The next Buffalo study commences this week

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

first results?

Postby joge » Sat Aug 21, 2010 1:53 am

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?
I'm ready, I'm ready !
User avatar
joge
Family Elder
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 3:00 pm

Advertisement

Postby MrSuccess » Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:44 am

key words : neurologist + negative

Is your neuro on side ?




Mr. Success
User avatar
MrSuccess
Family Elder
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:00 pm

Postby joge » Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:00 am

NO WAY !!
I'm ready, I'm ready !
User avatar
joge
Family Elder
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 3:00 pm

Re: first results?

Postby sbr487 » Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:15 am

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?


Though this can be neuro's interpretation. Again it depends on what is defined as -ve ... lets see ...
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
User avatar
sbr487
Family Elder
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: India

Postby scorpion » Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:22 am

MrSuccess wrote:key words : neurologist + negative

Is your neuro on side ?




Mr. Success


Or are the results simply negative?
User avatar
scorpion
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:00 pm

?

Postby joge » Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:05 pm

Negative, positive...

I'm curious; has anybody heard of first results, especialy results of the second part (double blind part) of the trial?
I'm ready, I'm ready !
User avatar
joge
Family Elder
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 3:00 pm

Postby nicknewf » Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:08 am

I'm also very curious to hear how the safety study went. Anyone have the inside track on this?
User avatar
nicknewf
Family Member
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: St. John's, NL

Postby Motiak » Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:33 pm

I would be shocked to hear the first part (the safety part) of the study was negative considering how many angioplasties have been done by other doctors without issue.
User avatar
Motiak
Family Member
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby Cece » Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:36 pm

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.
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 8994
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby se1956 » Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:34 am

@joge:
Did you ask which of the different Buffalo trials he means ?

R.
User avatar
se1956
Family Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:00 pm

Postby joge » Fri Aug 27, 2010 1:30 am

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!
Last edited by joge on Fri Aug 27, 2010 3:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm ready, I'm ready !
User avatar
joge
Family Elder
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 3:00 pm

:

Postby Badger » Fri Aug 27, 2010 2:46 am

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.
<em>Badger
RRMS 2004</em>
Appt Katowice 23/24th March
User avatar
Badger
Family Elder
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Postby Rokkit » Fri Aug 27, 2010 8:45 am

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, just my 2 cents worth, but I have a hard time believing he is privy to early information regarding the study.
Rokkit
Family Elder
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 3:00 pm

Postby nicknewf » Fri Aug 27, 2010 9:28 am

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
User avatar
nicknewf
Family Member
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: St. John's, NL

Postby joge » Sat Aug 28, 2010 12:56 am

Rokkit wrote:
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, just my 2 cents worth, but I have a hard time believing he is privy to early information regarding the study.


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.

So, positive results from the second Buffalo trial are very welcome :wink: I love to go back to him and kick his a** :D Imagine him as being Squidward Tentacles!
I'm ready, I'm ready !
User avatar
joge
Family Elder
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 3:00 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