Malden and Lyon try to mislead by asking if the same symptoms are found in the general population. So what. This is not relevant to pwMS, who have restricted major veins.
I don't see how that's misleading.
AMcG wrote:Suppose that after two years the 7 trials funded by the NMSS all find no evidence that supports the theory of CCSVI. The total number of subjects in those trials is about 550. At current rates by that time over 10,000 people will have had the treatment, maybe over 20,000. If the evidence from people who have had the treatment conflicts with evidence from the trials do you really think anyone will take notice of the trials?
.Scientists may still be interested in those results. But whether they confirm Zamboni or not I can’t see anyone else will.
I'm not sure what your point is but unless EVERYONE in that blinded study was tested with venous catheter your point was moot anyway.CCSVIhusband wrote:It has been proven.
See Buffalo's (blinded study) results where it was greater than 2 people with MS that had CCSVI to 1 without MS that may have CCSVI.
Thank you. You can agree with me now and edit your comment to reflect that proven fact.
What you are saying is misleading. I don't know what your definition of "symptoms" is but I have never asked "if the same symptoms are found in the general population".MarkW wrote:Malden and Lyon try to mislead by asking if the same symptoms are found in the general population. So what. This is not relevant to pwMS, who have restricted major veins.
I'm not sure of your reasoning but finding that everyone is equally affected with stenosis would be a game breaker for the theory of CCSVI. Otherwise would be no different than Zamboni saying that "I've noticed that 100% of people with MS have fingernails!" which seems to be pretty pointed evidence until a skeptic points out that there really isn't a specific relationship between fingernails and MS incidence because EVERYONE has fingernails.MarkW wrote:asking if the same symptoms are found in the general population. So what. This is not relevant to pwMS, who have restricted major veins.
AMcG wrote:It is quite reasonable to take the view that you require more proof as Malden and Lyon and others do. (although I don’t share that view.) The misleading bit is to insist that proof of greater prevalence of CCSVI in patients with MS than in normals must precede testing of the treatment.
Although you and I don't see eye to eye on this, I'm completely comfortable that you've stated your position honestly and sensibly and, were I in your position, maybe I'd see things exactly the way that you do.AMcG wrote: So what about the group of neurologists? I don’t think the issue to them is a scientific one. It is simply politics. They have position, power and influence and they are determined not to let Zamboni threaten it.
AMcG wrote:...I think the message is simple: make your decision on evidence which relates to treatment don’t get misled by waiting for studies which may well prove nothing.
Control group N=100 patient without MS
Kuwaiti: non Kuwaiti % ··· 48:52
Male: female % ·············· 25:75
Age min-max ················· 23-57
mean ±SD ····················· 39.7±7.8
Positive Duplex ·············· 7%
Normal Duplex ··············· 93%
Study group N=100 patient with MS
Started colour Doppler screening of neck veins as protocol of Prof. Zamboni
Kuwaiti: non Kuwaiti % ··· 100
Male: female % ·············· 48:52
Age min-max ················· 22-57
Positive Duplex ·············· 87%
Positive MRV ·················· 96%
All successful Angioplasty with satisfactory post balloon dilatation
All patients reported improvement ( 1 month) :
Improvement or disappearance of Numbness
Loss of Fatigue and increased energy
Improvement of power (foot drop)
Improvement visual acuity (No blurred vision)
Reduced electrical sensation
Of course the term "organized medicine" is a general and uncertain term but I haven't heard and would be interested in what organized medicine thinks of the results released from Kuwait so far.NHE wrote: Moreover, I think that it's important to take into consideration the results of the Kuwaiti study in addition to BNAC, Zamboni, et al.
Kuwait wrote:They had only clinical assessment, without, a proper neurological assessment i.e. Document of severity of MS symptoms before and after the procedure with EDSS-FSS- and MSIS.
Oh no doubt, the results will be described as the Kuwaiti study, just as Dr. Zamboni is usually referred to as the Italian doctor. This is the calibre of the "science" amassed to refute CCSVI.Lyon wrote:Of course the term "organized medicine" is a general and uncertain term but I haven't heard and would be interested in what organized medicine thinks of the results released from Kuwait so far.
Kuwait wrote:CCSVI: & M.S ---Conclusion
There is strong link between CCSVI and M.S.
control individuals had only 7% CCSVI (negative in 93%)
MS patient had between 81-96% (with Duplex and MRV)
MS patients with CCSVI (other studies)
Zivadinov 55% -62%
For better or worse, beauty is always in the eye of the beholder.Jugular wrote: Based on these provisional results and the lack of any reported harm from venous angioplasty, efficacy and safety have been demonstrated to the point of warranting clinical trials in my view. These are not the results of a tiny provisional study on a few subjects by a single researcher.
Users browsing this forum: AndrewKFletcher