Just consider coloring with white, gray, and black crayons.

I read a noted MD saying that CCSVI existance and/or treatment, is not 100%, thus, should not be allowed treated w/o scientific research support. Are any currently accepted MS drugs in any market, 100% anything? Just on the pros and cons of having CCSVI in MS treated, odds are better on CCSVI treated vs any drug.

Negatives on the CCSVI concept are most commonly used as a false argument from naysayers. These negatives are deaths. Consider how and by who, did the deaths happen. Those families still matter, too.

CCSVI pros: major to minimal improvement in many MS symptoms

                   whole treatment cost less than drugs

                   discontinue ineffective drug use

                   some improve MS symptom quickly, some improve with more time

                   return to a more productive, fullfilling life

                   rarely any negatives occur

CCSVI cons: no improvements in MS symptoms

                    repeat procedures for restrenosis

                    denial of proper care when needed (occurs more in Canada than US)

                    improper blood thinner therapys

                    very rarely surgical complications

I know all possiblities are not included in the above. I've had 3 CCSVI treatments w/o noted MS improvements. I researched a long time, don't regret any of my decisions on my health care, and would do it all again. I do not know any 100%'s, but I know I have no politics nor financial incentives nor community status to sway my health care decisions. Plus, surgical interventions have a clearer scientific course and a better and/or definite understanding than any of pharmaceuticals do.