The next Buffalo study commences this week
first results?
Yesterday, my Dutch neurologist suggested that the first results of this Buffalo trial were negative.
Is he making this up, or can he know (peer review e.g.)?
Has anybody heard of any first (negative) results?
Is he making this up, or can he know (peer review e.g.)?
Has anybody heard of any first (negative) results?
I'm ready, I'm ready !
Re: first results?
Though this can be neuro's interpretation. Again it depends on what is defined as -ve ... lets see ...joge wrote:Yesterday, my Dutch neurologist suggested that the first results of this Buffalo trial were negative.
Is he making this up, or can he know (peer review e.g.)?
Has anybody heard of any first (negative) results?
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it
- Max Planck
- Max Planck
Could the neuro have meant the Buffalo imaging trial results that came out in February? (Or was it March?) Those were not negative, since they confirmed that CCSVI is found in MSers at a rate more than double that of controls, but they were not the 100% that the theory had led us to expect, and some have spun those results as being negative.
Hi,
I was kind of stressed, because I know he's very negative about the treatment. Before I went to Begium for the procedure, I informed hem, and he was very agressive. Warned me, said he didn't care, but in the end asked if I would inform him about the results.
I did come back, and he still was negative. It was 'my fault'. He meant: the improvements he saw now, were also there before the operation. Because the operiation doesn't work. I was a 'poser'.
He referred to the most recent Buffalow results. I assumed not the first, because those results were positive. I wasn't alert enough to ask more. But he suggested 'he knew more'...
Hence my question here, to confirm his suggestion (or not).
But maybe Cece is right..
Thanks!
I was kind of stressed, because I know he's very negative about the treatment. Before I went to Begium for the procedure, I informed hem, and he was very agressive. Warned me, said he didn't care, but in the end asked if I would inform him about the results.
I did come back, and he still was negative. It was 'my fault'. He meant: the improvements he saw now, were also there before the operation. Because the operiation doesn't work. I was a 'poser'.
He referred to the most recent Buffalow results. I assumed not the first, because those results were positive. I wasn't alert enough to ask more. But he suggested 'he knew more'...
Hence my question here, to confirm his suggestion (or not).
But maybe Cece is right..
Thanks!
Last edited by joge on Fri Aug 27, 2010 2:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm ready, I'm ready !
- Badger
- Family Elder
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:00 pm
- Location: Glasgow, Scotland
- Contact:
:
Were we not due the second batch of results from the Buffalo study, where they were to use further protocols to search for the blocked veins?
The first trial found 62% of MS patients had blocked; I believe.
The first trial found 62% of MS patients had blocked; I believe.
<em>Badger
RRMS 2004</em>
Appt Katowice 23/24th March
RRMS 2004</em>
Appt Katowice 23/24th March
Joge, just my 2 cents worth, but I have a hard time believing he is privy to early information regarding the study.joge wrote:He referred to the most recent Buffalow results. I assumed not the first, because those results were positive. I wasn't alert enough to ask more. But he suggested 'he knew more'...
Joge, sorry to hear that your own Dr. not only doesn't have an open mind, but is prepared to call you a liar instead.
Just to be clear, I am interested in hearing/reading about the 10 person safety study at UB Neurosurgery which took place the last 2 days of June, and whether they have started the 20 person placebo blinded study. I'm not really sure if this will have any bearing on my wife's decision to go ahead with surgery anyway - she's seems committed to me; I just don't want to leave any stone unturned.
Thanks if anyone knows if the safety study came back with a negative.
Cheers,
Nick
Just to be clear, I am interested in hearing/reading about the 10 person safety study at UB Neurosurgery which took place the last 2 days of June, and whether they have started the 20 person placebo blinded study. I'm not really sure if this will have any bearing on my wife's decision to go ahead with surgery anyway - she's seems committed to me; I just don't want to leave any stone unturned.
Thanks if anyone knows if the safety study came back with a negative.
Cheers,
Nick
More and more I'm starting to think you're right! It's like Cece said; he interprets the positive results of the first trials as being negative, because they didn't reach Zambo's 100%. I think thats the key.Rokkit wrote:Joge, just my 2 cents worth, but I have a hard time believing he is privy to early information regarding the study.joge wrote:He referred to the most recent Buffalow results. I assumed not the first, because those results were positive. I wasn't alert enough to ask more. But he suggested 'he knew more'...
So, positive results from the second Buffalo trial are very welcome I love to go back to him and kick his a** Imagine him as being Squidward Tentacles!
I'm ready, I'm ready !
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post