Page 2 of 4
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:39 am
by scorpion
patientx wrote:I don't know about the present study proving or disproving anything (no one study proves or disproves anything). But, if people are going to try to discredit these studies, I would suggest they read things a little more carefully.
Cece wrote:They measured the flow in the jugulars after 3 - 5 seconds of apnea. What effect would the breath-holding have on the flow? It's not quite Valsalva, as was mistakenly used in the Doepp study, but the German authors discuss the valve insufficiency of the other sort...
From "The value of cerebral Doppler venous haemodynamics in the assessment of multiple sclerosis," Zamboni, et al:
The physiologic direction of venous flow was assessed during a short period of apnea following a normal exhalation, as previously reported
The doctors who co-wrote the Doepp study were not "mistaken." They performed the Valsalva test
in addition to Dr. Zamboni's other 5 tests, with the idea that maybe IJV insufficiency was more pronounced in MS patients (which they did not find).
Funny thing is, in his papers, Dr. Zamboni refers many times to studies done by the authors on the Doepp study (Valdueza, Schreiber, etc.).
But when these doctors perform their own study, suddenly they don't know how to hold an ultrasound probe.
They could not even get it right for one person in the study?I am not sure how many ways there are to hold a ultrasound probe but you would think they would get it right, even if by accident one time!
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:47 am
by patientx
concerned wrote:patientx wrote:
The doctors who co-wrote the Doepp study were not "mistaken." They performed the Valsalva test in addition to Dr. Zamboni's other 5 tests, with the idea that maybe IJV insufficiency was more pronounced in MS patients (which they did not find).
You've explained this so many times I don't know how posters here can keep blatantly spreading misinformation about it.
Not only that, to be sure I was getting it right, I emailed Florin Doepp, who confirmed this for me.
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 12:04 pm
by Cece
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 12:09 pm
by concerned
He didn't address the fact that they looked at the Zamboni criteria (if maybe in a somewhat flawed manner, I'm unsure) in addition to during valsalva maneuver.
Also, saying that Zamboni didn't really explain how to use his patent pending method for detecting MS in his article seems like a cop out.
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:21 pm
by Cece
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:45 pm
by concerned
So which is it? Did they perform the ultrasound wrong as cheer used to say? Or did they perform it right and prove CCSVI?
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:04 pm
by sou
They did it wrong, they accidentally found partial evidence of CCSVI and completely lost it when it came to interpreting their data. Nevertheless, they were so confident that they drew a conclusion...
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:24 pm
by DrCumming
What really surprises me is the the title of the article. Like they are gloating that they have debunked the theory of CCSVI. Weird. Very unprofessional.
Amazing the editors allowed it.
At this point, the only thing that matters is the outcomes of the various trials underway. These reports about MR or US not finding CCSVI do not answer the question if jugular venoplasty improves quality of life and prevents or slows disease progression in pwMS.
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:43 pm
by scorpion
DrCumming wrote:What really surprises me is the the title of the article. Like they are gloating that they have debunked the theory of CCSVI. Weird. Very unprofessional.
Amazing the editors allowed it.
At this point, the only thing that matters is the outcomes of the various trials underway. These reports about MR or US not finding CCSVI do not answer the question if jugular venoplasty improves quality of life and prevents or slows disease progression in pwMS.
You feel the same way about articles that claim CCSVI cures MS?
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:52 pm
by pairOdime
Emotionally loaded titles do not belong on studies published in peer reviewed professional medical journals...here is the title.
The perfect crime? CCSVI not leaving a trace in MS
Odd that the editors would permit this title for an article published in a peer reviewed medical journal.
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:14 pm
by PointsNorth
This paper is an imperfect crime. I would say more of a liability for the anti-CCSVI lobby. I welcome more of the same!
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:19 pm
by sou
scorpion wrote:You feel the same way about articles that claim CCSVI cures MS?
Absolutely. Angioplasty has the potential to cure CCSVI only. But CCSVI non-existent? Coming from respected scientists? lol Roses are red, violets are blue, the Earth is flat and the birds never flew.
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:25 pm
by concerned
sou wrote:scorpion wrote:You feel the same way about articles that claim CCSVI cures MS?
Absolutely. Angioplasty has the potential to cure CCSVI only. But CCSVI non-existent? Coming from respectful scientists? lol Roses are red, violets are blue, the Earth is flat and the birds never flew.
It seems quite a few respectful scientists suspect that CCSVI docs seeing these venous malformations might just be seeing normal variations in our anatomy.
If 1 in 4
healthy controls have CCSVI, what do they need to be cured of?
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:28 pm
by sou
Then we are talking about Chronic CerebroSpinal Venous Hypersufficiency to people without webs, hypoplasias, aplasias, membranes, septums etc. We should send an abstract to the Lancet right away.
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:32 pm
by concerned
So the BNAC study found hypersufficiency in healthy controls and insufficiency in pwMS?