I am not talking about treatment. I am talking about association. BNAC study was well done with 500 test subjects to establish association. If these people, who included Zamboni himself, are not considered peers to Zamboni, then Zamboni has no peers. That elevates Zamboni's status to untouchable, and infallible. That is dangerous dogma to place on a doctor.
The BNAC study states "ccsvi is neither a nessessary nor sufficient cause of MS" - that is well stated.
The associations are 56% with MS, 43% with other neurological conditions, 38% with CIS, and 22% normal control. These associations were found by both invasive and non-invasive methods.
BNAC is doing treatment trials. Treatment trials will take a long time to sort through. I am neutral on the possibility of the treatment being effective.
I am very comfortable discussing the BNAC study. I think it is more filtered for bias, and has firmer processes than Zambonis original work. There is nothing wrong with admitting that Zamboni's work was directional, but it was confounded by bias in his processes. It is still a win-win.
Second, conducting treatment without establishing association is impractical, ego-boosting, dangerous, and just plain wrong on many counts. I don't think anyone will be convinced
of that though. Not here. That is my position, full disclosure. Now that association is established, with some reservations, a treatment trial is going forward.
So can we agree on a common platform of the BNAC data? Zamboni himself has been involved. I would think that it would be a decent common platform for discussion. That is really, really needed here.
I agree that the studies to disprove 100% correlation are way too easy to conduct, and that the funding for such, after so many have already done it including Zamboni, are perhaps questionable. Forgive me for actually taking the side of CCSVI supporters on that.