Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 5:57 am
.
Welcome to This is MS, the leading forum for Multiple Sclerosis research and support. Join our friendly community of patients, caregivers, and researchers celebrating over 20 years of delivering hope through knowledge.
https://www.thisisms.com/forum/
This statement contradicts itself. If a positive result for stenosis disappears the next day, then it can't always be positive.sbr487 wrote:Apart from the fact that improper or less than efficient methods being used for the study, another thing that is slowly coming out is that it seems sometimes stenosis appear one day and look normal the next day. So, a negative need not be always negative but a positive always is.
this is actually a very good point. Dr. Zamboni and Dr. Salvi worked in cooperation--each contributing in their area of expertise when studying and writing up their research. Hearing them speak together in Bologna was very illuminating. It is too bad Dr. Salvi was not able to speak at the AAN conference (I guess because his English is not as good as Dr. Zamboni's)Salvatore24 wrote:Neuros should not be studying the vascular system, intervential radiologists/vscular surgeons should not be investigating neurological conditions. Both professions should be working in tandem on CCSVI, concentrating in their field of expertise ie. Neurologists should be monitoring future MRI scans, EDSS scores and general symptoms, the interventional radiologists/vascular surgeons should be looking at vein health and stenosis.
In short, neuros should not be writing a paper on a vascular condition.
You tend to get stuck with petty semantics and overcomplicate things when they are not necessary.patientx wrote:This statement contradicts itself. If a positive result for stenosis disappears the next day, then it can't always be positive.sbr487 wrote:Apart from the fact that improper or less than efficient methods being used for the study, another thing that is slowly coming out is that it seems sometimes stenosis appear one day and look normal the next day. So, a negative need not be always negative but a positive always is.
By the way, how do you know the methods were improper or not efficient?
I've listed the names and professions in the second entry of this thread. No vacular experts here. I assume they did the tests themselves, as it isn't stated otherwise in the study. But they used Dr. Zamboni's protocol and looked for the five patterns Dr. Zamboni has defined for CCSVI in upright and supine position.cheerleader wrote:were any vascular doctors involved in this study? Who tested the patients?
This is not petty semantics. Many of these testing methods (MRI, MRV, ultrasound, etc.) are open to some interpretation, coupled with the facts that not so much is known about the venous system, there's some disagreement among vascular experts on exactly what is abnormal, and CCSVI is a pretty new concept. So a "positive" result may not really indicate any problem, and besides leading to unnecessary intervention, just muddies the water about what causes MS. This why I think this issue is just more than petty semantics.sbr487 wrote:You tend to get stuck with petty semantics and overcomplicate things when they are not necessary.
I don't know what your calling ve. But are you saying that if you get a positive test result, then it's correct, but if you get a negative one, further testing might be necessary? If so, you can't be serious.When you find a -ve, you need to sample many more times.
When you find a +ve, you can probably leave it there
Medicine is full of such methods. When a test for a bacterial infection comes out -ve and Dr still strongly suspects same issue, he repeats after sometime.