CCSVI, cause or symptom?
Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:23 pm
The following is designed to promote discussion by patients and specialists alike. Please feel free to comment on the subject:-
What if CCSVI is actually a symptom not a cause? Has this actually been explored?
My partner underwent treatment for CCSVI in December 2010, like many other patients showed very promising real world physical results most of which gradually faded away again. We have decided to undertake an alternative form of treatment which I am documenting on this forum.
Why? How can a procedure produce such great results for them only to slip away again? Well maybe, just maybe we're treating another symptom.
CCSVI has raced forward in the two years since I've been aware of the theory, mostly caused by the freedom of information that the world wide web allows us. But what if we've all missed the obvious?
Think of the following:-
CCSVI is increasingly being attributed to congenitally malformed valves. The thing is, why would something you were born with not effect you for 20, 30, 40, 50 sometimes 60 years before becoming a problem? Surely there would be many more cases of children being diagnosed with MS or the condition would appear in far more younger people than it does.
Malformed valves is not a new problem - it's what causes varicose veins (Copy and paste from www.womenshealth.gov) :-
What causes varicose veins?
Varicose veins can be caused by weak or damaged valves in the veins. The heart pumps blood filled with oxygen and nutrients to the whole body through the arteries. Veins then carry the blood from the body back to the heart. As your leg muscles squeeze, they push blood back to the heart from your lower body against the flow of gravity. Veins have valves that act as one-way flaps to prevent blood from flowing backwards as it moves up your legs. If the valves become weak, blood can leak back into the veins and collect there. (This problem is called venous insufficiency.) When backed-up blood makes the veins bigger, they can become varicose.
The part I'm interested in here is "As your leg muscles squeeze, they push blood back to the heart". Consider the valve operation. What if they actually require external muscle activity to keep them healthy and operating? What would actually happen if the muscles surrounding the veins froze or ceased to operate or even simply started operating at a reduced level of functionality.Would the blood flow start to suffer due to muscle weakness/loss. Would the valves then start to suffer atrophy? Would there be a slow degradation in their operation that would lead them to cause what we currently understand as CCSVI?
Logically this would explain "restenosis", treating a symptom rather than a cause would explain initial good results that over a period of months regress.
From everything I've read published by the many centers now offering CCSVI treatment, there is a direct link with the severity and length of time a patient has had symptoms and the result they are getting. Therefore the reoccurrence will take longer for those patients that were less "unhealthy" beforehand. It wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility that a patient with an EDSS like Emma of 6.5 will regress in 3 to 6 months and a patient with an EDSS of say 3 or 4 might take 3 to 6 years to regress. Seeing as we're only 2 to 3 years into this we don't have the data on the longevity in these cases.
What if CCSVI is actually a symptom not a cause? Has this actually been explored?
My partner underwent treatment for CCSVI in December 2010, like many other patients showed very promising real world physical results most of which gradually faded away again. We have decided to undertake an alternative form of treatment which I am documenting on this forum.
Why? How can a procedure produce such great results for them only to slip away again? Well maybe, just maybe we're treating another symptom.
CCSVI has raced forward in the two years since I've been aware of the theory, mostly caused by the freedom of information that the world wide web allows us. But what if we've all missed the obvious?
Think of the following:-
CCSVI is increasingly being attributed to congenitally malformed valves. The thing is, why would something you were born with not effect you for 20, 30, 40, 50 sometimes 60 years before becoming a problem? Surely there would be many more cases of children being diagnosed with MS or the condition would appear in far more younger people than it does.
Malformed valves is not a new problem - it's what causes varicose veins (Copy and paste from www.womenshealth.gov) :-
What causes varicose veins?
Varicose veins can be caused by weak or damaged valves in the veins. The heart pumps blood filled with oxygen and nutrients to the whole body through the arteries. Veins then carry the blood from the body back to the heart. As your leg muscles squeeze, they push blood back to the heart from your lower body against the flow of gravity. Veins have valves that act as one-way flaps to prevent blood from flowing backwards as it moves up your legs. If the valves become weak, blood can leak back into the veins and collect there. (This problem is called venous insufficiency.) When backed-up blood makes the veins bigger, they can become varicose.
The part I'm interested in here is "As your leg muscles squeeze, they push blood back to the heart". Consider the valve operation. What if they actually require external muscle activity to keep them healthy and operating? What would actually happen if the muscles surrounding the veins froze or ceased to operate or even simply started operating at a reduced level of functionality.Would the blood flow start to suffer due to muscle weakness/loss. Would the valves then start to suffer atrophy? Would there be a slow degradation in their operation that would lead them to cause what we currently understand as CCSVI?
Logically this would explain "restenosis", treating a symptom rather than a cause would explain initial good results that over a period of months regress.
From everything I've read published by the many centers now offering CCSVI treatment, there is a direct link with the severity and length of time a patient has had symptoms and the result they are getting. Therefore the reoccurrence will take longer for those patients that were less "unhealthy" beforehand. It wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility that a patient with an EDSS like Emma of 6.5 will regress in 3 to 6 months and a patient with an EDSS of say 3 or 4 might take 3 to 6 years to regress. Seeing as we're only 2 to 3 years into this we don't have the data on the longevity in these cases.