CCSVI research is playing out about as one would have predicted with neurologist-led association studies finding basically no CCSVI in anyone. The Italians didn’t even try to pretend they were objective and simply had an “expert” panel negate all positive findings. 

Regarding BNAC research, I lost all faith and trust in their work about 2 years ago when they published the Neurology paper on their association work. The paper and accompanying press release had no connection with the reality of their data and their huge anti-CCSVI bias was readily apparent. The essay I wrote at the time is at http://www.direct-ms.org/sites/default/files/Embry%20Buffaloed%20April%2019%202011.pdf  .

 Direct-MS did give $400,000 to BNAC for their association and treatment studies (2010, early 2011) and we did this because they were doing what we thought needed to be done. Our BIG mistake is that we thought they were objective researchers and did not have an anti-CCSVI bias like all other neurologists. Once that paper and press release were available in March 2011 it was apparent BNAC researchers have no semblance of objectivity and we have not given them a penny since. They are actually the worst of the worst because they pretended to be objective whereas all other drug funded MS researchers made no bones about their anti-CCSVI bias.

 Here we are 2 years later with a press release and YouTube video on their findings of their small CCSVI treatment trial. I can only assume, given their past performance, that their current press release is mainly more anti-CCSVI propaganda which has little relationship with the real data. I would further note that this is the first time a press release appeared well in advance of an ANN talk rather than on the same day. Furthermore, the obnoxious video is also a first and underscores their major effort to discredit CCSVI treatment which is a real threat to the pharmaceutical industry which by chance funds and enriches BNAC MS researchers very generously.

 The bottom line is I would not trust BNAC researchers to give me the correct time of day if it was not in their financial interest to do so. We will have to wait until the data are published to see what the real story is about the Premise trial. Even then it may be difficult to get any real understanding of what they found.

 In the long run it will be clinical trials such as that being conducted by Gary Siskin that will provide us with a realistic appraisal of the value of CCSVI treatment. Maybe it will be of value and maybe not. However I would never look to BNAC to provide any semblance of objectivity when it comes to answering this key question. They are firmly anti-CCSVI and I expect they will continue to do what they must to discredit CCSVI and its treatment.