scorpion wrote:Bilmelk one suggestion I and others have had, which would go a long way to proving or disproving Zamboni's claims, is to send 50 people(25 with and 25 without MS) to Dr. Zamboni and have him figure out which of the 50 have MS. Very simple.
Zamboni, Zamboni, Zamboni! He is not the only individual on this planet who can diagnose CCSVI! It seems frivolous to go on suggesting the same dream. Drs. Dake and Mehta could do it, but it might just be a waste of their time.
Three neurologists, one ophthalmologist, two nerve conduction specialists, and three general practitioners took 15 years to diagnose my 'MS'. Are you proposing Dr. Zamboni, or someone else verify your '25 with'? What about the '25 without'? Will there be some absolute proof they do not have 'MS'? What criteria should they use, and how long will this take? Should the 'MS' patients be pre-diagnosed? By whom? How? How much will this cost? Come on, since you are expert in 'MS', enlighten us! Will this test be subject to the same scrutiny and skepticism as demonstrated here, or will it merely appear in a scientific peer-reviewed journal? You write the proposal, and I'll submit it.
CCSVI is much easier to diagnose, perhaps because its physical properties can be seen on a Doppler Ultrasound, and perhaps because they can be seen and sometimes treated, on an X-ray venogram. Or perhaps because no second examination is required, to compare to the first. Or blood tests, or ruling out of every other possibility. Ockham's razor is sharp and clean.