Aa
CCSVI – A Huge Breakthrough in MS
PART 1:
HELLO PEOPLE! I posted something similar the other day, but i feel like this is a WAY better article!
I'm so excited about this and think this just might be one of the final peices to the MS puzzle!!!
Hope you enjoy!
xx
This is a Dr or someone writting this
v
V
CCSVI – A Huge Breakthrough in MS
Last modified: 09.02.2010 - 22:51 CET Created: 03.11.2009 - simplex
Written by Ashton Embry PhD for New Pathways Magazine. Nº 57. September/October 2009
In August, I received a message asking me what I thought about CCSVI in multiple sclerosis. I had the same reaction most of you did when you read the title of this article – “What the hell is CCSVI?” A Google search told me it stood for “chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency” and a PubMed search led me to a handful of papers on CCSVI, all authored by an Italian vascular researcher/surgeon named Paolo Zamboni.
The papers provided solid and mind-expanding evidence that an entirely new disease process was part of MS. It soon became clear that the concept of CCVSI had the potential to completely change how we saw MS and how to treat it.
The Italian researchers discovered that, in persons with multiple sclerosis, the veins which acted as the main drainage pathways for blood flowing from the brain back to the heart were substantially narrowed and even blocked. These included the jugular veins, veins along the spinal column, and other veins I had not heard of before such as the azygous vein.
The researchers had never seen these problems in anyone before. Their equipment allowed them to study the blood flow in the veins and to also take pictures of the veins. They found that all the persons with MS they examined had impaired venous drainage from the brain and that such a problem caused the phenomenon of “reflux”. This means the venous blood would flow back toward the brain as it established new pathways around the blocked and narrowed veins. They labeled this compromised venous drainage as CCSVI.
Improper venous drainage is well known in the lower torso of many people (e.g. varicose veins, etc). In some cases, it has been demonstrated that poor venous flow in the lower body can result in iron deposition and associated inflammation. Furthermore, sclerosis and degenerative lesions can occur with the inflammation.
Knowing the problems that poor venous drainage can cause in the lower torso, Zamboni and his co-authors offered the reasonable interpretation that the reflux action of the blood flow into the veins of the brain resulted in iron deposition and inflammation of the blood-brain barrier (BBB). Notably iron deposits have long been documented in MS lesions and it is well known that every MS lesion forms symmetrically around a vein. Such characteristics of MS lesions have never been satisfactorily explained before the Zamboni discoveries.
In the MS literature, there are two opposing hypotheses for how MS autoimmunity begins. The most popular one is that myelin-sensitive T cells are activated through molecular mimicry by a childhood virus such as EBV. The myelin-sensitive T cells then cross the BBB and lead an autoimmune attack on myelin.
The other hypothesis is that the initial event in the MS disease process is a breech of the BBB and the consequent exposure of the central nervous system to the immune system. This uncovering of previously hidden antigens not seen before by the immune system leads to an autoimmune attack on myelin.
With the work of Dr Zamboni, it now appears that the second hypothesis, the breech of the BBB due to impaired venous drainage, is the best explanation for the initiation of MS autoimmunity. In support of this, the researchers found that, of the 109 persons with MS studied, every last one of them had impaired venous drainage. Furthermore, of the 177 control subjects, a group that included persons with other neurological diseases and healthy people of various ages, not a single one had impaired venous drainage from the brain. Such a 100% separation of persons with MS from controls on the basis of impaired venous drainage leaves little doubt that such a phenomenon is very important in the MS disease process.
Another important observation made by Zamboni's team is that the pattern of reflux, that is, the specific pathway the blood uses to flow back to the brain, showed a strong correlation to the type of MS. Persons with PPMS had a different reflux pattern that those with RRMS and SPMS. Furthermore, the PPMS reflux pattern provided a good explanation why this form of MS is more aggressive and problematic.
The other convincing data that demonstrates that CCSVI is a key part of MS are the results from the use of a treatment which relieves the venous drainage problems. This treatment is called „the liberation procedure”. The problematic veins are first identified by venography. Then, balloon angioplasty is used to open up the problematic veins and, in some cases, stents are inserted in non- responding sections. The procedure is relatively non-invasive and is done in day hospital under local anesthesia. Access to the veins is through the left femoral vein in the thigh. Total time in the hospital is usually less than 6 hours and the subject has a compression dressing on for 24 hours.
Dr Zamboni has described the results of the use of the liberation procedure on 51 patients with relapsing-remitting MS. Eighteen of the subjects were treated in emergency with an acute attack and all of them had their symptoms completely resolved within a few hours to a few days. The other subjects had a greatly reduced yearly attack rate and, notably, the only ones experiencing an attack following the procedure were those who had a recurrence of the impaired venous drainage problems. The subjects also reported a dramatic improvement in chronic fatigue. In summary, it would appear that the relief of venous drainage problems results in major improvements of MS symptoms. This is further evidence of the major role that CCSVI plays in MS.
Finally the researchers noted that there was no difference in the severity of venous drainage problems between those using an MS drug and those not on a drug.
Last modified: 09.02.2010 - 22:51 CET Created: 03.11.2009 - simplex
Written by Ashton Embry PhD for New Pathways Magazine. Nº 57. September/October 2009
http://csvi-ms.net/en/content/ccsvi-huge-breakthrough-ms
HELLO PEOPLE! I posted something similar the other day, but i feel like this is a WAY better article!
I'm so excited about this and think this just might be one of the final peices to the MS puzzle!!!
Hope you enjoy!
xx
This is a Dr or someone writting this
v
V
CCSVI – A Huge Breakthrough in MS
Last modified: 09.02.2010 - 22:51 CET Created: 03.11.2009 - simplex
Written by Ashton Embry PhD for New Pathways Magazine. Nº 57. September/October 2009
In August, I received a message asking me what I thought about CCSVI in multiple sclerosis. I had the same reaction most of you did when you read the title of this article – “What the hell is CCSVI?” A Google search told me it stood for “chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency” and a PubMed search led me to a handful of papers on CCSVI, all authored by an Italian vascular researcher/surgeon named Paolo Zamboni.
The papers provided solid and mind-expanding evidence that an entirely new disease process was part of MS. It soon became clear that the concept of CCVSI had the potential to completely change how we saw MS and how to treat it.
The Italian researchers discovered that, in persons with multiple sclerosis, the veins which acted as the main drainage pathways for blood flowing from the brain back to the heart were substantially narrowed and even blocked. These included the jugular veins, veins along the spinal column, and other veins I had not heard of before such as the azygous vein.
The researchers had never seen these problems in anyone before. Their equipment allowed them to study the blood flow in the veins and to also take pictures of the veins. They found that all the persons with MS they examined had impaired venous drainage from the brain and that such a problem caused the phenomenon of “reflux”. This means the venous blood would flow back toward the brain as it established new pathways around the blocked and narrowed veins. They labeled this compromised venous drainage as CCSVI.
Improper venous drainage is well known in the lower torso of many people (e.g. varicose veins, etc). In some cases, it has been demonstrated that poor venous flow in the lower body can result in iron deposition and associated inflammation. Furthermore, sclerosis and degenerative lesions can occur with the inflammation.
Knowing the problems that poor venous drainage can cause in the lower torso, Zamboni and his co-authors offered the reasonable interpretation that the reflux action of the blood flow into the veins of the brain resulted in iron deposition and inflammation of the blood-brain barrier (BBB). Notably iron deposits have long been documented in MS lesions and it is well known that every MS lesion forms symmetrically around a vein. Such characteristics of MS lesions have never been satisfactorily explained before the Zamboni discoveries.
In the MS literature, there are two opposing hypotheses for how MS autoimmunity begins. The most popular one is that myelin-sensitive T cells are activated through molecular mimicry by a childhood virus such as EBV. The myelin-sensitive T cells then cross the BBB and lead an autoimmune attack on myelin.
The other hypothesis is that the initial event in the MS disease process is a breech of the BBB and the consequent exposure of the central nervous system to the immune system. This uncovering of previously hidden antigens not seen before by the immune system leads to an autoimmune attack on myelin.
With the work of Dr Zamboni, it now appears that the second hypothesis, the breech of the BBB due to impaired venous drainage, is the best explanation for the initiation of MS autoimmunity. In support of this, the researchers found that, of the 109 persons with MS studied, every last one of them had impaired venous drainage. Furthermore, of the 177 control subjects, a group that included persons with other neurological diseases and healthy people of various ages, not a single one had impaired venous drainage from the brain. Such a 100% separation of persons with MS from controls on the basis of impaired venous drainage leaves little doubt that such a phenomenon is very important in the MS disease process.
Another important observation made by Zamboni's team is that the pattern of reflux, that is, the specific pathway the blood uses to flow back to the brain, showed a strong correlation to the type of MS. Persons with PPMS had a different reflux pattern that those with RRMS and SPMS. Furthermore, the PPMS reflux pattern provided a good explanation why this form of MS is more aggressive and problematic.
The other convincing data that demonstrates that CCSVI is a key part of MS are the results from the use of a treatment which relieves the venous drainage problems. This treatment is called „the liberation procedure”. The problematic veins are first identified by venography. Then, balloon angioplasty is used to open up the problematic veins and, in some cases, stents are inserted in non- responding sections. The procedure is relatively non-invasive and is done in day hospital under local anesthesia. Access to the veins is through the left femoral vein in the thigh. Total time in the hospital is usually less than 6 hours and the subject has a compression dressing on for 24 hours.
Dr Zamboni has described the results of the use of the liberation procedure on 51 patients with relapsing-remitting MS. Eighteen of the subjects were treated in emergency with an acute attack and all of them had their symptoms completely resolved within a few hours to a few days. The other subjects had a greatly reduced yearly attack rate and, notably, the only ones experiencing an attack following the procedure were those who had a recurrence of the impaired venous drainage problems. The subjects also reported a dramatic improvement in chronic fatigue. In summary, it would appear that the relief of venous drainage problems results in major improvements of MS symptoms. This is further evidence of the major role that CCSVI plays in MS.
Finally the researchers noted that there was no difference in the severity of venous drainage problems between those using an MS drug and those not on a drug.
Last modified: 09.02.2010 - 22:51 CET Created: 03.11.2009 - simplex
Written by Ashton Embry PhD for New Pathways Magazine. Nº 57. September/October 2009
http://csvi-ms.net/en/content/ccsvi-huge-breakthrough-ms
I, personally, see no reason at all to delete this thread. The discussion has been good, and some questions arose as to how legal the wholesale copying was, how poorly it was referenced, and how valid the statements were. Those are all things that can and should come up in debate.
I checked out the appropriateness of keeping the information " as is" with the Moderators of MedHelp. As someone who has written papers referencing other's statements and works and who has some training in the legal field of Intellectual Property, I was also very concerned about how legal and appropriate it is to do this. When I started with MedHelp 3 years ago such posts were always deleted.
My answer from MedHelp is that it is "okay." They acknowledge that it does involve copyright infringement, but that so many people do it that they can't control it anymore. They ask that any statements copied word-for-word into a post be accompanied by also stating
1) Who said it
2) Where it was found - newspaper online, journal, press release
3) Date the original was written or posted
4) And the address to the online site.
So, we have an answer as to whether it is "allowed". It is "allowed", but only because it is impossible to police. We all should be repsonsible enough to give full info about our copying so that the ownership of the writing is clear. That is only ethical and responsible. In truth we should not be copying anything without the authors' permission, but that is so routinely ignored in many of the forums that MedHelp has given up trying to police it.
The attempts by ess and sllowe were aimed at staying in line with what we had been instructed earlier by MedHelp. Initially we weren't even allowed to print online addressess or URLs, but that also was uniformly ignored, though it remains forbidden in MedHelp's "Terms of Use" that we all have agreed to.
None of this was an attempt to censor or harass, but to respect the legal rights of others. We're all sorry it seemed to get heated. CCSVI has been discussed in many threads, almost all in a positive light and with interest. It is clearly not a forbidden topic.
I would, however,think that when someone posts such theories they should be prepared to have the weaknesses and inconsistencies of the statements pointed out and rebutted. Such comments are not attacks on the poster, but should be healthy discussion. If you ONLY want people to agree with you, then you should mention this in the original post.
Th Co-CL's (Myself, Lulu, ess, Shell) are all clued in to this change in MedHelp's attitude. this should not come up again.
Quix
I checked out the appropriateness of keeping the information " as is" with the Moderators of MedHelp. As someone who has written papers referencing other's statements and works and who has some training in the legal field of Intellectual Property, I was also very concerned about how legal and appropriate it is to do this. When I started with MedHelp 3 years ago such posts were always deleted.
My answer from MedHelp is that it is "okay." They acknowledge that it does involve copyright infringement, but that so many people do it that they can't control it anymore. They ask that any statements copied word-for-word into a post be accompanied by also stating
1) Who said it
2) Where it was found - newspaper online, journal, press release
3) Date the original was written or posted
4) And the address to the online site.
So, we have an answer as to whether it is "allowed". It is "allowed", but only because it is impossible to police. We all should be repsonsible enough to give full info about our copying so that the ownership of the writing is clear. That is only ethical and responsible. In truth we should not be copying anything without the authors' permission, but that is so routinely ignored in many of the forums that MedHelp has given up trying to police it.
The attempts by ess and sllowe were aimed at staying in line with what we had been instructed earlier by MedHelp. Initially we weren't even allowed to print online addressess or URLs, but that also was uniformly ignored, though it remains forbidden in MedHelp's "Terms of Use" that we all have agreed to.
None of this was an attempt to censor or harass, but to respect the legal rights of others. We're all sorry it seemed to get heated. CCSVI has been discussed in many threads, almost all in a positive light and with interest. It is clearly not a forbidden topic.
I would, however,think that when someone posts such theories they should be prepared to have the weaknesses and inconsistencies of the statements pointed out and rebutted. Such comments are not attacks on the poster, but should be healthy discussion. If you ONLY want people to agree with you, then you should mention this in the original post.
Th Co-CL's (Myself, Lulu, ess, Shell) are all clued in to this change in MedHelp's attitude. this should not come up again.
Quix
Rarely in my 3 years here have I seen such disregard for our purpose.
Our community is filled with the most supportive, education driven, well-meaning bunch of folks we call family - rarely do you have that in this environment through an online community. And, we all benefit from each other in so many ways.
Surely we can debate as we learn, but clearly this should not go on this way, or in this manner. We are all adults afterall.
If anyone has concern over this post, please feel free to bring it up to anyone of us CLs and we will work on resolving.
Thanks,
Shell
Our community is filled with the most supportive, education driven, well-meaning bunch of folks we call family - rarely do you have that in this environment through an online community. And, we all benefit from each other in so many ways.
Surely we can debate as we learn, but clearly this should not go on this way, or in this manner. We are all adults afterall.
If anyone has concern over this post, please feel free to bring it up to anyone of us CLs and we will work on resolving.
Thanks,
Shell
As you said "We can debate their significance all we want," Really? It does not appear so on this subject.
If sammys post is illegal it should be deleted.
If sammys post is illegal it should be deleted.
Everyone here is capable of reading the information and coming to their own conclusions.
Afterall, we have no cure and no effective treatment for MS, so at this time, I believe we need to keep an open mind to all treatments available.
Any medical doctor doing research on the treatment of MS surely has more knowledge than any of us.
Afterall, we have no cure and no effective treatment for MS, so at this time, I believe we need to keep an open mind to all treatments available.
Any medical doctor doing research on the treatment of MS surely has more knowledge than any of us.
SERIOUSLY, can you please just take it off! This is just embarrassing now! It's just a ruined post now, if you know what i mean. I has turned into a debate on a totally different subject. I would apreciate it if you removed it...thanks :(
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Multiple Sclerosis Community
Top Neurology Answerers
Australia
ON
Queensland, Australia
Queen Creek, AZ
Find out how beta-blocker eye drops show promising results for acute migraine relief.
In this special Missouri Medicine report, doctors examine advances in diagnosis and treatment of this devastating and costly neurodegenerative disease.
Here are 12 simple – and fun! – ways to boost your brainpower.
Discover some of the causes of dizziness and how to treat it.
Discover the common causes of headaches and how to treat headache pain.
Two of the largest studies on Alzheimer’s have yielded new clues about the disease
