It must be remembered that treatment of CCSVI by the Liberation procedure, while it may or may not satisfy all of the skepticism, does in fact prevent death, and that it is not beyond the bounds of reasonable medicine, in fact is conservative of life, time, medical resources, and public funds. Those patients who cannot be offered any better treatment -- in fact, aside from ineffective symptomatic drug treatments, cannot be offered any other help, should have this procedure as a treatment option for humanitarian reasons. Saving a life is not science. It is medicine, and doctors should be allowed to treat CCSVI in the normal course of care for these terminal patients.
The risks of Liberation are almost negligible. There has been one death, due to a confluence of a brain-stem aneurysm, pressure changes on an airplane trip, and blood thinners given to avoid thrombosis. The likelihood of this combination of factors must be minuscule, and people should not be allowed to die from CCSVI to insure against an extreme improbability such as this.
Similar things can be said of the only other serious incident involving stent migration. I think the most serious threat when stented (which does not even exist when not stented) is the patient's own behaviour, and so they should be warned against the kind of shock which can dislodge a stent, when they are used. The patients in Kuwait, none of whom received stents, did not experience any complications or adverse events like these, and they numbered in the thousands, adding to the more than 2000 safe Liberations performed worldwide.
http://starturl.com/plirh