This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

Breaking new free webcast from the 5th World Congress on Controversies in Neurology: Venous obstruction IS NOT of primary importance in the pathogenesis of MS: http://www.informed-scientist.org/prese ... genesis-no


Breaking new free webcast from the 5th World Congress on Controversies in Neurology: Venous obstruction IS of primary importance in the pathogenesis of MS: http://www.informed-scientist.org/prese ... enesis-yes

For Italian people
http://www.ccsviitalia.org/pechino_2011.html

Looks like CCSVI lost that debate. Seemed like the CCSVI guy spoke way too slow and the language was less clear. He didn't seem like he was the one controlling the slides. Too much cut-paste stuff at the beginning. Seemed to be reading the slides aloud verbatim. Any of the CCSVI docs could have done a way better job.

What I would like to see is a debate where the principal author of the opposing viewpoint has to argue for the other side.

Say Dr. Haacke on the anti-CCSVI side, and Dr. Kahn on the pro-CCSVI side. And I'd like to see the neurology points (according to the so-called Hills criteria) broken down into separate debates. The anti- side seemed to base most of their arguments on the simple-minded statement that CCSVI doesn't exist. I personally think that is long since beyond debate, and that a dead horse is being flogged, but if that's what it takes to get the ball rolling...

An interesting discussion seemed to be the one about Putnam. Sounds to me like he was on the right track, tried to cure "MS" which is way more difficult than just knowing that it's due to a circulatory disorder, and failed. He put all his eggs in the drug basket, which many are still trying to do. That approach, even with antibiotics, only goes so far, and can bite back. So then because coumadin didn't work, they decided everything he said was wrong, and threw out the baby with the bathwater.

What is probably needed is a new treatment paradigm, like nano-medicine, that will somehow improve on nature in distribution of both venous and arterial blood, the inflow as well as the outflow. Evolution only takes things as far as necessary for the survival of the species, and the non-survival part of that equation ensures re-use of the non-survivor as food, etc. Going beyond that, making improvements less random and more civilized, may result in life of affected individuals according to better design precepts.

Dr. Beggs said that the venous system was a very poor design. That's what happens when it's random, survival of the species the only goal, and the main method of achieving that is survival of the individual until they have offspring. The analogy of that is the guideline I used to see used in product engineering: "If it works, ship it." There might be problems lurking.

I don't think the question that matters to us is whether CCSVI is of primary importance or secondary importance in the pathogenesis of MS. What matters is whether treating CCSVI can relieve symptoms and/or enable us to regain function. I would like to see the research and the debate focus on this aspect. The rest can be sorted out at a more leisurely pace, but not this.

I agree Cece - it is about buying some time so we can fight another day. But the neuros want to frame the argument so as to prevent any movement whatsoever. Do no harm? My ass.

1eye - keep on keepin' on

Best, Points

gattopardo wrote:Breaking new free webcast from the 5th World Congress on Controversies in Neurology: Venous obstruction IS NOT of primary importance in the pathogenesis of MS
Breaking new free webcast from the 5th World Congress on Controversies in Neurology: Venous obstruction IS of primary importance in the pathogenesis of MS

LOL. Quite ironic. Even the name "Controversies in Neurology" looks like it was made on purpose.

Thanks.

It wouldn't surprise me if Neuro's were looking for a way to 'discover' that there is a link or vascular cause and take credit for it and the work done over the years. Dr. Fox almost seems to be going in this direction.