consensus quide with doppler

A forum to discuss Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency and its relationship to Multiple Sclerosis.
Post Reply
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 294
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:00 pm
Location: Rovaniemi

consensus quide with doppler

Post by Ernst » Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:06 am

Hello, where can I find the latest consensus quite for doppler protocol? I found one done in 2011 but is there newer?
My wife's 3 yrs post video:

Our family:

User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 3769
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada

Re: consensus quide with doppler

Post by 1eye » Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:14 am

I believe Dr. Zamboni's letter referred to the 2011 document. If there is a newer one, it may not have been a better consensus in his reckoning. 2011 having been later than the procedure I had, I am glad it exists, at least. MRI is very useful for scientific exploration. As a low-cost tool for screening patients who may have been misdiagnosed, even since times before MRI, Doppler ultra-sound works.

I have not had the mathematics of high-frequency Doppler ultra-sound (greater than 1 MHz, which is definitely inaudible by humans -- for all I know by bats, too), explained to me. I have seen traces of it on a storage oscilloscope of late 1970s vintage, and I know it conducts through metals. Bone, tissue and blood seem plausible. The sound waves of a high-frequency probe are detectable in real time. It behooves the scientists who use it, to understand the math behind this imaging, perhaps not as well as Dr. Haacke, but at least well enough to cite it in their writing.

I do not know if any manufacturers, other than the one Dr. Zamboni uses, have equipment usable for this purpose but I believe they are capable of it. I did not see any deep cerebral veins on the display of the Japanese machine, which was definitely very recent -- it used a recent operating system. I believe it could easily have displayed them.

I do not think Italians have exclusive license rights to Doppler ultra-sound technology, however if you believe me, you have a fool for a lawyer. My own expectation would be that the Italians are good at making a doctor-friendly statistical analysis of Doppler data (perhaps not in real-time) in their computer programming.

I think that, if it is not well-understood, it would be worth the trouble to seek an explanation, because of the potential cost-savings over other imaging techniques, both in money and in ionizing radiation exposure. I do not believe that, in this application, it is unreasonable to use the best technology available for screening, considering potential costs and benefits. There may be better ways to do science that are not meant to be low-cost, or there may not. I'd take an expert's view written in English, any day. Many are better able than I, at understanding the math, other languages, and business cases.
This unit of entertainment not brought to you by FREMULON.
Not a doctor.

Post Reply