So he required several months to train the doppler technicians or that the sample size be reduced? If I caught that correctly I think that would be a cause for alarm re:Zamboni, not re:AISM
I could be wrong but I don't think that is what Zamboni was saying.
Here's what the article says:
"I was asked to wait several months to train those who must take exams - Zamboni said - and I 'was told no. I then suggested to reduce the sample, so it must be taken only by technicians already 'sizes, but this request' was refused.
There's no doubt that something is lost in translation, maybe an Italiian speaker could do a better job than Google with the transaltion, but here's what I picked up from the article, what I think Zamboni was saying:
<<I was planning to train the doppler technicians but I was at first told to wait for several months, then I was told no (that I am not allowed to train the technicians). In response to this I suggested they reduce the sample size to only use technicians who are already trained in the procedure, and again, I was told no>>
Needing to receive training before conducting a specific new protocol is entirely reasonable and to be expected. Here is the link to a study published in the journal International Angiology.
The study shows that the reproducibility of CCSVI doppler screening requires hands on training. Dr. Sclafani mentioned in his thread that his own doppler tech had difficulty finding CCSVI until after he went through the training.
Many many protocols require hands on training, I believe people must get retrained every two years for something as simple as CPR. Needing to receive training ONCE in order to be competent to perform a protocol is entirely reasonable.