Marc - Now we are getting somewhere ....... thanks for putting an actual name ...... to your experts. It was really unfair of you to alway's call into question ......... the validity of the work of " named " medical professionals........ with comments like ...... " I get my information from someone in some organization ..... better than yours " .
That " trump " card style ...... is bad form.
Should be interesting to gauge the reaction Dr. Hubbard has in having his work ...... called into question . Now that we know who the critics are .
These are Dr.Reich and Dr. Cortese ?
I can say with 100 % assurance that Dr.Hubbard is absolutely welcoming in having his research peer reviewed .
That is a common thread among the CCSVI medical professionals ..... starting with Dr. Zamboni ...... they welcome others to duplicate their research results .
Who can ask for more ?
For the record, I wasn't calling into question Dr. Hubbard's research, only pointing out that the methods used could make his findings difficult to replicate because of the finicky nature of the technology. I find Dr. Hubbard's research intriguing, and as a generally "pro-CCSVI" person, I hardly want to shoot down his positive reports. Actually, the notion that any MS patient is "anti-CCSVI" is asinine, unless they enjoy having MS. I had the opportunity to meet Dr. Hubbard in person yesterday at Dr. Sclafani's symposium, and was fortunate enough to be able to engage him in a lengthy one-on-one conversation. I found him to be quite the erudite gentleman. I certainly was not casting any aspersions on his work.
Additionally, it's not just CCSVI researchers that welcome attempts to replicate their findings; any legitimate researcher understands the necessity of replicated research findings to validate their initial studies.
I don't know if you remember, but back in the early 90s a research group claimed to have achieved "cold fusion", that is, nuclear fusion at relatively low temperatures, a finding which would revolutionize the production of energy worldwide (cold fusion is completely "clean", and has none of the nasty implications associated with the nuclear technology used to generate energy today, which utilizes nuclear fission). This created much hullabaloo and excitement, and was reported breathlessly by all the major news organizations. Unfortunately, the initial research could not be replicated by any reputable lab, and thus the finding was found to be invalid.
In the MS world, the researchers at Vanderbilt University repeatedly publish findings indicating that chlamydia pneumonia is a primary culprit in MS disease etiology. No other research venue has been able to replicate their findings, despite repeated efforts, and thus the Vanderbilt findings, and the treatment regimen the Vanderbilt team developed around them, are still considered on the fringe, except by those that fully embrace antibiotic therapy despite the contrary research findings.
I especially don't appreciate your assertion that I'm using any kind of "trump card" style in posting information. I was merely trying to put some context into the discussion. The names of the actual researchers at the NIH mean nothing to the vast majority of people on this board, or in any context outside of the MS/neuroradiology research communities. The fact that these doctors are working at the NIH does speak to their credentials. They are on the government payroll, and generally are not subject to charges of prejudice due to pharmaceutical or other such sullying associations.
I was also attempting to point out that your astute observation that MRI is 98% accurate has nothing at all to do with other uses for MR technology, such as MRV, MRA, or F MRI, all of which are far less accurate than straight up MRI imaging, and which are all highly operator dependent.
I hope this makes my intentions perfectly clear.