NHE wrote:CCSVI treatment, even two or three treatments if needed over time, is considerably less expensive than any of the CRABs let alone Tysabri or Gilenya.
As scorpion mentioned, regardless of how effective the crabs are they've gone through the proper hoops and are considered effective. At this point CCSVI treatment hasn't and isn't within the realm of even comparison.
NHE wrote: You smoked for years. Cigarettes are an addictive, carcinogenic poison. Why should any of us non-smokers be required to contribute to your pending cancer and/or lung disease treatment?
I can’t imagine a better comparison but it has to be remembered from the start that the cigarette companies have always focused on the young and naïve customers to create a lifelong customer through an addiction considered harder to quit than heroin. DO we consider the poor decision to have been made by the 16 year old or the, hopefully wiser, 40 or 50 year old who inherited the addiction?
Either way, in both situations, as with ANY situation, there is a moral issue in not treating someone who requires treatment despite the underlying reasons. In either case it doesn’t mean that the medical community or fellow taxpayers should or would be overjoyed about it to the point of offering pro-active treatment and that’s what we’ve seen in both cases. I suppose only someone who has smoked realizes the ongoing disgust shown by the medical community when they see that pack of cigarettes in your shirt pocket, the disgust of your fellow citizens when you find yourself having to smoke in the middle of a field in the middle of winter. Yes, good comparison. Both smokers and those liberated are pariahs and are treated begrudgingly and maybe that is things should be.
NHE wrote:It's ludicrous to think that anyone could really be serious when they propose that restricted blood perfusion in your brain could be harmless.
That’s putting the cart quite a distance before the horse. Historically over 90% of hopeful MS treatments have eventually proved not to have had merit. The theory of CCSVI should have had to have proven itself not to be among those odds EXCEPT for the fact that an
<removed by moderators>
got hold of a wonderous claim that Zamboni had made and put it on the internet to go viral before the claim was substantiated…..to date the original claim which brought the theory of CCSVI to everyone’s attention has yet to be substantiated, which normally would only identify a theory as being of interest.
AFTER conclusively showing that venous obstructions are more common in PWMS than normal it would need to be shown that there actually is a “insufficiency” and that it is capable of causing the noticed symptoms and also that our current abilities to treat it can provide a favorable risk/benefit ratio…….an option that a lot of people don’t seem to be considering is that even if CCSVI proves to be real, if our current ability to treat it is causing more problems than it is solving….we shouldn’t be doing it. In other words, there are other recognized ailments that we aren’t advanced enough at this point to treat with favorable outcomes. Sad but true.
NHE wrote:It's ludicrous to think that anyone could really be serious when they propose that restricted blood perfusion in your brain could be harmless.
Even if we were at the point which would justify answering your question it remains that we don’t know a “normal” venous system from an aberrant venous system. At this point it hasn’t been shown with certainty that a PWMS venous system differs from the norm and your question hints that it’s foolish to even think that a problem isn't obvious when in fact a problem has yet to be shown. No rise in blood pressure, no or fractional rise in pressure in the specific areas where damage is supposedly being caused doesn't denote an obvious problem.
Until a problem is shown the answer is that often times what seems logical isn’t and historical MS research and treatment is a good example of that. At different times in history it seemed logical that arsenic would help PWMS and so they treated them with arsenic and they didn’t document anything but it “SEEMED” PWMS lived longer and fared better. At other times infections seemed to be causing all the curable problems so it “SEEMED” obvious that PWMS would also benefit from treatment with antibiotics and in the lack of good record keeping it “SEEMED” that antibiotics helped PWMS live longer and fare better but in the mid 1950’s it became obvious that well documented studies and peer review were the best hopes of overcoming the fallibilities of relying only on human logic/seems like/what is obvious.
Interestingly, a couple of years ago I worked on a powerpoint project with Dr Kurtzke for a presentation he was doing in Mexico City on the first MS peer review article, considering he was involved with it. Isoniazid had for some time “seemed” beneficial to PWMS, but when objectively studied it proved not to be, despite what had previously “seemed” obvious.
