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 4:01 am


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
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:02 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 126
Location: Greece
Squeakycat wrote:
@ Sotiris

This breakdown works, but does perhaps unrealistically assume all 50 people with CIS in the study are included in the first 500.
You are right. I made that assumption because it is the only possibility to have 38.0%. But since the 38% was only given by a reporter it can be that the meaning was around 38% and not "38.0%". I also thought that it is not completely unrealistic to have all 50 CIS in the first 500 because when one first learns about the possibility of having MS, one is usually more interested about MS research and more eager to participate in such a study. And I should also add that 0 pwOND with CCSVI is another arbitrary assumption I made.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:30 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 690
having slept on it I withdraw my guess. My understanding is worse than I thought.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 10:11 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 690
really I havent been paying enough attention. Are we sure that the 56% comes from the 280 ms patients or could it be 280 plus 50?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 1:47 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 690
so I had thought about it like 56% first. Gets bigger when you take out the borderlines 62%. Gets bigger when you take out the cis 80%. and that seemed right.


But the cis were already out? If that is the case it means one thing, but if they were in I cant get the numbers to work either. Clearly somewhere some numbers are wrong, and I'm beginning to agree the 38 and 80 given to the reporter are a good place to start. So this thread should be renamed '80% may not be real'.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 2:19 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 110
Billmeik wrote:
Are we sure that the 56% comes from the 280 ms patients or could it be 280 plus 50?

I don't think we are sure... at least I'm not.

I emailed Dr. Ziv the other day asking if he could clarify the numbers - who are the mystery 59? Was the CIS group included? He nicely responded that he is unable to answer any questions outside of official interviews and press releases. I figured that was the case, but I tried... So, I'm done crunching numbers and back to writing letters and making YouTube videos!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 2:26 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 126
Location: Greece
Billmeik wrote:
[...]So this thread should be renamed '80% may not be real'.
I think it is simply the percentage they found in patients with more advanced symptoms. BTW, acc. to the Buffalo press release
Quote:
In this large MS cohort, the presence of CCSVI did suggest an association with disease progression, a finding that was not shown in Zamboni's smaller cohort, Zivadinov notes.
This may mean that CCSVI is a reason of the progression but it could also mean that when CCSVI is bad it is easier to be found with the doppler. Either way CCSVI is very important.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: 80% real
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:27 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:00 pm
Posts: 124
doesn't ashton's breakdown clarify ?

http://www.direct-ms.org/magazines/Embr ... 2%2010.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 10:36 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

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


Last edited by Billmeik on Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 10:43 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:00 pm
Posts: 4682
Location: southern California
Guys...please don't print confidential e-mails from doctors, they really hate that, and will stop talking to patients. Honestly.

Let's let them be.

Our job is to find out if we or our loved ones have CCSVI. If you have it, it's 100% a part of your life. Other numbers do not matter.

Let the researchers/doctors do their job-
respectfully,
cheer

_________________
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
dual stents placed 5/09
CCSVI in MS


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:39 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 690
ya regreted that


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:42 am 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:00 pm
Posts: 4682
Location: southern California
Billmeik wrote:
ya regreted that


psst...Bill, you can edit that post, and just rephrase what Dr. Z said to you...without posting his e-mail.
:wink:
I made the same boo boo,
cheer

_________________
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
dual stents placed 5/09
CCSVI in MS


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 09, 2010 3:33 pm 
Offline
Family Elder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:00 pm
Posts: 690
This is no longer secret I hope. The email i got back from ziv said:

Not exactly, unfortunately, I can not share these data with you before AAN meeting, as this may jeopardize the late breaking news abstract submission.

I hope you understand.

RZ

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

From: Bill Meikle
Date: 3/5/2010 4:51:11 PM
To: Robert Zivadinov
Subject: Re: cdms and cis numbers...

so 38% cis and 80% cdms.



On 2010-02-15, at 10:37 AM, Robert Zivadinov wrote:

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.


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

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

1011

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

598

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

1540

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: