Page 2 of 2

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:49 am
by David1949
The Buffalo study also found a correlation although not as strong as Zamboni's. As I recall about 55% of MS patients had CCSVI vs 25% of the healthy control group. They reported a p value of .001, meaning the chance of getting that result by luck was .001 i.e 1 chance in 1000. That's not as strong as Zamboni's p value of .0001 or 1 chance in 10,000. But it is still a very strong correlation.

Quebec College of Medicine Press Release

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:00 pm
by Shayk

It looks like there's an opportunity for people to comment on the news release here.

I haven't tried to comment but if they're using the American University in Beirut data I would remind people that study found something like over 90% of people with RRMS (over 10 years duration) had jugular stenosis. I don't know if they even checked the azygous vein, and hence they may not have even evaluated for CCSVI. So, to indicate in a news release
"According to preliminary data generated by current research," underlined Dr. Marc Girard, President of the Qu├ębec Association of Neurologists, "it would also seem that the venous obstructions appear late into the progression of the illness. As such, these findings show that the obstructions are not the cause of multiple sclerosis
seems like a bit of a stretch.

Since when did RRMS become "late into the progression of the illness"? Have they not heard of SPMS or EDSS? As I recall, no EDSS scores were given for that RRMS cohort. It was however quite clever IMO for the Beirut researchers to use the label "late MS".

And, since the stenosis appear "late", they're not the cause of MS? Really, where's the scientific logic and evidence to come to that conclusion?

I don't think cancer in cigarette smokers occurs until "much later". I wonder if these same experts would then automatically conclude with such certainty that cigarette smoking doesn't cause cancer. (No need for extraneous comments here please, I hope the info stands on its own.)

Can you tell I'm agitated. :lol: I would hope that future press releases from the "experts" contain data and references.

Take care all


PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:33 pm
by MrSuccess
sharon - thanks for making my day . I normally do not read too many things on the Net ..... that amuse me as much as your reply to all of those lame reports. :P

Yes ..... it is at this point .... annoying .... to continually have to squelch poorly researched anti-ccsvi articles.

The ONLY research that has ANY VALUE ..... will be those that include the results of ACTUALLY PERFORMING the CCSVI procedure.

To the best of my knowledge ....... there has been NONE.

Some are planned .... ie ... Saskatchewan ...... Albany ...... Italy ...... Stanford ...... Buffalo ..... but have they any results yet to publish ?

All of the above ...... will be entering the patients body .

I am deliberatly excluding all the CCSVI procedures ...... that were /are not considered Trial and report specific.

I find it laughable when these so-called Quebec researchers ...... take a position on CCSVI ....WITHOUT seeing things for themselves.

They report on hearsay .

Hearsay is garbage science . And only appeals to those that can be easily swayed.

anyway ..... good work Sharon ..... you are beginning to write reply's much like ''ringleader' :wink:

Mr. Success

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:49 pm
by cah
I just don't get it. What's wrong with cooperation and learning from each other? Perhaps other scientists are trained by Dr. Zamboni, but not brainwashed. They still have their own scientific opinions and professional backgrounds. If they think there's a better way, they'll do it. See Dr. Simka using stents or the theories of Dr. Schelling that differ from Dr. Zamboni.

It's the other way round, I'd say. If there were no professionals following Dr. Zamboni's methodology or discuss and cooperate with him, I'd find that much more suspicious. Quacks are on their own most of the time.

Back on topic:

Dr. Desjardins says "...These factors, among others, constitute the rationale for the need to pursue research efforts so that we can obtain answers to existing questions and, thus, offer patients the best care possible."

I don't know the best care possible. I really don't, as anybody else. But it seems quite obvious to me that doing nothing definitly won't be the best care possible.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:54 pm
by MrSuccess
cah - what we have going on ..... is a continual effort by various small research groups ..... saying their research does not confirm CCSVI.

most ..... if not ALL ..... of these research groups ..... have at best ..... only used diagonostic's [ doppler ] to try and validate Dr. Zamboni's theory .

NONE have actually performed CCSVI venoplasty .

In other words .... ALL TALK ..... And NO ACTION .

Those that have performed the CCSVI venoplasty ..... seem convinced of Dr. Zamboni's great discovery .

Not to mention a continual parade of CCSVI venoplasty patients .... echoing the merit of the procedure .....

THATS ..... walking the talk .

Mr. Success

PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:58 am
by cah
Dr. Vogl in Germany isn't convinced and continues to say that he doesn't understand why or how there should be a relation between blocked veins and MS. He doesn't recommend the treatment. Nevertheless he does the procedure in those who want it, because he SEES that it's save and people have positive outcomes.

Some people step on a chair and call the pest-control when there's a mouse. Others just make a mouse trap ready...

(No offense to animals intended - I like mice ;) )