Patients reasons for not publishing negative results may include embarrassment about the money spent in the procedure without effect and the negative reaction they expect from other people with MS. Caution has been recommended regarding patients self-reports found on the web.Scientists and physicians transmitted their arguments regarding CCSVI inadequately, especially after the initial rising of the hypothesis. Their communication was characterized by an excessive hesitation and a lack of clear statements, as opposed to CCSVI proponents, who "won the communication battle, at least in the early rounds." A positive effect of the important media coverage may be that it forces the world of medical research to be self-critical and give appropriate responses to the questions that globalization of the theory raises, especially among people with MS. Reception in Canada
While reasons are not completely clear, the CCSVI theory was received differently in Canada than other places. The public interest and number of media appearances were much greater than elsewhere, including Italy, and debate has been heated regarding funding. As an example, by the end of 2009, a public petition to the country health authorities in support of the "liberation treatment" had received over 17,000 signatures.
The expert panel was created by the end of 2010 together between the CIHR and the MS Society of Canada. It has been proposed that the creation of this expert panel was partly directed to cope with the high levels of social pressure the CCSVI theory had raised and at the same time try to maintain a scientific perspective in the funding and investigation of CCSVI. The main task of the panel was to monitor the results of the ongoing studies in the relationship between CCSVI and MS and recommend the funding of a clinical trial in case that there was evidence of a true relationship between the two. In 2011, the Canadian federal government announced that they would fund clinical trials of the procedure to widen the veins since CIHR considered that evidence of venous abnormalities in MS was enough for small treatment trials. It has been proposed that the recommendation to fund phase I and II trials instead of a big study was a compromise between the high levels of social and political pressure and the low level of evidence on the theory.Two qualitative studies have investigated the motives and experiences of Canadian patients traveling abroad to get the "liberation procedure".