This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

This landscape will need to include the dimension of micro-cellular feeding. Without taking this dimension into account, there is risk that the momentum gained may be lost, that the ccsvi issue may lead to decade-long discussions and failure to agree.

I know that this thread below contains a lot of wild speculation but if there is one thing that emerges from it, it is the fact that the nutrition of the cells is of central importance to MS. Just looking from the neuro-inflammation side (the wrong way around?) and/or the vascular side just ain't good enough.

http://www.thisisms.com/ftopict-15188.html

Imagine conspiracy --> ignore negative evidence --> don't stop believin'

wow .... look who blew in from the Tysrabi thread ........


Mr. Success

I hope they aren't softening our receipt of the soon update of the 3 trials from Dr. Field, Dr. Fox and Dr. Wolinsky....as the favorable report recently from Dr. Zivadinov had 10 patients and the Centonze/Floris tested 84 MSers.

At least they looked. Odd what they found

bump...

No chance. Not to worry. You're on safe ground there.

_________________
"Try - Just A Little Bit Harder" - Janis Joplin
CCSVI procedure Albany Aug 2010
'_MS' is over - if you want it
Patients sans/without patience

I had posted this in another thread, but it may have been missed - and for some reason that thread got locked.

Interesting study. The authors went to great lengths to replicate Zamboni's methods, and answer criticisms of other studies. Among the measures they took:

- they used the same Esaote MyLab-Vinco ultrasound machine used by Zamboni
- the ultrasound techs attended Zamboni's course on detecting CCSVI
- the ultrasound techs visited Dr. Zamboni and his group on at least 2 other occasions to refine their CCSVI detection abilities
- they used the same Quality 3D Doppler profile (QDP) algorithm recommended by Dr. Zamboni
- control subjects could not be family members of the MS subjects

The results of this study only trended toward 50% of MS patients being CCSVI positive, with 36% of controls testing positive.

Thanks PX, that's why I bumped it. I couldn't believe such a well done study had gotten so little attention. I guess this one didn't have the results that people wanted.

Don't worry, mate. No risk, there. Not considered any kind of advice at all, really. Honest. Wouldn't dream of it in a million years...

_________________
"Try - Just A Little Bit Harder" - Janis Joplin
CCSVI procedure Albany Aug 2010
'_MS' is over - if you want it
Patients sans/without patience

Patient X , once again .... 50% + 36% = 86 %

What kind of study is that ?

The numericals are confusing ...... where - what -who ..... happened to
the missing 14 % ?????

I noticed when this was brought to your attention ...... you refused to answer my question . On that thread ..... and this one.

On the other hand ..... Dr. Haake reported only 8 % of his test subjects
as having CCSVI ..... but considered as '' healthy controls ''.

I have not read Dr. Haake's Italian report ...... it only just came onto my
radar , yesterday .

As I have said before ...... we have a nice problem ..... almost too much
CCSVI information to absorb .......




Mr. Success

50% of people with MS were found to have CCSVI.
36% of people without MS were found to have CCSVI.

There is no missing 14% because there is no need to reach 100% by adding up the PWMS and control results.

"Our results indicate that CCSVI has a role neither in MS risk nor in MS severity. Ann Neurol 2011".

My results indicate precisely the opposite, go figure. That box of trophy Avonex is still in my fridge if y'all wanna bid on it, though it has expired for over 2 years... I worked on Saturday, in the 90 degree heat, specially requested for the overtime ($) as a reward for stellar job performance, and had to work some of the time in full safety gear (goggles, hard hat, face shield, thick rubber gloves), which included a rubber rain jacket over my work clothes, in the full sun. It was miserable beyond comprehension, and I finished the task and passed inspection and got things buttoned up and the employer is thrilled. The heat was miserable, I was miserable, as anyone would be in such a circumstance, but not once did I face the familiar disorientation, insta-fog, light headedness, lack of focus, forgetfulness, weakness that was experienced in the identical situation the last time I donned such work gear which was 2007, not even close. So that's another "put it to a real test" situation which was passed with flying colors.

My apprentice didn't fair as well, 5 minutes into it he had to get out and strip his gear off, wondering how I did all the work earlier in the day by myself for up to 20 minute stretches. Haha. Kids, whatcha gonna do?

Proofs in the puddin people, some things ya just can't fake. Wish the concluders in the aforementioned quote could have been there, they can have the MS back, don't need it any more, I'll stick with CCSVI for the time being...

_________________
RRMS Dx'd 2007, first episode 2004. Bilateral stent placement, 3 on left, 1 stent on right, at Stanford August 2009. Watch my operation video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwc6QlLVtko, Virtually symptom free since, no relap

Good, I hope you're able to convince others of your "logic", I really do.

It's not that hard to figure out that if 50% of PWMS are within Zamboni guidelines to be diagnosed as CCSVI, the other 50% (per cent) don't meet the guidelines. To explain so that you (hopefully) will understand, 50% who do and the 50% who don't add up to the 100% you so desperately are scratching to find.

Same with the 36% (per cent) of normals. That would leave 64% (per cent) which don't meet Zamboni criteria and if you add 36% and 64% you will find it equals 100%.

I hope you'll be able to sleep now.

Bob .... this is nonsense .... I'm just trying to poke a little fun at you ....

really ..... let's stop cluttering up this important thread ....

To review : Patient X posted an obscure negative CCSVI study. As a courtesy ......[ BTW - I like PX and think he has a brilliant mind -]...

I read ...
the post .... and came to the conclude .... the study numbers seemed faulty . There is a missing percentile - 14 % - .

And I asked a fair question . Why is the study missing such a large number ? And I got no reply .

Bob, just take some time and review it . You may have made a simple mistake ..... and used 50 PEOPLE plus 36 PEOPLE .... and erroneously came to conclude the study had 86 people .

But the study says : 50 PERCENT and 36 PERCENT ..... that means there is a fair chunk unaccounted for . 14 PERCENT.

If you find out any information about the missing 14 % ...... post it.


Good night and Good Luck




Mr. Success