance one may argue, there are many many healthy smokers and the animal model shows nothing dramatic, therefore the association between smoking an lung cancer is weak. Further investigation is not needed.

But if there were no smokers in Germany, one would have approx. 30000 new cases of lung cancer per year less (may be 10000 remaining).

Lung cancer is a fast disease (90% dead after 5 years) whereas MS is slow (nearly full live span).
May be smoking<>cardiovascular-disease is the better analogy.

Using Zivadinovs preliminary data, there is a chance, but no proof yet, for this scenario:

If a young adult shows first signs of MS and is diagnosed with ccsvi and the ccsvi can be treated, then the progression of ms is stopped or slowed down. Again no 0 or 1, may be only in 50% of cases or more or less. Same may be true for a later stage of the disease.

Another consequence is, that if a  physician tells you, that these slight malformations are very common, so everything is ok, for many diseases this might be wrong. Better: These slight malformations are very common, but if you show any signs of the disease XY, then we have to address this  immediately .

R.

Malden wrote:- Stoping of smoking after geting lung cancer doesn't cure cancer.
(performing Liberation procedure AFTER geting MS doesn't cure MS.)

How do you know that to be true? Several people have reported here that treatment for CCSVI has stopped their progression. They may be left with neurological damage which may or may not heal with time. However, stopping the progression seems like treatment for CCSVI may be efficacious for stopping MS. Of course, this last statement remains to be proven as we see more results over time.

Malden wrote:- Stoping of smoking before geting lung cancer prevents cancer.

I'm not sure that I agree with your analogy. If someone has been smoking for a period of time, then they have been ingesting a highly addictive carcinogenic poison. This will lead to damage in the body which accumulates with the time that a person smoked. Quitting smoking may lessen the chances of getting lung cancer, but damage has been done and just quitting certainly isn't going to absolutely prevent it.

NHE

NHE wrote:

Malden wrote:- Stoping of smoking after geting lung cancer doesn't cure cancer.
(performing Liberation procedure AFTER geting MS doesn't cure MS.)

How do you know that to be true? Several people have reported here that treatment for CCSVI has stopped their progression. They may be left with neurological damage which may or may not heal with time. However, stopping the progression seems like treatment for CCSVI may be efficacious for stopping MS. Of course, this last statement remains to be proven as we see more results over time.

Malden wrote:- Stoping of smoking before geting lung cancer prevents cancer.

I'm not sure that I agree with your analogy. If someone has been smoking for a period of time, then they have been ingesting a highly addictive carcinogenic poison. This will lead to damage in the body which accumulates with the time that a person smoked. Quitting smoking may lessen the chances of getting lung cancer, but damage has been done and just quitting certainly isn't going to absolutely prevent it.

NHE

I think the topic of human biology is too complex and most of the definitions are really contextual in nature.
Remember that with CCSVI, the body is in a state of conflict due to which we are in a way losing a part of it slowly. Fix CCSVI, the state of conflict is gone.

Is this cure? If cure means putting the body in the old state then the answer is no. If cure means halting further destruction of cells then yes.
If this is not complex enough then the brain's has ability to heal itself. But the procedure itself did not heal the brain, it was brain itself.

On smoking analogy, one has to remember that cancer is closely associated with gene mutations. Once mutated, it is nearly impossible to un-mutate naturally. So, stopping smoking does not really stop cancer if mutation has reached a point which results in rapid cell multiplication. If not, it is possible that stopping can cure. But one also has to remember that mutations happen naturally (I guess part of aging process)

My 2 cents though ...

First of all I like to thank you for your answers to my post.

I alpologize for my little provocation in analogy I used to push things over the edge. What I wrote up there is not what I beelive is true. I am just looking for the light at the end of the tunnel in which MS put me (like most of you too, I assume).

You can call me sceptic, but I try to understand and explain things to myself as more as possible and then make decisions and take acts

(Ok....I admit: I am old and grivant and with a professional deformation - hydrotecnic civil eng. - hydropower systems, and have MS ...so forgive me sometimes, no hard feelings at all ;)

Best regards,

M.

Malden wrote:First of all I like to thank you for your answers to my post.

I alpologize for my little provocation in analogy I used to push things over the edge. What I wrote is not what I beelive is true. I am just looking for the light at the end of the tunnel in which MS put me (like most of you too, I assume).

You can call me sceptic,
(ok....I admit: I am old and grivant and have MS...so forgive me sometimes, no hard feelings ;)
but I try to understand and explain things to myself as more as possible and then make decisions and take acts (professional deformation - hydrotecnic civil eng. - hydropower systems).

Best regards,

M.

Absolutely no provocation. I myself have been trying to understand these things. My aim was to clear some of the confusion around cancer. That's all.

se1956 wrote:
Another consequence is, that if a  physician tells you, that these slight malformations are very common, so everything is ok, for many diseases this might be wrong. Better: These slight malformations are very common, but if you show any signs of the disease XY, then we have to address this  immediately .

R.

I think this is very accurate.

My biggest concern is how to get logical connection between narrowing of the veins and deposits of iron in the brain. Explaining this with reflux of blood into the brain is not clear to me. In closed hydraulic pressure systems liquid does not flow "upstream" (local turbulence is possible, but the global flow is from higher pressure towards lower pressure). Aside that deposition of iron in brain tissue takes place far away from the veins - in the capillaries with constant pressure, speed and flow of blood regardless of the rhythm of the heart and without the influence of so-called reflux caused by vein stenosis.

M.

Malden wrote:My biggest concern is how to get logical connection between narrowing of the veins and deposits of iron in the brain. Explaining this with reflux of blood into the brain is not clear to me. In closed hydraulic pressure systems liquid does not flow "upstream" (local turbulence is possible, but the global flow is from higher pressure towards lower pressure). Aside that deposition of iron in brain tissue takes place far away from the veins - in the capillaries with constant pressure, speed and flow of blood regardless of the rhythm of the heart and without the influence of so-called reflux caused by vein stenosis.

M.

Couple of points:
1) Please see Rici's video. This is a real time unpolluted picture. It clearly shows blood flowing back as it tries to get past the narrowed vein and cannot. Due to pressure, it refluxes back.

2) The inflammation sites at mainly around the veins. So the iron must be depositing at that place.