I know that the neurological community is purveyed as being skeptical. Not that they object to the fact that this is an important issue to be addressed, but we recognize that an anecdote is not strong evidence in medicine any longer. There are accepted ways to analyze benefit in any treatment.
One of the reasons neurologists have a concern--and they have a concern--is what Dr. Zamboni published, not what the media has been saying or the stories that we have heard. Dr. Zamboni published results in 65 cases. There were relapsing-remitting patients, secondary progressive patients, and primary progressive patients. His results, after 18 months... He indicated in his paper that the relapsing-remitting patients, if the vein stayed open, got some benefit. But those patients whose veins collapsed did not get a benefit. The secondary progressive patients did not get a benefit; the primary progressive patients did not get a benefit.