This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

The Buffalo study of 500 subjects showed that over 55% of the MS patients imaged suffered from a narrowing of their extracranial veins (CCSVI), while 25.9% of healthy test subjects also exhibited such narrowing

I think you should change it to reflect the original press release, i.e. either 62.5% vs. 25.9% or 56.4% vs. 22.4%. (Only because 62.5% is not just over 55%.)

Sotiris wrote:

The Buffalo study of 500 subjects showed that over 55% of the MS patients imaged suffered from a narrowing of their extracranial veins (CCSVI), while 25.9% of healthy test subjects also exhibited such narrowing

I think you should change it to reflect the original press release, i.e. either 62.5% vs. 25.9% or 56.4% vs. 22.4%. (Only because 62.5% is not just over 55%.)

Thanks, made the change...

all buffalo results discussion here at TIMS can be found at
http://www.thisisms.com/ftopict-9959.html

Don't tell anyone, Marc, but I'm going to stop in on one of these here forbidden threads and thank you personally for your take on the "B" study. (whistle, whistle, la-di-da-di-da...) Just pretend we're talking about the other posts on your blog that I consider just as fabulous instead of that one.

Marc, your blog post is excellent. In fact, it's the best summary I've seen anywhere of the current state of CCSVI. I wish I could think of exactly how to phrase this so it comes out right, but first and foremost let me say, I wish you didn't have MS - or whatever it is you have that's like MS. But since you do, the MS-world is better off for your having it because of your writing.

awesome as usual, Marc...thanks for the analysis.

Good point you made here:

Venous anatomy can differ markedly from patient to patient, making it difficult to define exactly what "normal" looks like.

Given the wide variance of abnormalities reported (I think Ozark has a thread on this one) it makes one normal what really is "normal." as far as the venous system...and also makes one wonder just how adaptable the venous system is.

Another good point here:

While anecdotal reports are subjective rather than objective, and therefore not typically suitable for scientific scrutiny, they certainly can't be dismissed offhand, either.

There's a bias many scientists/physicians have criticized in the research realm and it's the bias towards RCTs (randomized controlled trials) as the sole basis for "evidence based" medicine. They argue that observational trials also have merit. Dr. Dake's observational research should certainly be considered towards the question of whether or not to treat CCSVI.