I don't disagree with the proposal for randomized studies. I have an issue with what's currently being funded. It's lacking the treatment arm necessary to answer the question that you just said needs to be answered.
So of course it's important to know how to evaluate it and of course it's important to know how to image, but in the absence of a treatment arm in the protocols that the MS Society is funding for $2.4 million, we're not going to get an answer to the question. And the real issue is, will treatment of the lesions that we're going to learn how to identify...? And it's very easy to learn how to identify them. If one takes a trip to Ferrara, Dr. Zamboni will be more than happy to teach our techs and doctors how to properly evaluate for the hypertension and the decrease in blood flow. We're not used to these kinds of evaluations in Canada. I run vascular labs and my techs do not know how to do the study because we have not ever evaluated this in our country.
But what needs to happen is a change in paradigm. Let us go over to Ferrara. Let us learn what the proper technique is for evaluating MS, both by ultrasound and MR venography, and bring it back and then put to the test the hypothesis of whether or not treatment is efficacious.
If we don't do that, if we're going to focus on the evaluation of the disease process of the venous drainage over the next two years, we won't get to answer the question for four to five years. If we put the treatment arm with the studies concurrently to what is happening, then it's conceivable that we might have an answer within 18 months or 24 months, which will help the MS population a lot.