This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community
Welcome to This is MS, the leading forum for Multiple Sclerosis research and support. Join our friendly community of patients, caregivers, and researchers celebrating over 20 years of delivering hope through knowledge.
Montel Williams
I know many have speculated on why I have not responded to your questions about CCVSI. I wanted to do my own research & fully understand this procedure before I spoke on it publicly. However, last week I met with Dr. Michael Dake at Stanford, I received a MRI & a Venus MRI. I am looking into CCVSI to seeing if I am a candidate. As I process & understand this procedure I will update you on my journey & thoughts.
Kudos to Montel! I knew he was in when he named Michelle as 'Facebook Friend of the Week'!
My concern would be that Dr. Dake has historically used stents, and there have been some problems with their use; tissue growth through the stent - causing occlusion, clots, stenosis outside the stent, and goodness - migration, and if Montel Williams has a "bad experience", it's all over but for Oprah singing.
I do not follow Dake so much, and I am not sure if he is using stents so liberally still (nor if stents are really so scary), but I wonder if Doc. Sclafani, or some of the others (Hubbard, Mehta, etc.) might be better interventionists in this case.
I don't want to rain on a sunny day, but sometimes we need to be careful of what we ask for. This will bring the mainstream attention that we have been hoping for, but if it turns into a train wreck with Montel...
Cece, I know it's a typo, but I loved the image. Montel is a bit of a god himself, isn't he?
Not Johnson, I have had the wonderful experience of meeting and consulting with Dr. Dake, an exceptional person and healer, and Montel is in wonderful hands.
Dr. Dake is currently starting a multicenter treatment study w/Dr. Barry Katzen at Miami Baptist. No stents will be used. I'm sure if it took Montel this long to make a decision, he is well-aware of the variety of risks.
After I was named as his person of the week last December, I contacted the attorney for his foundation and we spoke on the phone. I sent Montel an email thru the attorney, trying to set up a meeting for Dr. Sclafani and me. I didn't hear from him. I'm partial to Dr. Sclafani, staying local, and IVUS. I hope Montel does some more research before getting treated.
Glad to see he's taking his time, making informed decisions, looking before he leaps or trots or whatever it is we do as CCSVI patients. I'm sure between Dake and Haacke, he will be in very good hands both diagnostically and practically, remember, Dr. Dake was the first physician in the United States to get in the fray, and took a substantial amount of heat at a time when he was basically a one man army, how fitting for him to have first go at it in this case, who knows, maybe Montel will change his mind and go elsewhere.
Meanwhile, there are hundreds of thousands of other patients in less fortunate circumstances who need help. Helps to remember that too.
RRMS Dx'd 2007, first episode 2004. Bilateral stent placement, 3 on left, 1 stent on right, at Stanford August 2009. Watch my operation video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwc6QlLVtko, Virtually symptom free since, no relap
Just to be clear; I mean no slight to Dr. Dake, his skills, accomplishments, etc. I am well aware that there a number of members here that have nothing but good things to say about him. I do have my own doubts about stents, but they are my own, and again; as above.
There are also members here who did not have good experiences, or worse. Let us hope that Mr. Williams' experience is not so, else there will be a mighty, negative campaign against the hypothesis and procedure.
I hope that Mr. Williams has a great success, and is as pleased as Mark, Rhonda, and a host of others are after being treated by Dr. Dake. I know the joy and blessed relief that I felt, and I would wish that on anybody - especially someone with the ear of millions.
Having Montel on board could be a good thing, but also a bad thing. I think CCSVI operation should be judged on its own merits and not based on one person's case. I am afraid that conclusions will be drawn based on his operation if he decides to go ahead, but would it really matter how his operation turns out? Would you think CCSVI is more viable if his operation is succesful or if it is not?
I afraid that his operation might just generate a media hype and lots of people will make a decision based on his results. I would be happier if he stood behind CCSVI research and he shed some lights on the ongoing debates around CCSVI.
I think the current problems CCSVI is facing lies somewhereelse as eric953 correctly pointed out in a different thread:
eric593 wrote:
But if you can't connect it to MS, then you can't say that there's any PROBLEM associated with venous blockages. If both healthy people and those with other conditions have blockages, and the venous system is well known for its repetitiveness and ability to develop collaterals, then it becomes harder to say we have a problem that needs to be fixed. And we can't say it's related to MS symptoms when there are many with MS who apparently don't have CCSVI and many without neurological symptoms that do have CCSVI, according to the study.
Montel Williams
I know many have speculated on why I have not responded to your questions about CCVSI I wanted to do my own research & fully understand this procedure before I spoke on it publicly. However, last week I met with Dr. Michael Dake at Stanford, I received a MRI & a Venus MRI. I am looking into CCVSI to seeing if I am a candidate. As I process & understand this procedure I will update you on my journey & thoughts.
I hope as Montel "processes and understands", that he learns it is CCSVI and what that stands for! lol. Definitely a newbie;)
