80% for CDMS - It's Real

A forum to discuss Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency and its relationship to Multiple Sclerosis.

Postby TFau » Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:17 am

Could someone please tell me what NMO stands for?
User avatar
TFau
Family Elder
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:00 pm

Postby pegmegrund » Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:34 am

Sure! NMO (from wikipedia):

Devic's disease, also known as Devic's syndrome or neuromyelitis optica (NMO), is an autoimmune, inflammatory disorder in which a person's own immune system attacks the optic nerves and spinal cord.


It can resemble MS, especially for those of us who have mainly spinal lesions...
User avatar
pegmegrund
Family Elder
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 4:00 pm

Postby TFau » Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:41 am

Thanks pegmegrund!

Interesting that the control group specifically says that it includes familial controls. It will be interesting to see how the occurence of CCSVI is distributed amongst the control group.
User avatar
TFau
Family Elder
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:00 pm

Postby Lyon » Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:10 am

..
Last edited by Lyon on Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby ozarkcanoer » Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:20 am

Sotiris,

Nice chart !!! It gives some great perspective on all the numbers that have been flying around.

ozarkcanoer
User avatar
ozarkcanoer
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:00 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

Postby Lyon » Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:21 am

..
Last edited by Lyon on Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby Squeakycat » Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:52 am

Sotiris wrote:After taking into account the significant digits of the percentages in the buffalo press release and with some assumptions, the raw data should be as follows:
Image


I see you have assumed the 38% for CIS, but why not put the MS group at 80% based on the same article noting the 38%?

Is there something specific in the original press release that says you can't do that?
User avatar
Squeakycat
Family Elder
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Yehud, Israel

Postby Sotiris » Sat Feb 20, 2010 9:18 am

Squeakycat wrote:I see you have assumed the 38% for CIS, but why not put the MS group at 80% based on the same article noting the 38%?

Is there something specific in the original press release that says you can't do that?
Because the "about 80%" refers to "those with more advanced symptoms of the disease" and we have no clue about how many they are.
User avatar
Sotiris
Family Elder
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Greece

Postby Billmeik » Sat Feb 20, 2010 9:29 am

Quote:


Yes.

-------Original Message-------

From: Bill Meikle
Date: 2/14/2010 10:53:10 AM
To: rzivadinov@bnac.net
Subject: cdms and cis numbers...

Hi Dr.Zivadinov

So the CBC reporter compared the rates for CIS subjects to "those with more advanced symptoms of the disease".

would that be CIS vs CDMS?

Thanks.



so there's our answer, for people who actually have ms it's 80%! Thank you dr ziv if you are reading this!!




hmm that table is very nice graphically but at least the top number where it says ms and puts 56% next too it is probably wrong. Those numbers are for the whole group including cis.

I am pondering writing dr ziv AGAIAN and asking for clarification AGAIN but wasting busy people's time isn't on. What part about the above
exchange is unclear? How would a new question have to be worded to make the disinformation stop?
User avatar
Billmeik
Family Elder
 
Posts: 694
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:00 pm

Questions for Dr. Zivadinov

Postby Squeakycat » Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:14 am

@ Billmeik

Two important questions I still have about the data are:

1. What percentage of the Healthy Controls were relatives of the MS patients (and therefore a group where you would in fact expect to find some number of people with CCSVI who are undiagnosed MS)?

2. Are the RIS included with CDMS, or CIS in terms of percentage CCSVI in the first 500 tested?
User avatar
Squeakycat
Family Elder
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Yehud, Israel

Postby Sotiris » Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:21 am

Billmeik wrote:
Quote:


Yes.

-------Original Message-------

From: Bill Meikle
Date: 2/14/2010 10:53:10 AM
To: rzivadinov@bnac.net
Subject: cdms and cis numbers...

Hi Dr.Zivadinov

So the CBC reporter compared the rates for CIS subjects to "those with more advanced symptoms of the disease".

would that be CIS vs CDMS?

Thanks.



so there's our answer, for people who actually have ms it's 80%! Thank you dr ziv if you are reading this!!




hmm that table is very nice graphically but at least the top number where it says ms and puts 56% next too it is probably wrong. Those numbers are for the whole group including cis.

I am pondering writing dr ziv AGAIAN and asking for clarification AGAIN but wasting busy people's time isn't on. What part about the above
exchange is unclear? How would a new question have to be worded to make the disinformation stop?

People with more advanced symptoms of the disease are for sure CDMS so the answer of Dr. Zivadinov holds true. If the MS group was divided into two subgroups, CIS and CDMS with 38% CCSVI and 80% CCSVI respectively, then we should have 158 persons with CIS (60 of them with CCSVI) and 122 CDMS (98 with CCSVI) which is wrong acc. to Dr. Zivadinov's presentation in Hamilton, where he states that the CIS population for the whole study consists of 50 persons.
But if you can ask Dr. Zivadinov again, you could ask if the CIS group is a part of the 280 people with MS or a part of the rest 59 people. You could also ask to how many people the 80% figure (of people with more advanced symptoms ) refers.
User avatar
Sotiris
Family Elder
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Greece

Postby Squeakycat » Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:34 am

@ Sotiris

This breakdown works, but does perhaps unrealistically assume all 50 people with CIS in the study are included in the first 500.


People CCSVI CCSVI
MS 280 224 80%
HC 161 36 22%
CIS 50 19 38%
OND 9 0 0%
Total 500 279 56%
User avatar
Squeakycat
Family Elder
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Yehud, Israel

Postby Lyon » Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:11 am

..
Last edited by Lyon on Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby Cece » Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:56 pm

Billmeik wrote:I am pondering writing dr ziv AGAIAN and asking for clarification AGAIN but wasting busy people's time isn't on. What part about the above
exchange is unclear? How would a new question have to be worded to make the disinformation stop?


I think the main question is about who exactly is at the 80%...so you could ask, "Does the 80% apply to all CDMS? Or does it apply only to a subset of CDMS with more advanced symptoms?"
"However, the truth in science ultimately emerges, although sometimes it takes a very long time," Arthur Silverstein, Autoimmunity: A History of the Early Struggle for Recognition
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 8994
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby Billmeik » Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:29 pm

People CCSVI %

MS 280 158 56.5%
MS-BORDERLINES 250 155? 62%
CDMS 200 160? 80%
HC 161 36 2%
CIS 50 19 8%
OND 9 0 0%
TOTAL 500


really the only problems are the question marks. In order to make the percentages correct they are slightly changed. They should both read 158.


dont know why even the 62% doesnt work out.
User avatar
Billmeik
Family Elder
 
Posts: 694
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:00 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Contact us | Terms of Service