patientx wrote: If this is the case, then they are missing are unwilling to say the obvious implication - Dr. Zamboni's original studies on CCSVI were flawed.
Why flawed? Then all small studies are flawed.
My only point was that if people are going to criticize the BNAC study because it used an ineffective method for detecting CCSVI, then Dr. Zamboni's original studies, on which BNAC and other studies were based, suffered from the same flaw.
codefellow wrote:His studies were PRELIMINARY. He said his findings need to be replicated.
Which, so far, has NOT happened EXACTLY. But this is what happens when you step outside the box. You have to look around a lot to figure out exactly where you are.
I completely agree. We have seen a few studies now trying to replicate Dr. Zamboni's ultrasound findings, with varying results. No, they were not catheter venography, but you have to start somewhere.
But it seems the argument is that, when these studies don't come up with a 100% correlation, they must be wrong. Before, the criticism of these studies was that the doctors did not know what they were doing, or that they were deliberately finding negative results. Now, since these don't apply to the BNAC doctors, the criticism is that the whole method is flawed.