Addendum: Also to further muddy the waters, the CCSVI rates in the Buffalo study between healthy controls and patients with other neurologic diseases were not significantly different (P = .39).
I am quoting a blog, so not sure of its validity, does anyone know?
Much has been made of the fact that MS patients had CCSVI rates of 62%, other neurological diseases 42% and healthy controls 22% in the BNAC research. The fact that it was elevated in other neurological diseases has turned up in arguments diluting the importance of CCSVI in MS.
How significant is it if there is no statistically significant difference between rates in healthy controls and patients with other neurological diseases? P=.39 is not where it needs to be (p=.05 at the minimum).
This is so unproven, it should not have made the news or been treated like a fact.