Page 3 of 3
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:20 am
by Lyon
MrSuccess wrote: If you find out any information about the missing 14 % ...... post it.
Although it isn't appreciated here, that article isn't obscure in that the Annals Of Neurology isn't obscure.
I've got a team working on finding those missing percentages as we speak.
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:58 am
by sou
So what is the problem with "negative" studies? They are not really negative. They are food for thought and will definitely help in improving our knowledge about what CCSVI is and what CCSVI is not.
For example, plethysmography was inspired by the other "negative" Doep's study. There is no other way to make science move. Let's just think and remain in this reality.