The Italian MS Society set out to put the lid on CCSVI as well. see here "Italian MS Society seeks to discredit CCSVI theory"
"RnRrider of the French ForSeps.org wrote a summary of the Italian MS Society's (AISM) 2 year "controlled" study of CCSVI which was recently presented at the Lyon ECTRIMS conference. Directed by the Neurologist Dr. Giancarlo Comi of the University of Milan and his colleagues, given the name CoSMo, 35 clinics in Italy participated while 107 clinics were excluded. Early on Dr Zamboni participated in the study but then pulled out, denouncing the protocols which he felt would lead to inaccurate, biased results. Apparently the only diagnostic tool was a Doppler Sonogram undertaken on 1,874 participants, 1,165 with MS, 376 controls and 226 other neurological diseases. Only 3 % of MS were "positive", slightly less for the controls. Conclusion, the CCSVI MS theory was pronounced dead and finished, this was their final word. (Interestingly, 89% of the positive results found at local clinics were declared invalid by the central examiners.) The Italian MS Society spent 2 million euros on the study. This is the first time that a national MS Society has definitively declared the CCSVI link to MS theory of no further value. (All but one of the principal researchers have links to major drug companies List to follow.)
It looks like the Semmelweis reflex is alive and well in Italy.
Comi declared having received consultation fees for participating in consulatitive comittees for Novartis, Teva, sanofi-aventis, Merck Serono, et Bayer Schering. Des honoraires de conférencier de Novartis, Teva, sanofi-aventis, Merck Serono, Biogen Dompé, Bayer Schering, et Serono Symposia International Foundation . Mancardi declared having received honoraries for conferences and fees for attending meetings as well as financial support for research with Bayer Schering, Biogen Idec, sanofi-aventis, Novartis et Merck Serono.
Stolz declared having no concerned financial interest."
The study got "standing ovation" in Lyon.
It is very interesting - however - what went wrong with this study.
One thing is the censure of "positive" results, but it is only part of the story. Of note, in very "negative" reports by Centonze and Baracchini 30-40% prevalence of CCSVI has been found (in the patients and controls alike), thus ~10 times more than in this very strange study. Probably, Comi and coll. were looking for refluxes during Valsalva, or other patterns not related to CCSVI.
Nonetheless, this study is a perfect example how different results can be got using not standardized diagnostic tool, especially if a parameter is interpreted by layperson. It is also, unfortunately, far away from science and very alike to what we see everyday in the politics.