It's really unfortunate that this hypothesis has become publicized and hyped. It's important that science be able to progress, and sometimes progress involves s

It's really unfortunate that this hypothesis has become publicized and hyped. It's important that science be able to progress, and sometimes progress involves significant backpedaling. In this case, we have a slight epidemiologic association: P(VI|MS)>0 The probability of venous insufficiency given that you have MS is nonzero. But we're left without most of the remainder of Bayes' formula - at least to my recollection. Therefore, I can't even comment on the strength of this epidemiological association. This is ignoring the other more critical concerns that could be resolved by prospective cohort analyses. Randomized clinical trials with sham as a control could also be done, if you were pretty convinced that VI were really causing MS. I'd like to see more data, to be sure - but I really would have liked more data before people submitted to remarkably invasive procedures such as this.