"As I said, I've also seen the same numbers from several other sources...[/quote]
I saw Dr. Embry's paper. I believe that he only has access to publicly available information, right? In their Feb. press release, the BNAC addressed the breakdown as follows:
"[t]he first 500 patients, both adults and children, were grouped
based on their diagnosis: MS, clinically isolated syndrome (CIS)
and "other neurologic diseases" (OND), in addition to healthy
This seems to be a classic grammatical example of how use of a comma before the last item of a list should be mandatory ( a pet peeve of mine). This sentence is ambiguous and can be read as meaning that (i) the CIS and OND patients have been grouped together in a study group (in which case they would probably make up the group having 59 patients), or (ii) the CIS and OND groups are separate, and the OND group is the last item in the list. If (ii) is correct, it is not clear where CIS falls in the study groups.
I know that this seems very nitpicky, but analyzing this sort of thing, especially in the scientific context, is sort of what I do for a living. Plus, of course, I'm really hoping for an interpretation of the study that shows the highest correlation between MS and CCSVI.
I also note that BNAC listed the following in its criteria for study subjects in the CTEVD study:
- Be an adult or child with confirmed MS
-Adult MS must be supported by fulfillment of the McDonald criteria
- Pediatric MS must be supported by fulfillment of Krupp and International criteria
- Have a disease course of Clinically Isolated Syndrome (CIS), Relapse-Remitting (RR), Secondary-Progressive (SP), or Primary-Progressive (PP) supported by the Lublin criteria
You could infer from this that an adult or child with confirmed MS could have any of CIS, RR, SP, or PP. That is, a patient with CIS would be considered in the MS study group.
Just my thoughts,