This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

Welcome to the world's leading forum on Multiple Sclerosis research, support, and knowledge. For over 10 years, This is MS has provided an unbiased community dedicated to Multiple Sclerosis patients, caregivers, and affected loved ones.
It is currently Fri May 24, 2013 5:28 pm


All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 192 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:17 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:34 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 110
Sure! NMO (from wikipedia):

Quote:
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...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:41 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 222
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:10 am 
Offline
Family Elder

Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm
Posts: 6063
..


Last edited by Lyon on Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:20 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:00 pm
Posts: 1273
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Sotiris,

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

ozarkcanoer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:21 am 
Offline
Family Elder

Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm
Posts: 6063
..


Last edited by Lyon on Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:52 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 225
Location: Yehud, Israel
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 9:18 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 126
Location: Greece
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 9:29 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 690
Quote:
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:14 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 225
Location: Yehud, Israel
@ 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?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:21 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 126
Location: Greece
Billmeik wrote:
Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 10:34 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 225
Location: Yehud, Israel
@ 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%


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:11 am 
Offline
Family Elder

Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm
Posts: 6063
..


Last edited by Lyon on Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:56 pm 
Offline
Family Elder

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm
Posts: 8511
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:29 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 690
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 192 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Related topics
 Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Is it 80% for CDMS?

[ Go to pageGo to page: 1, 2, 3 ]

TFau

37

4262

Fri Feb 12, 2010 4:30 pm

Cece View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. A real Thanksgiving!!

jay123

2

1012

Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:45 am

Mutley View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. COULD THIS BE FOR REAL? THE FUTURE MIGHT BE HERE.

blossom

9

600

Sat Mar 16, 2013 8:21 pm

blossom View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Payment Request, is it real???

[ Go to pageGo to page: 1, 2, 3 ]

alby

33

3732

Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:17 pm

alby View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Patience everyone, CCSVI is real.

magoo

13

1541

Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:10 pm

Cece View the latest post

 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: