This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

That is the actual title of this long article published in what I think is a French Canadian newspaper(?) (translated by Google).

The article interviews Dr. Zamboni at length:

<shortened url>

For those who speak french, here is a link to the original article, it is several pages long:

http://www.corriere.com/viewstory.php?s ... 668&page=1

_________________
DX 6-09 RRMS

Actually it's in Italian (it's a Canadian Italian publication).
-d

_________________
dx rrms august 2009 (dx CFS spring 1988) off avonex after 3 months
treated katowice 24-25 march 2010 - best thing that ever happened - check tracking thread

Any study that isn't performed by Zamboni or someone on his team is doomed to failure.

You know as well as I do that Simka, Sinan (in an as yet officially unpublished paper, but available nevertheless,) Zivadinov and Al O'Mari have published positive papers. That fact that you ignore them doesn't make them go away.

..with another yet to come http://www.falsecreekdiagnostics.com/cc ... low-study/

Dr Sclafani replied to one of my posts the other day.. he said "if you look at something you will see something." This was in reference to the thyroid but.. it applies everywhere. The believers find, the non-believers do not. At least, to me, it seems thus.

it's like in statistics: you cant compare Apples with bananas!!
the neuro consider the zamboni study biased

why couldnt he think these studies are biased? (and from his point of view, it look like it's biased!)

it's not only a one way!!

Dunkempt wrote:

Oops!! Thank you for catching that! It must be my cog fog, I could swear I saw french, but when I read your post I look it up again and there it is in Italian (sigh...)

Mary Ann

_________________
DX 6-09 RRMS

I know it's not a one way thing, I am skeptical about everything, a model agnostic if you will... Also, I have never said CCSVI doesn't exist, just that I'm not convinced it does, and I lack the prerequisite education in medicine and physiology to accurately assess the situation. I see a bunch of people saying one thing, and a bunch more saying the opposite, and that doesn't inspire much courage in me one way or the other.

I have tried to say that all the things that can be said about Big Pharma vested interests and the like can be turned around and said with just as much validity.

Citing a bunch of studies that, I think with the exception of the Zivadanov study, were done by people performing the procedure without any solid evidence of efficacy and making mega-big-bucks seems just as invalid as citing studies done by drug company pawns trying to prove that CCSVI doesn't exist.

For a good study, you need to know what you are going to do, you need to be clear in your mind what you want to investigate, what your objectives are. If you are not clear, you get a system of what we call rubish in, rubish out.

Sometimes, when I come across new (PhD) studies on MS, I get the impression that the oversight on the bigger issue has been lost. Likewise, when browsing through the programme of the last ECTRIMS meeting, I start to seriously wonder whether and how all this could be put together. http://www.congrex.ch/fileadmin/files/2 ... press.html I am not going to claim here that the system in MS research is like rubish in rubish out, but to me it has the smell of it and I am not completely ignorant in managing large programmes including research programmes albeit in a different sector.

The fact that they went off in the wrong (auto-immune) direction will not help either and may have created a complexity so huge that things have simply become unmanageable. Add to this the neuro research culture that has grown over the last several decades, and the huge weight of the status-quo (e.g. see the ECTRIMS programme) and one can see a glimpse of the obstacles on the way.

We should not be fooling ourselves. Of course ccsvi is a problem closely related to MS. There is already too much evidence and this is not just the US or Canada, but the experiences are world-wide and not placebo (I believe together with some doctors this has nothing to do with placebo..).

To the Canadians who are sceptical about this new study, I would say: please ask for the terms of refence of this study, and if you believe the approach is wrong, is tendentious, is too much rooted in old believes or is "doomed to fail", call them to order. There must be some accountability along the path, we have missed that for too long.

In that case CCSVI is not valid. The core of scientific discovery is that any experiment MUST be reproducable by other, non-related scientists. If it cannot, it is not real.

And Zamboni fully agrees with this. He vigerously encourages others to reproduce his data, just that they infact reproduce his studies. Doing it right is different than "only he can do it".