Given that CCSVI explains why PPMS differs from RRMS, as well as the occurrence of previously inexplicable features of MS lesions (e.g. venocentricity, iron deposits), CCSVI becomes a very compelling explanation for the initiation of CNS autoimmunity which drives MS. Further research is needed to confirm this.
Perhaps the most important question that remains is “what is the ultimate cause of the venous drainage problems?” Zamboni and colleagues did not offer any explanations/speculations on this. Hopefully, this question will be the subject of an intensive research effort. It is worth noting that, given adequate vitamin D in childhood prevents MS in most cases, vitamin D supply must have a substantial effect on the venous drainage system.
This new understanding of the MS disease process makes the use of the recommended nutritional strategies even more imperative. These strategies enhance blood flow, strengthen the BBB, counteract autoimmune reactions and quite possibly improve venous drainage from the brain. Overall, the Zamboni work provides further insight into why nutritional strategies work so well for many people.
In answer to the question in the title of this article, I am convinced that CCSVI is a huge breakthrough for MS. Correction of this problem with a relatively simple procedure may well turn out to be a very effective, long lasting, drug- free treatment for MS at the time of diagnosis. However, a great deal of research and clinical testing will have to happen before CCSVI is widely accepted as a key part of MS and the liberation procedure becomes standard procedure. In the past, non-drug treatments for MS have been marginalized, mainly for financial reasons. I predict it will be a long, hard fight to get the treatment of CCSVI from the laboratory to the clinic.
It is so tempting to be excited, but the evidence if far from convincing. There is still a lot of work to be done in this field. And if I understand this correctly, even Dr. Zamboni himself is not making claims that CCSVI is the CURE for MS.
I also think I read that his wife, even though she has improved since the procedure, is still taking her DMD as prescribed.
The author of the article you quote is well known for his diet and nutrition cure of MS, which according to his reports is what cured his son. He steps into the larger unknown with his thoughts here - they are largely unsubstantiated. Just one example " given adequate vitamin D in childhood prevents MS in most cases, vitamin D supply must have a substantial effect on the venous drainage system." What does he base this on? We know there MIGHT be a link between D and MS, but that has been studied intensively and still not proven.
As for the conspiracy theory - as much as I know the dark side of human nature, I absolutely refuse to believe that a cure for MS is being blocked by pharmaceutical companies that arer more worried about their profits.
It looks like CCSVI plays into the larger MS picture, somehow. How it fits, though is still a big question. In the meantime while this is all playing out, everyone should stay the course with the treatment they are on. The DMDs are our best proven treatment as of now.
I think they've done further research on the impaired venous reflux phenomenon, and found it wasn't a 100% division between MS patients and controls. Some MS patients do not have blocked neck veins. This isn't to say that that's not a factor, just that it looks like there's more to it than just CCSVI.
CCSVI is still in the hypothesis stage. That means, they don't know how much or why but are tantalized into putting forth theories. This has NOT by any mean been shown to be a cure of any sort. In fact, the "treatments" they have tried have not lasted long, per Dr. Zamboni's own reports.
The much larger study out of Buffalo did NOT in any way support Zamoboni's finding that 100% of MSers suffer from CCSVI. Indeed, they found only 55% had such stricture or venous insufficiency and that it was found in 25% of controls. This is a FAR cry from 100% and 0%. 55% is hardly even very exciting, in my mind. Claiming that those 55% might have been misdiagnosed is silly. As I understood it, the researchers in Buffalo reviewed the patient's file to see that they were likely to have MS as their correct diagnosis. Overall, looking at MS Clinics across the country, the incidence of misdiagnosis is about 10%. The additional review of the patient's files would have likely lowered the chance of misdiagnosis.
It is far too early to be jumping on this as the answer to the problem of effective treatment for MS. Our current knowledge of the treatment for CCSVI shows a couple things. Use of balloon angioplasty appears to lose its effectiveness within months in a large number of people. This is a highly invasive procedure and not one you would want to have regularly.
The use of a stent is not at all ready for prime time. At Stanford the stents were associated with some unacceptable side effects, including one instance of the migration of the stent into the heart which necessitated immediate open heart surgery. Veins are highly stretchable compared to arteries. They swell and contract depending on the volume of blood at any one time. Doctors cannot just transfer the technology of arterial stents to the veins.
I also do not believe that there is any conspiracy at play here, nor is there likely to be. The claim that the medical profession with or without the help of Big Pharma has hidden the truth of cures for disease from the public is an old one dating back half a century.
I think the whole topic is being overblown by careless science media who fail to report the whole story and being picked up and prematurely "hailed" by desperate people hoping for a cure. . We are pretty far (years) from showing 1) that CCSVI is truly a major player in MS, 2) what role it plays, causative or resultant, 3) that relief of the problem can truly affect the course of the disease, 4) knowing what treatments are most effective and most safe, 5) knowing how long those treatments will have a lasting effect, 6) Knowing how to screen for the problem and 7) knowing if the problem can be prevented by any means.
Zamboni's studies were quite flawed and I doubt that their results will be replicated when the science method is applied rigorously. Still it needs to be done - and as quickly as possible. That is how we find out stuff and separate the real stuff from the promising, but otherwise unhelpful things.
I am not a nay-sayer, just very doubtful about all of this. As I said in my journal, some months ago, there are a lot of things we DO know about MS and my mind cannot put CCSVI into line with those things. I now add onto that doubt the underwhelming results by the group in Buffalo, despite their premature and overly excited press release the day before the intial finding were revealed.
I do not see that CCSVI is a huge breakthrough.....yet. It's just too early.
This is just my view of the issue.
We should note that this article was published February 2, of this year, before the less impressive results of the Buffalo group were released. Zamboni's 100% and 0% were not replicated - at all.
well i sure hope they fine tune it and its the cure!! but.....
i read the other day something about oxygen- they put you in a tube and decompress you - and there was some excitement about it- being good
for us the oxygen helps with our cells- blood everything! but we'l see
I for one am not signing up for this cure. Nor eating 7 roundworms.
Aw, come on, Alex, just try two.
My brother is having this procedure done this week in Philadelphia if he qualifies ( it will help him possibly) I will let you know how it goes- wish him luck!
Hi Healthnut - I see you have posted a separate thread so I will respond to this over there rather than add on to this one.
Hi, thanks for your post! I will be looking forward to hearing his results in the future. Best of luck to him and i hope it will be a future cure. Thanks...oh and p.s can you come back to this post to let me know the results as i don't really look on the forum all that much :)
It is interesting reading articles that is written about CCSVI by different authors. Each has their own interpretation. That is why I appreciate the internet. We can draw our own conclusions.
I believe that CCSVI will prove to be beneficial in understanding MS. Research into MS has become stagnant. CCSVI may not prove out to be the end-all, but I think it will reinvigorate looking into an area that needs to be explored. I've long thought that MS needs to be looked at outside the box which may prove that what we think we know about MS may be incorrect. Maybe not all aspects, but perhaps a good many of them.
Really, there is very little known about MS with any level of certainty. I'm not convinced it is an autoimmune reaction at all.
healthnut - I wish your brother luck. Please let us know how he does.