Page 3 of 4
first results?
Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:53 am
by joge
Yesterday, my Dutch neurologist suggested that the first results of this Buffalo trial were negative.
Is he making this up, or can he know (peer review e.g.)?
Has anybody heard of any first (negative) results?
Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:44 am
by MrSuccess
key words : neurologist + negative
Is your neuro on side ?
Mr. Success
Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:00 am
by joge
NO WAY !!
Re: first results?
Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:15 am
by sbr487
joge wrote:Yesterday, my Dutch neurologist suggested that the first results of this Buffalo trial were negative.
Is he making this up, or can he know (peer review e.g.)?
Has anybody heard of any first (negative) results?
Though this can be neuro's interpretation. Again it depends on what is defined as -ve ... lets see ...
Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:22 am
by scorpion
MrSuccess wrote:key words : neurologist + negative
Is your neuro on side ?
Mr. Success
Or are the results simply negative?
?
Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 11:05 am
by joge
Negative, positive...
I'm curious; has anybody heard of first results, especialy results of the second part (double blind part) of the trial?
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 10:08 am
by nicknewf
I'm also very curious to hear how the safety study went. Anyone have the inside track on this?
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 4:33 pm
by Motiak
I would be shocked to hear the first part (the safety part) of the study was negative considering how many angioplasties have been done by other doctors without issue.
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 7:36 pm
by Cece
Could the neuro have meant the Buffalo imaging trial results that came out in February? (Or was it March?) Those were not negative, since they confirmed that CCSVI is found in MSers at a rate more than double that of controls, but they were not the 100% that the theory had led us to expect, and some have spun those results as being negative.
Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:34 pm
by se1956
@joge:
Did you ask which of the different Buffalo trials he means ?
R.
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:30 am
by joge
Hi,
I was kind of stressed, because I know he's very negative about the treatment. Before I went to Begium for the procedure, I informed hem, and he was very agressive. Warned me, said he didn't care, but in the end asked if I would inform him about the results.
I did come back, and he still was negative. It was 'my fault'. He meant: the improvements he saw now, were also there before the operation. Because the operiation doesn't work. I was a 'poser'.
He referred to the most recent Buffalow results. I assumed not the first, because those results were positive. I wasn't alert enough to ask more. But he suggested 'he knew more'...
Hence my question here, to confirm his suggestion (or not).
But maybe Cece is right..
Thanks!
:
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 1:46 am
by Badger
Were we not due the second batch of results from the Buffalo study, where they were to use further protocols to search for the blocked veins?
The first trial found 62% of MS patients had blocked; I believe.
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 7:45 am
by Rokkit
joge wrote:He referred to the most recent Buffalow results. I assumed not the first, because those results were positive. I wasn't alert enough to ask more. But he suggested 'he knew more'...
Joge, just my 2 cents worth, but I have a hard time believing he is privy to early information regarding the study.
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 8:28 am
by nicknewf
Joge, sorry to hear that your own Dr. not only doesn't have an open mind, but is prepared to call you a liar instead.
Just to be clear, I am interested in hearing/reading about the 10 person safety study at UB Neurosurgery which took place the last 2 days of June, and whether they have started the 20 person placebo blinded study. I'm not really sure if this will have any bearing on my wife's decision to go ahead with surgery anyway - she's seems committed to me; I just don't want to leave any stone unturned.
Thanks if anyone knows if the safety study came back with a negative.
Cheers,
Nick
Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:56 pm
by joge
Rokkit wrote:joge wrote:He referred to the most recent Buffalow results. I assumed not the first, because those results were positive. I wasn't alert enough to ask more. But he suggested 'he knew more'...
Joge, just my 2 cents worth, but I have a hard time believing he is privy to early information regarding the study.
More and more I'm starting to think you're right! It's like Cece said; he interprets the positive results of the first trials as being negative, because they didn't reach Zambo's 100%. I think thats the key.
So, positive results from the second Buffalo trial are very welcome
I love to go back to him and kick his a**
Imagine him as being Squidward Tentacles!