Neurology Today: Shifting Position on CCSVI

While still calling for more study rather than treatment, stressing risks (known to be low) rather than potential benefits, and ignoring vascular specialists who say CCSVI must be mostly congenital (rather than "possibly caused by MS"), at least this article is more fact-based than others in the past and shows that the neurological community is no longer automatically pooh-poohing the CCSVI theory: http://journals.lww.com/neurotodayonline/Fulltext/2010/06170/New_Theory_on_CCSVI_and_MS_Needs_Further_Study,.13.aspx.  As one MSer commented in the CCSVI Facebook site:

First, you know, a new theory is attacked as absurd; then it is admitted to be true, but obvious and insignificant; finally it is seen to be so important that its adversaries claim that they themselves discovered it.
-James,William