But researchers said it's hard for doctors to even know what they're looking for on blood vessel scans, and whether anything that looks strange could be playing a part in MS symptoms.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/ ... NV20110714
But researchers said it's hard for doctors to even know what they're looking for on blood vessel scans, and whether anything that looks strange could be playing a part in MS symptoms.
Dr. PonecAfter Zamboni's initial findings were published, hopeful MS patients started requesting blood-vessel opening procedures, and a few doctors became well known in the MS community for being willing to perform them.
So why should Zamboni be taken serious? Didn't he use Doppler???MegansMom wrote:Again, focusing on studies based on Doppler ( operator dependent ) studies gives a very biased result that is not good. It shuts the door rather than asking for more study.
A better gauge to measure CCSVI AND IT'S TREATMENT is Dr David Hubbard's objective before and after study of the brain perfusion done with fMRI BOLD.
fMRI BOLD cannot be altered. It's much like a "thinking" pet scan done before venoplasty and after ONLY IT USES OXYGEN NOT GLUCOSE.
It clearly shows the increase in the oxygen level to the brain TISSUE during "thinking" AFTER VENOPLASTY. Objective Evidence of increased perfusion!
One must look with a critical eye at operator technique based studies ( like those cited in this article) especially when the sponsors have support from pharmaceutical companies.
These "do they have CCSVI?" tests are pointless if they are not venoplasty or IVUS based.
DOPPLER TESTING IS NOT RELIABLE ! THE GOLD STANDARD IS VENOGRAM!
Too many patients have been tested, deemed negative and then with further testing and venogram HAD CCSVI!
This Reuters writer has not done her homework. Wait until Dr Oz shows the Montel Williams CCSVI testing and treatment/procedure. After that the dam will burst.
CCSVI may ultimately not be the whole cause of MS. But it does exist and it does need treatment. Treatment does need to get honed and research needs funding. PERIOD!
scorpion wrote:So why should Zamboni be taken serious? Didn't he use Doppler???MegansMom wrote:Again, focusing on studies based on Doppler ( operator dependent ) studies gives a very biased result that is not good. It shuts the door rather than asking for more study.
A better gauge to measure CCSVI AND IT'S TREATMENT is Dr David Hubbard's objective before and after study of the brain perfusion done with fMRI BOLD.
fMRI BOLD cannot be altered. It's much like a "thinking" pet scan done before venoplasty and after ONLY IT USES OXYGEN NOT GLUCOSE.
It clearly shows the increase in the oxygen level to the brain TISSUE during "thinking" AFTER VENOPLASTY. Objective Evidence of increased perfusion!
One must look with a critical eye at operator technique based studies ( like those cited in this article) especially when the sponsors have support from pharmaceutical companies.
These "do they have CCSVI?" tests are pointless if they are not venoplasty or IVUS based.
DOPPLER TESTING IS NOT RELIABLE ! THE GOLD STANDARD IS VENOGRAM!
Too many patients have been tested, deemed negative and then with further testing and venogram HAD CCSVI!
This Reuters writer has not done her homework. Wait until Dr Oz shows the Montel Williams CCSVI testing and treatment/procedure. After that the dam will burst.
CCSVI may ultimately not be the whole cause of MS. But it does exist and it does need treatment. Treatment does need to get honed and research needs funding. PERIOD!
I've been using Dragon NaturallySpeaking for about four and half years now. It's a godsend, as my right arm and hand are about as useful as a salami.Lyon wrote:How long have you been using voice recognition software Marc??
Scorp i thought you might like this link!scorpion wrote: I have found proof that the earth is only 1,000 years old. This is conclusive.
a. Dr. Thomas Barnes, a professor in physics says the earth’s magnetic field indicates the earth to be only a few 1,000 years old.
Mr. Success, [you know how much I admire you]..... But.....MrSuccess wrote:The good old standby - the MRI is estimated to be 98% accurate . You can miss alot in 2%.
And that is NOT .... operator dependant .
It just IS.
Have I made my point ?
And Marc ..... [ you know how much I admire you ]..... but .... really ....
that .... " I spoke to a guy at NIH .... who said ...... " is wearing a bit thin with MR.Success ........ you never say WHO ........ but the CCSVI doctors are always named![]()
Have I made another point ?
Mr.Success
Glad you enjoyed my presentation, Cece, and thanks for the kind words. I too am sorry that we didn't get a chance to meet.Cece wrote:I am disappointed to hear fMRI is finicky like that.
I saw in Dr. Ponec's presentation today that they are expanding their fMRI study.
Also, Marc takes excellent pictures, gives an excellent speech, and there was something about a groin, a heart and a brain that made me laugh. I regret never managing to say hello.