This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

It was recently proved (today, in fact), treament for CCSVI can save lives. That is significant. It is now speculated that it, and May-Thurner, are both part of a systemic condition. I still think it is congenital. Anyway, veins have been blamed a long time. I predict that it will soon be the dominant theory. They're all just theories, until they make a difference in your life. Then they are facts.

Trish317 wrote:

Cece wrote:Fat-induced vascular problems is a previous theory.

Congenital truncular vascular malfomations is the current theory of ccsvi.

It seemed important to keep that clear.

I think it's also important to remember that, until recently, the technology did not exist to identify or treat the vascular malformations.

Not exactly. The current definition for CCSVI is venous reflux into the brain, regardless of what produces the reflux. Therefore the first proposer was Dr. Schelling in Austria in the 80's.

In most of the people the problem is due to vascular malformations, but it cannot be said that it happens in all of the cases.

Cerebro-Spinal (brain and spinal cord)

1eye wrote: They're all just theories, until they make a difference in your life. Then they are facts.

What a great quote. May I use it?

Thes few words say more about research and data than anything I have ever read in the literature. What point is there to any theory unless it is tested and re tested and the results are proven and repeatable?

As an overall scheme for CCSVI, I think this theory is much more reasonable than congenital CCSVI.

But I'm not sure where some of the malformations found when doing Liberation procedure would fit into the fat-induced theory--I see them as not congenital, but environmental--that is, dietary deficiencies as underlying cause.

I wonder how cut and dry that is? Vascular experts fom 40 countries meet and declare ccsvi truncular... is there margin for error? Was this a subjective call or something really solid like the bones in your body? Ive seen the truncular idea challenged a lot mostly by docs who are experienced with ms and are used to NOTHING being solid. What if the certainty is 99%?

dunno could be 50%