Extracranial venous stenosis is an unlikely cause of MS

[dreddk]

Mark

If you read this thread you would see I was discussing the issue of whether ccsvi causes ms or not - hence my point.( Approx 80% of CIS convert to MS therefore if ccsvi caused MS we would expect to see ccsvi in those people.)

Your reply to my comments are taken out of context as I was discussing this point, not whether CCSVI exisits in certain populations of MSers.

D

[dreddk]

dreddk posted:
I would say that the studies thus far show that congenital defects are actually quite common in the general population and no big deal.

MarkW says:
This is not a logical conclusion. MS is a multi-factorial disease of unknown cause. It is possible that congentital defects in veins are one of the factors in MS, in people with a susceptabilty to MS but not in the general population. I have not read any research to prove or dis-prove the idea that congentital defects in veins are one of the factors in MS.


MarkW

Actually this is a logical conclusion. The Buffalo study with a low threshold saw evidence of CCSVI in controls. And to quote from this study "Doppler studies, cadaver dissections and limited venous angiographies have shown
that IJV stenosis or at least reflux is probably present in healthy subjects."

Stenosis only appears predominatly in those with LMS.
MarkW replies:
The paper excludes secondary progressive MS from LMS. Stenoses are definitely found in SPMS. So logically the statement cannot be derived from this study. MarkW

Your comment doesn't make sense. I said it appears that CCSVI is in those with MS longer than 5 years. You comment that Stenoisis is in SPMS who were excluded from the study. Well I would include SPMS in a descriptor of people with MS longer the than 5 years??

When did Prof Zamboni say that CCSVI causes MS ???
Prof Zamboni postulated that CCSVI was possibly involved in the causes of MS. This is quite different in scientific terms.

Prof Zamboni hypothisised that CCSVI is involved in the cause of MS. Okay saying "Zamboni says CCSVI causes MS" is taking it literally but I think you are splitting hairs. I will from now use the word "hypothesised" rather than "said" .

This subject requires precision not guesswork, hence my four points
having studied the whole of the paper:

Well I guess its lucky I have post graduate qualifications that entitle me to analyse the whole paper too...

[MarkW]

Hello Dreddk,
I am delighted that you will analyse the whole paper and make precise comments. Please be aware that in some cases RRMS becomes SPMS in less than 5 years and in others the change takes 20 years. Hence my comments on your logic.
Making general statements about MS is fraught with traps, especially when there are pedants, like me, watching. Also the naysayers will take anything incorrect you say and post it against CCSVI.
Kind regards,
MarkW

[Cece]

A link to Dr. Sclafani's analysis of the paper:
http://www.thisisms.com/ftopicp-142447.html#142447

[MarkW]

Thanks Cece for posting the link. Its a pity that the Lebanese team did not read Prof Sclafani's paper before they published their paper.

MarkW

[Sotiris]

A pdf of the poster they presented at ECTRIMS can be found below:
http://www.aubmc.org.lb/downloads/abstract.pdf or alternatively http://www.aub.edu.lb/communications/Do ... erosis.pdf

It seems that the presence of EVS is not only strongly linked to disease duration but also to patients' age.

[dreddk]

The hypothesis in the conclusion is intertesting

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http ... .pdf&pli=1

[CCSVIhusband]

See all of Joan's (cheerleader) research that suggests otherwise please.

I thought this thread was dead. Too bad it's not.

[dreddk]

Ccsvihusband can you link to these- I wasn't aware there were some other venography studies of stenosis.
Or do you think it should be buried because the results aren't as you hoped?

[Cece]

Dreddk, did I miss something? The results support CCSVI's strong association with MS.

[dreddk]

Hi Cece

I agree I just was puzzled why ccsvihusband wanted this thread buried. It's hardly anti-ccsvi research.

Just an observation but there's a lot of knee jerk reaction on this board at the moment..... Lucky we have some cooler heads like yours!


D

Edit probably the title of the thread sets some people off. Perhaps if I had labeled it "study finds stenosis in all long term msers" people would be a bit more relaxed

[MarkW]

92% (12/13) of RRMS patients have EVS after 10 years is the result of this study. I fall into this group. Yes its a small study but helpful if you read the results, rather than the title and conclusions.
Changing the title of this thread is a good idea, dreddk.

MarkW

[patientx]

Yes its a small study but helpful if you read the results, rather than the title and conclusions.
Changing the title of this thread is a good idea, dreddk.

MarkW

That is a terrible idea. Dreddk, what you posted was the title of the article. There is no need to change it because people don't agree with the conclusions.

[MarkW]

Many years ago when I was taught science, it was imperative that conclusions were supported by results. The title and conclusions of this paper are not supported by their results. Dreddk, I suggest you choose a title for the thread which expresses the results of the study.
- 92% of pwRRMS have EVS after 10 years - is my suggestion as it gives good information to people browsing this site.

MarkW

[CCSVIhusband]

Yes its a small study but helpful if you read the results, rather than the title and conclusions.
Changing the title of this thread is a good idea, dreddk.

MarkW

That is a terrible idea. Dreddk, what you posted was the title of the article. There is no need to change it because people don't agree with the conclusions.

Yes, because otherwise we couldn't confuse people looking for information ...

A LOT of people in the first few months of (or even before an) MS diagnosis have been found to have CCSVI (or EVS or whatever you want to call it) ...

Devin Hubbard,
TM Rox
Tisa O'Neill
my wife
look how many others on facebook ... (or on this website)


Please - all seeking information and not spin - read Joan's (cheerleader) postings and research ... there is so much more than this (even if they want to hide behind the cover of a venogram being used ... which is great ... but that doesn't show causality - especially considering all the cases of people with VERY EARLY stage MS ... who have been found to have CCSVI, and when treated, saw great results).

But keep in mind - THIS study (which you all tout highly) DOES show a relationship between CCSVI and MS ... there is no denying it anymore 'skeptics'.

I am not going to post links for you Dredd ... do a search and read them yourself, they're all over this website ... the CCSVI alliance website, and Facebook. Peer reviewed studies ...

If you just care to post 1 study, and not research beyond that, that's fine ... but it's all out there if you have days and weeks to read it all ... I spent many months reading it all ... it's good stuff.