a neurosonographer's critcal notes to Zamboni' s methodology

A forum to discuss Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency and its relationship to Multiple Sclerosis.
User avatar
blossom
Family Elder
Posts: 1394
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:00 pm
Location: south western pa.
Contact:

Post by blossom » Sat May 22, 2010 12:13 pm

1eye, what you say makes sence to me. this is my life time is running out yrs. wise ms wise.

User avatar
frodo
Family Elder
Posts: 1193
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:00 pm
Contact:

Post by frodo » Sat May 22, 2010 2:58 pm

thisisalex wrote: I think it is a problem, comparing number with and without Valsalva. What do you think?
Great catch!! it seems that the author has taken the numbers from that paper (it would be a surprising coincidence to find exactly the same ones in other source) and he has misunderstanded them (he says that is normal to find those numbers while the original paper says that they appear during valsava maneuvers).

For sure this is a weakness of this paper.

Besides I still think that the author speaks mostly about lack of flow instead of reflux. Maybe he didn't understand correctly the Zamboni papers.

This is the first serious critic I have read against CCSVI and it is flawed at least in two points. I suppose this makes CCSVI theory stronger.
Last edited by frodo on Sat May 22, 2010 11:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Cece
Family Elder
Posts: 9313
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:00 pm
Contact:

Post by Cece » Sat May 22, 2010 3:08 pm

thisisalex wrote:I think it is a problem, comparing number with and without Valsalva. What do you think?
That is a good catch. huh! Smart folks here.
"However, the truth in science ultimately emerges, although sometimes it takes a very long time," Arthur Silverstein, Autoimmunity: A History of the Early Struggle for Recognition

User avatar
Stacemeh
Family Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:00 pm
Location: Calgary, AB
Contact:

Post by Stacemeh » Sat May 22, 2010 7:06 pm

I think Dr. Panczel has put together a well thought out critique and I am glad to see this rather than the usual "naw that ain't it, you just can't understand bla bla" sort of comments we usually hear.

[quote]The IJV can be heavily dilated in upright position, in Congestive heart failure (CHF) for example. Zamboni diagnosed a vein occlusion in patients with congestive heart failure.(which is false)
[\quote]


This is a valid point, I just happen to know that both human and veterinary Doctors look for this jugular reflux in conjestive heart failure patients.

However, how relevant this is? How much longer are these (CHF) patients are likely to live once this reflux begins to occur?

In my understanding, I'm not sure they would live long enough to accumulate enough of the slow luxuriant vicarious redistribution (as described by Dr. S :D ) necessary to show neuro damage on the level required for MS symptoms to develop.

But, I am not a doctor.

User avatar
drsclafani
Family Elder
Posts: 3180
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Contact:

Post by drsclafani » Sun May 23, 2010 7:40 am

please visit my response to this question on DrSclafani answers some questions

User avatar
thisisalex
Family Elder
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:00 pm
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: a neurosonographer's critcal notes to Zamboni' s methodo

Post by thisisalex » Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:48 pm

Hello everyone!

Dr. Panczel is back :)

After 1,5 years he is still in a hurry to discredit Zamboni as a sonographer. He just had a presentation at a hungarian MS conference, and he is talking about the same thing: Zamboni's five criteria is worthless. I sent him dr. Sclafani's and dr. Zamboni's answer but he is unstoppable: Zamboni is an idiot and a very bad sonographer.

In his presentation he shows a case, a hungarian MS patient (a friend of mine) was treated in Tychy, Poland by dr. Jacek Kostecki (findings: http://m.blog.hu/cc/ccsvi/file/lelet4.pdf)

Dr. Panczel thinks the venogram is not valid because there is no stenosis but some kind of "washed out contrast agent"
you can hear his "solution" for this phenomenon in his presentation...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4iRvfsqwZo

and here are the before videos he mentions in his presenatation more detailed:



I would like to post an answer for him, could you please help me?

thank you
Alex

User avatar
1eye
Family Elder
Posts: 3740
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: a neurosonographer's critcal notes to Zamboni' s methodo

Post by 1eye » Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:31 pm

Not worth the trouble.
This unit of entertainment not brought to you by FREMULON.
Not a doctor.

User avatar
CureOrBust
Family Elder
Posts: 3351
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:00 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: a neurosonographer's critcal notes to Zamboni' s methodo

Post by CureOrBust » Sun Oct 02, 2011 11:53 pm

Lets go the "cup is half full", ie what he does appear to agree with..

Dr. Panczel clearly has problems with criteria 1,3 & 5. He mocked these explicitly. So, therefore, assuming test 2 is performed by a competent operator (which is what I expect for all my medical test/procedures, and an overly competent one on any "new" stuff), he must then agree with Zamboni, that if a patient exhibits criteria 2 & 4, there is something amiss?

The little he spoke on criteria 4 sounded as if he would not expect anyone to meet this criteria. Which Zamboni obviously found.

Also, from what I have read, apart from the Ultrasound, he's not fond of the venogram either. What does he think of IVUS?

User avatar
1eye
Family Elder
Posts: 3740
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: a neurosonographer's critcal notes to Zamboni' s methodo

Post by 1eye » Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:21 am

Look. A working, non-refluxed circulatory system is easy to see with Doppler. If it looks like it is working OK using dye, you could still have problems that are hidden, that you can only see with IVUS. There are problems that are easily seen with 3D MRV and some of Dr. Haacke's other techniques. It might be good to do before and after of all the tests if you have time and/or money. I don't see the sense, though, of deciding on the existence of the problem, let alone what it causes, based on one possible test alone. Just because something is your specialty doesn't mean it can tell you everything there is to know. Could anybody else use a break?
This unit of entertainment not brought to you by FREMULON.
Not a doctor.

User avatar
thisisalex
Family Elder
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:00 pm
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: a neurosonographer's critcal notes to Zamboni' s methodo

Post by thisisalex » Mon Oct 03, 2011 9:27 am

CureOrBust wrote:Lets go the "cup is half full", ie what he does appear to agree with..

Dr. Panczel clearly has problems with criteria 1,3 & 5. He mocked these explicitly. So, therefore, assuming test 2 is performed by a competent operator (which is what I expect for all my medical test/procedures, and an overly competent one on any "new" stuff), he must then agree with Zamboni, that if a patient exhibits criteria 2 & 4, there is something amiss?

The little he spoke on criteria 4 sounded as if he would not expect anyone to meet this criteria. Which Zamboni obviously found.

Also, from what I have read, apart from the Ultrasound, he's not fond of the venogram either. What does he think of IVUS?
CureOrBust,

dr. Panczel does not think of IVUS nor a venogram. He is an old time neurosonographer :)

1eye
thank you for your answer. i think you are right: not worth the trouble.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post