I agree and in my case the occlusions were very clear. The MRV showed big fat jugs that dwindled away to nothing and many spider web veins near the area instead (collaterals). On the neck MRI the slices of my neck showed big fat jugs until you got level with my jaw and there the "pancake" effect was clear, the jugs which are about the size of a finger up until that area, were suddenly a tiny slice, as if a finger pushed on the vein from the front and only a little slice was left open. The occlusion was 80-90%Again, if Zamboni and Dake are truly finding occluded veins in the majority of MS patients tested (blinded, in Zamboni's tests), then "this theroy has nothing to do with ms" is indeed a statement to take issue with.
In the operation, during which I was awake, and during which I talked to the doctors and looked at the venogram screen and was able to see what was happening, the second the stent was open the collaterals disappeared on the venogram meaning that they stopped carrying blood because the path of least resistance was now the jugs through that wonderful stent. My body did not want to send blood through that constricted collateral network. It wanted to use wide open jugs.
This is my reality. There is no way any skeptic can make the case there is anything questionable about the effective use of stents in my case ...
FOR BLOOD FLOW.
I do not know what it will do for my MS. I have no idea. I am a progressed person and do not expect recovery. My spasms have drastically reduced, and my heat tolerance is better, but I do not expect much otherwise, though I am open to anything.
But what I do know is that to the extent better blood flow can help me cope with my disease or aid in healing I will get help from the stents having done this and I am better off now. To make the case that it will make no difference or that to leave such an obstruction would have been somehow "benign" is to ignore basic physiology.
If such physiologic signs, occlusion above 50%, collaterals, and signs of problems in the organ involved, were in a cardiac patient, stents would be used and covered by every insurance company as necessary.
Furthermore no one would question this stent placement or suggest that we need more work or more replication of anything to prove it is good to restore bloodflow this way. These are the recognized physiological symptoms of vascular impairment and the things vascular surgeons look for to know they need to do surgery to restore blood flow.
SO I want to go on record --again--to say that we do not know what this surgery will do for MS. There are some reasons to believe it will help to restore blood flow from basic physiology, but no proof.
prof8 said:
exactly my point.In short, he said he did not know what to expect after the surgery as of yet and that he could not say if improvement was due to the surgery or the placebo effect. Yes, he actually used the words "placebo effect" unprompted by questioning from me.
BUT obviously he feels strongly enough that there is a connection and a physical defect in the body (stenosis) should be corrected because it might just help MS.
I'm glad I did it, but if other people want to wait for more proof I do not blame them. There is no need to agree or not at this point... no one has to do this. But I think people have a right to hear about it.
BTW my GP has seen my records and scans from Stanford and agrees that this was the right thing to do. She would have done it herself she said... I have not taken it to a radiologist
just found it, it was WAY down... 
