Cece wrote:frodo wrote:Somebody said in another thread that most controls were familiars of people with MS. This would explain the higher-than-normal prevalence of CCSVI among them.
That's one theory, anyway...we don't know how many of the controls were family members of people with m.s., so I can't agree with saying most were, just that some were. I personally have heard of only one, the father of someone here who served as a control while he himself served in the m.s. group...anything beyond that is guesswork! Which, granted, a lot of this is.
It's odd if Buffalo used family members to make up their control group when MS and apparently CCSVI is hereditary to a degree. I would like to see the data on the controls after excluding all family members of MSers!!
Perhaps they were doing it so that they could see if there was a famial link? Perhaps there were two poulations. It doesn't make any sense though I suppose to design the study in this way and then not to have mentioned it in the press release..