Cause or Consequence?
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:40 pm
I’ve seen the argument thrown out in quite a few quotes by the overly and cautiously skeptic medical professionals who have been quoted in various articles. CCSVI can be concretely proven to be present with simple imaging tests, its hard evidence of a physical malformation that can’t be disputed, so the next logical platform for the skeptics will be “We can’t say for sure if CCSVI is a trigger for MS or an additional symptom/result of MS.” Regardless, that argument shouldn’t have any bearing on people being treated for CCSVI, but it’s going to be something that will have many heated debates and one that will be fueled by pharmas who risk losing billions in revenue from more traditional MS symptom and disease modifying drugs.
My question would be, if by treating CCSVI the progression of MS halts (permanently as long as constrictions don’t re-occur), does that in and of itself prove it’s the trigger and not a symptom? If that’s the case, does that mean that new MS diagnosis will instead be CCSVI diagnosis and term MS will go away all together?
My question would be, if by treating CCSVI the progression of MS halts (permanently as long as constrictions don’t re-occur), does that in and of itself prove it’s the trigger and not a symptom? If that’s the case, does that mean that new MS diagnosis will instead be CCSVI diagnosis and term MS will go away all together?