marcstck wrote:To my mind, the numbers released by Buffalo are solid, and if an 80% correlation between CDMS and CCSVI was actually found, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops. Buffalo is extremely hard up for funding, and an 80% correlation would have opened up many financial spigots."
That is the question - if they did find that 80% of patients with advanced MS symptoms presented with CCSVI, as was reported by the Canada Press reporter, why was it not in the press release.
"I attended a fundraiser for the Buffalo study about two weeks before the results were announced, and told some of the principles there that I expected a scientifically valid study to show approximately 60% correlation between MS and CCSVI, along with a substantial number of healthy subjects also displaying vascular abnormalities. I based this assumption on what could reasonably be expected when a vascular system that had never before been fully examined was finally looked at, in conjunction with all that we know about MS. The people I made this statement to initially looked surprised, and then assured me that I would be very satisfied when the results were released."
Hmmm, you must be quite satisfied with the reported results then.
"Hope is a great thing, but it should never eclipse reason.
If you are implying that my post above was unreasonable, I am quite offended. I was merely presenting support for another view point. It was because of my hope that I even bothered - it didn't cause me to make up details.
Teresa, my post in no way was meant to offend you. I was only trying to clarify things, and if you took offense, I am sincerely sorry.
The 80% number was reported by one reporter in Canada. A statistical analysis of the study breakdown does not support the 80% number. The 280 MS subjects are called clinically definite multiple sclerosis (CDMS), a definition does not include CIS. The press release states clearly that there were three groups of subjects, those with MS, those with CIS and other neurologic diseases, and healthy test subjects. I don't believe there were any misplaced commas, and it seems clear to me that there were 280 CD MS subjects, 161 healthy subjects, and 59 subjects that were CIS and OND.
As for Dr. Ziv's response, I believe he misunderstood the question.
And as for my satisfaction with the results of the trial, I find them extremely encouraging. I've long been a proponent of the CCSVI concept, although I have maintained a healthy skepticism throughout. Other than TIMS, the blog I maintain was one of the first places on the net to cover CCSVI. The results of the Buffalo study have convinced me that CCSVI plays a part in at a substantial subset of MS patients. The results look scientifically valid.
I think it's clear that the 80% number refers to higher EDSS MS patients. If it included all CDMS patients, there would have had to have been an almost equal number of CIS patients recruited, and there are no indications of that whatsoever.
This is all just opinion, of course, and surely not meant to offend anybody.