NZer1 wrote:Active MS is one of the most impossible states of this disease to predict, timing the 'regular' relapsers so that you can treat when in the worst inflammatory cycle is an interesting ploy!
It is typical for MS clinical trials to have recent disease activity as an enrollment criteria. The reason is simple: you want there to be as few differences as possible among the subjects in your test, and you cannot measure changes in disease rate if there is no activity. So this isn't a "ploy" at all; it's typical and reasonable.
NZer1 wrote:If the testing was done to find out why there are nil responders to treatment Internationally occurring, I would have 'assumed' would have been a stated purpose in the design of the trial.
I don't know what this sentence means.
NZer1 wrote:To test if undertreating could in future be classified as less than 50% flow improvement from/at PTA appears to be the purpose of phase 2 in reality?
No, you can't redefine the "purpose" based on results. We have no evidence to suggest that the purpose, or intent, of the study was anything different that they stated. All we can say from the results is that their CCSVI intervention wasn't very successful.
NZer1 wrote:In phase 1 treating and achieving greater than 75% flow improvement was a success!
So why cherry pick the two phases PwMS?
I don't think you understand what I mean by "cherry pick". Embry (and others who try comparing the Phase 1 results to Phase 2 results now) are guilty of cherry picking. This is when you look at a bunch of data, and pick out the parts that support a given conclusion. The way to avoid cherry picking is to define the specific measures (e.g. what data you'll look at) before you collect and analyze the data.
NZer1 wrote:It appears to be purposeful and the outcome, predictable for that phase, to not improve the flow.
I keep coming back to 'why' and what pressures were happening when the trial was designed by BNAC?
Something purposeful by manipulation and attempted stealth happened in this trial, was it to disillusion the public, was it to see what they could get away with, was it about exposing bias, was it about profit at any cost?
I think people are way, way too quick to claim fraud and bias on these forums. Those are very serious accusations, and the only "proof" being presented is the disappointing study results. Sure, fraud happens (e.g. Wakefield and his bogus claims that vaccines are related to autism), but it's rare. Bias (unintentional or otherwise) is likely somewhat more common, which is why it's important for studies to be independently replicated. What we have here is one study, where the authors conclude that CCSVI treatment should only be undertaken as part of a clinical trial. I believe Zamboni himself makes exactly the same recommendation.