Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:47 am
I know this doc is blasting Zamboni, but his "opening discussion" has a lot of misrepresentation/false info, can we comment on this?
1. He says PP didn't benefit from the treatment: I assume he means because there wasn't some kind of sudden halting of all symptoms in all cases. I was under the impression that PP DID benefit, even if that just means that some people only feel more "energetic."
2. He says SP didn't benefit from the treatment: see above.
3. He says people in the study "fell back to baseline". I guess he means restenosis, since I don't know where this statement is coming from. They did NOT fall back to baseline that I am aware of.
4. MOST IMPORTANTLY: He says there was no impact on relapse rate. Where on earth is he getting this? I was under the impression that it DID effect relapse rate, AND MRI.
Is this just a neurologist getting onto a show and lying through his teeth or what??? I know he is spinning, but sheesh!
1. He says PP didn't benefit from the treatment: I assume he means because there wasn't some kind of sudden halting of all symptoms in all cases. I was under the impression that PP DID benefit, even if that just means that some people only feel more "energetic."
2. He says SP didn't benefit from the treatment: see above.
3. He says people in the study "fell back to baseline". I guess he means restenosis, since I don't know where this statement is coming from. They did NOT fall back to baseline that I am aware of.
4. MOST IMPORTANTLY: He says there was no impact on relapse rate. Where on earth is he getting this? I was under the impression that it DID effect relapse rate, AND MRI.
Is this just a neurologist getting onto a show and lying through his teeth or what??? I know he is spinning, but sheesh!