NEW BLINDED STUDY FINDS CCSVI ASSOCIATED WITH MS

A forum to discuss Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency and its relationship to Multiple Sclerosis.

NEW BLINDED STUDY FINDS CCSVI ASSOCIATED WITH MS

Postby seeva » Thu Jan 22, 2015 2:06 pm

User avatar
seeva
Family Elder
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:00 pm
Location: SYDNEY

Advertisement

Re: NEW BLINDED STUDY FINDS CCSVI ASSOCIATED WITH MS

Postby cheerleader » Fri Jan 23, 2015 10:11 am

Seeva has posted the link to my breakdown of the blinded CCSVI study lead by Dr. Tromba in Rome. p value was less than .0001 for specificity of the difference between normals and those with MS. They did not find CCSVI in normals...at all. The difference? Following Dr. Zamboni's protocol and using M mode (motion mode) doppler, which picked up faulty valves, webs and intraluminal problems with flow.
http://ccsviinms.blogspot.com/2015/01/n ... ccsvi.html

This study flies in the face of the UBC Traboulsee study, which found CCSVI in everyone by using a new way to measure stenosis, never seen before in any published research. There was very low specificity in that study. And people are calling upon ethics boards to look into scientific misconduct. p value was .98 and higher.
http://ccsviinms.blogspot.com/2014/12/s ... nduct.html

Specificity and protocol matter!
cheer
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
http://ccsviinms.blogspot.com
User avatar
cheerleader
Family Elder
 
Posts: 5122
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:00 pm
Location: southern California

Re: NEW BLINDED STUDY FINDS CCSVI ASSOCIATED WITH MS

Postby Rogan » Fri Jan 23, 2015 12:52 pm

Cheerleader,

Sorry to bother you. But could explain p value again to us. I know it's statistical summary but of what? Lower means more accuracy correct?
Rogan
Family Member
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 11:18 am

Re: NEW BLINDED STUDY FINDS CCSVI ASSOCIATED WITH MS

Postby cheerleader » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:42 pm

Rogan wrote:Cheerleader,

Sorry to bother you. But could explain p value again to us. I know it's statistical summary but of what? Lower means more accuracy correct?


No worries! I'll try my best, but statistics and math are not my strong suit.

Basically, the p value is a way of expressing the statistical probability of an hypothesis actually happening in reality, compared to if it's happening by chance or coincidental. So, in the CCSVI study from Tromba, et al, the p value of the result that normals did not have CCSVI, but people with MS did was represented by p<0.0001. Yes, you're right, the smaller the number, the more significant the result. How do scientists come to find the p value...that takes a lot of considerations.

(in research) the statistical probability of the occurrence of a given finding by chance alone in comparison with the known distribution of possible findings, considering the kinds of data, the technique of analysis, and the number of observations. The P value may be noted as a decimal. The lower the P value, the less likely the finding would occur by chance alone.


Any researcher begins the research with null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. Null will be for supporting the old fact and alternative will be for the new fact invented/ doubted by the researcher/ scientist. Next step is to select one of this scientifically by using the science of statistics. For that the researcher should calculate the likelihood or probability that the difference observed in the study, however big or small, could have arisen purely by chance. This probability is known as p-value and it is sufficiently small, you can conclude that you have obtained a statistically significant difference. Confidence intervals and p-values take as their starting point the results observed in a study.

https://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/3338

The Tromba study had enough participants, enough different means of measuring blood flow, enough blinded data generated to come up with that lower p value. The difference between normals and pwMS was not by chance. Compared to the UBC study which had fewer participants, less rigourous testing, less results and had a p value of .98. UBC says pwMS and normals have CCSVI at about the same rates, but their research doesn't back up that claim as rigorously. The terrible thing is that the UBC study is held up as the death of CCSVI investigation, while truly rigorous and blinded studies by vascular specialists are ignored by neurology.

Hope that explains it in a general way. Statisticians would do a much better job, but that's not me :)
cheer
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
http://ccsviinms.blogspot.com
User avatar
cheerleader
Family Elder
 
Posts: 5122
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:00 pm
Location: southern California

Re: NEW BLINDED STUDY FINDS CCSVI ASSOCIATED WITH MS

Postby 1eye » Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:37 pm

cheerleader wrote:Hope that explains it in a general way. Statisticians would do a much better job, but that's not me :)
cheer


That's not me either, and I don't know how they got the .0001, but as I understand it, it's like this: chance being so chancy, there is always going to be a finite chance that your result, whatever it is, happened by chance. Purely a coincidence, in spite of randomization, control groups and everything, there is always the possibility your result had nothing to do with your hypothesis at all, but was just the luck of the draw.

So the p number is the chance of that happening. In this result it's 0.0001, or one chance in 10,000. So if you ran the entire experiment, start to finish, 10,000 times, you would likely get that result no more than once. I guess the moral of that story is never say never, but some people are short on legs to stand on these days.
"Try - Just A Little Bit Harder" - Janis Joplin
CCSVI procedure Albany Aug 2010
'MS' is over - if you want it
Patients sans/without patience
User avatar
1eye
Family Elder
 
Posts: 3025
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada

Re: NEW BLINDED STUDY FINDS CCSVI ASSOCIATED WITH MS

Postby 1eye » Tue Jan 27, 2015 1:23 pm

I feel like I'm beating a horse that is no more, but why is any credence given at all to a study which used an entirely new, untested, and therefore unquestionably unproven, yet key measurement? This is a very unscientific, dubious practice, which throws the entire paper into suspicion. It directly insults the intelligence and generous good will of the people who donated good money to the MS Society, to see them waste it so frivolously. For researchers also to ignore an offer of assistance from a world-renowned practitioner, university professor and scientist, is very suspicious. How can anybody think this study is definitive of anything except gall?
"Try - Just A Little Bit Harder" - Janis Joplin
CCSVI procedure Albany Aug 2010
'MS' is over - if you want it
Patients sans/without patience
User avatar
1eye
Family Elder
 
Posts: 3025
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada

Re: NEW BLINDED STUDY FINDS CCSVI ASSOCIATED WITH MS

Postby cheerleader » Wed Jan 28, 2015 8:58 am

As my father used to say, "Do you think they knew it was dark during the Dark Ages?"
We live in very strange times, 1eye. Scientific research is funded and initiated at the behest of corporations.
Corporations fund "patient advocacy" groups.
He with the biggest checking account gets the most clout.

So, the Traboulsee study, which used fallacious measurements, ignored protocol and had lousy p value gets the prestige and press.
While our sorry vascular researchers, who toil in relative obscurity (well, until the internet) find answers, but are denigrated.
Because industry cannot benefit from their discoveries.

That's why I keep saying, "If rocket scientists at NASA will work with Dr. Zamboni, why won't neurologists?"

we all have to look after each other,
cheer
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
http://ccsviinms.blogspot.com
User avatar
cheerleader
Family Elder
 
Posts: 5122
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:00 pm
Location: southern California

Re: NEW BLINDED STUDY FINDS CCSVI ASSOCIATED WITH MS

Postby MrSuccess » Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:09 pm

maybe the best response to this pre-determined study ..... is to just smile from ear to ear ..... much like the person who wrote this comedy ..... is in a habit of doing.

It is both an annoying and condescending mannerism. F#@k him , and the horse he rode in on. :lol:

MrSuccess predicted that this person had already came to his own conclusions on CCSVI ...... but was more than willing to take on the task of proving or disproving CCSVI.

For money ..... I guess.

Same old story ..... a relative nobody trying to gain their 15 mins. of fame ..... by trying to attach themselves to the coattails of someone actually doing wonderful research and trying to solve some serious mankind problems.

It's the easiest thing in the world to say ...... it won't work. Small minds often take this route. The great ones .... just carry their work forward . History records their eventual triumphs over their fierce critics.


MrSuccess
User avatar
MrSuccess
Family Elder
 
Posts: 904
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:00 pm

Re: NEW BLINDED STUDY FINDS CCSVI ASSOCIATED WITH MS

Postby Robnl » Fri Jan 30, 2015 3:23 am

Yup, everyody knows the name Traboulsee by now....
User avatar
Robnl
Family Elder
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 3:00 pm


Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Contact us | Terms of Service