scorpion wrote:Nope I got it. Any studies not showing positive results are flawed. Pretty simple concept.
Cece wrote:If you genuinely believe that, you must not think much of us.
Well, scorpion is
accurately summarizing frodo's statement:
frodo wrote:At this point I think we can consider the results of Zivadinov the correct results and any other study that contradicts this as a lack of expertise of the doctors performing the tests.
This statement clearly represents faith and not science: there is no logical basis to flatly reject all contradictory studies. Doing so is letting belief trump logic.
Ultimately, all of the various results do have a scientific explanation. Some are likely statistical anomalies, some are due to "lack of expertise", some are due to bias, and some are accurate (even if they may also suffer from a few of these same factors). Given how little is known right now about CCSVI and MS, I think it's likely that some of the "correct" results will initially appear to be contradictory. The initial theory, that it is CCSVI and not the immune system that causes
MS, is currently looking very shaky due to all the contradictory evidence. But there are countless other possible theories that explain the evidence. At this point we can't get so attached to a theory that we blindly reject contradictory evidence.
Cece wrote:I've seen studies going both ways. I've seen studies that don't have much to do with CCSVI (such as this latest genetics study) interpreted as if they do.
But the latest genetics study does
have a relationship with CCSVI. I can't count the number of times I've seen people on these boards declare that CCSVI proves that MS is not an immune system condition. The genetics study strongly suggests that it is. This doesn't disprove all of CCSVI, of course, but it casts doubt on some CCSVI-related theories.
frodo wrote:Besides, performing wrongly a test in a study can lead to a negative bias, while performing specially well the test will not introduce a positive bias.
Not entirely sure what you mean here, but if you're claiming that "lack of expertise" in performing a test always results in negative bias, you're clearly mistaken. Doing tests poorly results in unreliable results, but it's not true that such errors always bias things in the negative direction. For example, it's my understanding that detecting CCSVI via ultrasound is a bit of an art, causing some people to see it everywhere and others to see it nowhere, e.g. both positive and negative biases are possible.