This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

What logic does tell me is that Zamboni made a claim and there have been three or four sudies released that do not come close to validating his original claims. Logic tells me that when this happens to any scientist whether it be someone studying stem cells, cancer, or CCSVI it is likely because some part of their study was flawed or biased. My logic than tells me that the researcher's claims should be looked at very skeptically until he or someone else can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the inital claim they made has some sort of truth to it. This to me is logical. What is not logical to me is that there is some world wide conspiracy that involve neurologists, MS Societies, jounalists, etc. that are trying to undermine CCSVI research. Logic tells me that very few of the people mentioned above even have CCSVI cross their mind on most days unless they get some crazy letter stating they are part of some sort of conspiracy undermining a theory they likely do not even know exits. From what I understand there are clinical trials taking place right now that are investigating CCSVI which will hopefully shed some more light on Zamboni's theory.

I agree with Scorpion

scorpion wrote: Logic tells me that when this happens to any scientist whether it be someone studying stem cells, cancer, or CCSVI it is likely because some part of their study was flawed or biased. My logic than tells me that the researcher's claims should be looked at very skeptically until he or someone else can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the inital claim they made has some sort of truth to it. This to me is logical.

Scorpion.. Does your logic explain Dr Simka's results? Please don't just say that his results are skewed to support ccsvi as this will only expose your logic to " the other results are skewed to debunk ccsvi". Do you have a link to a study with negative results performed by a body not already known to be in opposition to ccsvi? Even better a pro-ccsvi group.
How many studies and by whom might it take to convince someone like you? This is not 'bait'..i am truly interested..

edit.. okay i reread the quote and i will say that it could apply in both cases but.. when would this merry-go-round stop?

lets go back in time ....

Dr. Zamboni provided the medical world with a different viewpoint on a very difficult medical condition - MS- .

Dr. Zamboni [ actually ... he is a PROFESSOR ] published his teams discovery of CCSVI ..... and has with great humility .... asked others to duplicate his great discovery .

And they are hard at work doing this . Stanford ... Poland ... Albany ...Buffalo ..... and so on.

From what I have read ...... and after viewing his video interviews .....
I can only say ..... Dr. Zamboni is a humble .....amazing man.

He respectfully has asked others to examine his work .

And respectfully ...... answered all of his critics .... with grace ....



Salute ........ Dr. Zamboni








Mr. Success

.

scorpion wrote: there have been three or four sudies released that do not come close to validating his original claims

Why is that these studies did not come close to BNAC?
Does your logic work only one way?

scorpion wrote:What logic does tell me is that Zamboni made a claim and there have been three or four sudies released that do not come close to validating his original claims.

Again, at least two BLINDED trials (Zamboni and Zivadinov) have shown an association. This can only mean that the correlation exists or that some odd coincidences took place. Even if other two blinded trials showed a negative association.

The weight of the positive is always higher than the negative when we speak about blinded trials. If you perform wrong your test you will get a negative, but is enough that somebody shows one positive to assume the association.

Lyon wrote: literally impossible

?? I am surprised by this comment.. ?? If Dr Zamboni chose 65 patients with heavily weighted MS diagnosis then, the opposite to impossible is quite possible. In such a small group it would be easy to miss the 10% misdiagnosed group.
I am also surprised that your infer that Dr Zamboni is a liar?? This is not your usual 'Lyonesque' post?

Lyon wrote:Logical post scorpion!

Logic can't help but make one wonder what would have come of the theory of CCSVI if Zamboni hadn't posted the original, literally impossible, percentages that he did, which are obviously showing not to be replicable.

When the first thing someone tells me is an obvious lie it doesn't seem cynical NOT to take what they say afterward as the gospel and to insist on some kind of proof, which so far hasn't materialized.

Pretty well summarized. One should dump Dr. Z's findings in dustbin and forget:
1) that theories go through a process of refining
2) that even for a single theory, there are hundreds of scientists who contribute in giving final shape (modern physics for example)
3) to collect multiple data point so that Doctors can base their decision more accurately

Probably we should start by questioning research papers that have, for example, typos in them ... what else?

PCakes wrote:If Dr Zamboni chose 65 patients with heavily weighted MS diagnosis then, the opposite to impossible is quite possible. In such a small group it would be easy to miss the 10% misdiagnosed group.

Or the potential 2.9% misdiagnosed from Simka's much larger group which was assessed using catheter venogram. Alas, PCakes, our argument has been put forth numerous times against Lyon's "can't be 100%" mantra. I can assure you, you are wasting your breath.

concerned wrote:Is there any charity watch or Better Business Bureau or whatever breakdown of Direct-MS' spending?

Is there any Cynic Watch kind of thing, like snopes?

Actually the statements on this forum aren't worth a mound of legumes compared to the public damage being done by public figures. All we can do here is agree not to let it happen again. To vote with our money, our mouths, and our ballots.

Lyon[b] wrote:Logical post scorpion![/b]

Logic can't help but make one wonder what would have come of the theory of CCSVI if Zamboni hadn't posted the original, literally impossible, percentages that he did, which are obviously showing not to be replicable.

When the first thing someone tells me is an obvious lie it doesn't seem cynical NOT to take what they say afterward as the gospel and to insist on some kind of proof, which so far hasn't materialized.

I guess I kind of sound like Spock. I wonder what he would think about CCSVI?

.

Lyon wrote:Logic can't help but make one wonder what would have come of the theory of CCSVI if Zamboni hadn't posted the original, literally impossible, percentages that he did, which are obviously showing not to be replicable.

100% is not impossible. Every patient was hand picked form Dr Salvi's cohort of MS patients. Presumably he only referred patients who were definitely suffering from the illness. On the other hand, Dr Sinan treated any patient in Kuwait - clinically isolated, misdiagnosed or otherwise and Dr Simka scans any patient who presents themselves. And they have both found a correlation in the 90s. It all seems quite plausible to me and, given time, it will to you too.

.