Cece wrote:I've looked for ways for this to be wrong, because of the whole too-good-to-be-true thing. Once the replication at Buffalo turned up, even in the small-scale, it starts to be that there would have be gross incompetence or fraud for it not to be the case that there are venous abnormalities in the majority of MSers. And from there, the rest follows.
Sorry for the long post. I am still in some shock/denial that CCSVI is real and so I go through the evidence on a fairly regular basis. It keeps coming back to a big fat yes.
Same for me! Was also very sceptical in the beginning...and will only know next Tuesday if I belong to the claimed 95% of CCSVI cases (have doppler exam in Poland).
What worries me a bit is that the Buffalo scientists were (are maybe still?) consultants/lecturers for Serono/Merck, Biogen and Novartis. As regards to fraud, hope the methodology applied in the studies is not biased. But on the other hand: which top scientist would not have such a pharma-history?
Can anyone tell me what the first published Buffalo results communicate? Is the tone positive? Or neutral?