this is the best news we have heard for quite a long time!
The (scientific) situation here in Germany concerning CCSVI is devastating. A doctor willing to treat ascertained symptoms connected with jugulars (and therefore part of CCSVI) has big problems in justifying his decision....
At the same time, knowledge about best practices which have already been gained in this field does not exist. It seems like those few physicians who are courageous enough to be interested in this field are starting in 2010 again - this is a
Thank you for trying to find ways to go on helping patients and passing on your knowledge!
P.S. We will contact you by PM soon!
"Yet I don't think I have read a single article/study that substantiates that the treatment really, really works."
Perhaps you can provide links to all the studies that offer proof that the procedure really works. I obviously missed them in my research.
"And when you have Zamboni himself... concluded that “the liberation treatment” for MS does not work"
Perhaps you can explain why he came to this conclusion a couple of years ago, more importantly why he has not changed his position since then and why this important fact is overlooked by everyone,
Frankly the only way I would do this procedure at this time would be IF it was a treatment choice of last resort as I am sure is the case for some that decide to go ahead with it. There are safe, non-evasive ways to accomplish the desired outcome of improved circulation with regard to the brain and spinal cord that I would try first. Which I do and have been for years. Again, to me at this time, this is ONLY a protocol of last resort.
Brave Dreams: An overestimated study, crippled by recruitment failure and misleading conclusionsElliotB wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:33 am"And when you have Zamboni himself... concluded that “the liberation treatment” for MS does not work"
Perhaps you can explain why he came to this conclusion a couple of years ago, more importantly why he has not changed his position since then and why this important fact is overlooked by everyone.
https://www.pagepressjournals.org/index ... /7340/7175
- Getting to Know You...
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Fri May 27, 2016 8:31 pm
- Location: San Francisco Bay Area
One thing I’ve wondered about: Fifty years ago I observed an angiogram up to the heart. Ten years ago I did not pass a heart stress test, and the cardiologist wanted me to have an angiogram. I asked our family doctor his opinion, and he thought angiogram too risky. So I did not have it.
Around five years ago I learned I was a candidate for CCSVI venoplasty. When I asked our family doctor about this, he replied it should be OK. What’s the difference, I asked. His answer was that compared to arteries, the veins are quite flexible, the blood flow slower—- much less risk.
My venoplasty gave me astonishing improvement even though it could not be fully CCSVI accomplished due to valve obstructions in and bony compression onto my jugulars. But this information about the obstructions allowed me direction that I have been working to improve, while I wait to get the advised second venoplasty.
Lots of angioplasties are done everyday at nearly every hospital. And venoplasties are safer? So why aren’t venoplasties even more common than angioplasties? Why such illogical stigma against a similar and safer procedure?
In the past, more people getting angioplasties were men, since it appeared that men got more cardiovascular problems than women.
I wonder, and excuse me gentlemen, but because MS affects more women, especially young women, isn’t there something actionable legally in this situation? A double or triple discrimination? Against a safer procedure, against women, and against ameliorating a poorly understood chronic illness?
(And to clarify. CCSVI dot org explains that “liberation” in the Italian name for CCSVI venoplasty, does not mean freedom from MS.)
Those are all good reasons. I am sorry you had to make a painful decision like that. And thrilled that the Poland clinic has a place for your continued contributions.drsclafani wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:24 pmLet me state emphatically, that there is good basic science into the effects of venous outflow disruptions, there is good evidence of safety for these procedures
The truth is that the negative press and the witchhunting done against other caring physicians led my employer to make a business decision to stop offering the procedure at a financial loss. The company is after all a for-profit company and i found their decisions to be reasonable but devastatingly disappointing. It was an anguishing decision that I decided not to continue on alone. But my reasons were of family, of age, and of fear of vicious attacks to my person and my reputation. and it left me quite saddened and overwrought
After my own CCSVI procedures, my symptoms improved so much that, this past December, my MS diagnosis got taken away. I never did have any oligoclonal bands on my spinal tap and my current neurologist never saw me a decade ago when I was ill. So his belief is that it was a one-time neurological insult of undetermined origin.
I feel great and I am very grateful.
I would like to see CCSVI treatment go from discreditation to standard of care, like the other example you mentioned, but I don't know how we get from here to there.