DMSG again 

The reference to the DMSG, Deutsche Multiple Sklrose Gesselschaft, is problematic. It's a primary source. Is it independent? From what? Organizations form as patient organizations, often, but as they develop, they find sources of funding, often from drug companies, and can end up advocating the interests of drug companies instead of their original constituency. This is not any kind of charge against DMSG directly (maybe someone who can search German sources can tell us more), but such a source does not necessarily stack up well against standard secondary sources, and the Medline article is pretty good and balanced. The headline there is telling: "Endovascular Treatment of Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency Safe, May Provide Benefit in MS." Obviously, Dr. Jung was correct, such a claim is overstated, if taken as proven, the study was inadequate for that.

There are two parts to this article: the alleged syndrome and a proposed treatment which proceeds from the hypothesis regarding the syndrome. They are separate, and, to some extent, the article confuses them.

I can say this about DMSG and CCVI: if I had MS, or someone I loved had MS, I'd be very excited about CVVI and the implications. That is far from saying that I'd jump for invasive surgery, and caution is exactly appropriate. But having MS is no fun, either, and one would think that information about CCVI and the research going on with respect to it would be prominent on the DMSG home page. The link from the article does not go to a specific page about CCVI, it seems that it might be pointing to a video, but I can't see a translation of that. I was unable to find a page on the DMSG site that justifies the claim in the article. Accordingly, I'll be removing it.

However, I did find on the site a forum post that led me to this: [http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/180802.php Stanford University Halts CCSVI Treatments After Two Serious Incidents]. Cause for concern, of course. There is [http: //www.examiner.com/x-32750-Lima-Multiple-Sclerosis-Examiner~y2010m1d6-CCSVI-Stanford-University-and-the-University-of-Buffalo CCSVI, Stanford University, University of Buffalo and University of British Columbia], as well, about that Stanford report and more.

It's very important to distinguish between the syndrome hypothesis and any attempted treatment. The problem at Stanford has to do with treatment only.

There is a very clear report from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, dated Feb. 9, 2010. This is also a primary source, but should give a more complete view of a patient advocacy group on CCVI.