MrSuccess wrote: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 .......
I didn't refuse to answer your question. These threads keep getting locked before I read them again, probably because of all the name calling.
The study was divided into 2 populations - those with MS, and a healthy group (no MS, nor any other cerebro or vascular diseases). There were 84 MS patients, and 56 healthy controls. Forty-two, or 50%, of the MS patients showed "CCSVI" according to Dr. Zamboni's ultrasound criteria. Forty-two did not. 42+42 = 84 = 100% of the MS patients.
There were 56 healthy controls in the study. Twenty, or 36%, showed "CCSVI," according to Zamboni's criteria. Thirty-six healthy controls, 64%, did not show CCSVI. 20 + 36 = 56 = 100% of the control group.
This study wasn't really that obscure. It's easily found at the Annals of Neurology website. If you think this study is obscure, try finding a copy of the Haacke CT study you mentioned. On the topic of that study - first, it reviewed CT angiograms. If MRVs are a poor way to diagnose CCSVI, what does this day about CT scans, which generally do not produce images as good as MRI? Second, he used a criteria of 70% narrowing, a number commonly used for determining when intervention is required in arteries. I don't think this 70% number is being universally applied in terms of CCSVI, so it's comparing apples to oranges.