This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

Malden wrote:

cheerleader wrote:OK...two negative studies, the same two studies we've been discussing on here for three months. Nothing new, nothing has changed...they're just getting regurgitated in the press now.

What are you talking about? What two studies? German and Amsterdam? Here we are talking about Swedish study, and Amsterdam is not in Sweden, it's in Netherlands (Holland).

This study is:
Received: 2 May 2010; Revised: 4 June 2010; Accepted: 17 June 2010
Published Online: 2 Aug 2010 in Annals of Neurology, Volume 68.

How you can discussing something here for three months if that was public published some days ago?

Look's like you are cuting/pasting from somewere else thread.

Well to chime in here, 3 months ago, I did read at first about a sweedish study, but then again that it was Amsterdam. I think there is some confusion here by the press releases. So has there been 2 or 3 studies?

this is the third negative study, nicko. Now we have Germany, The Netherlands and Sweden. The researcher in this one, the Swedish study posted by Malden, utilized MRV technology and scanned C2-C3 in the neck. See my post above for Dr. Haacke's MRV protocol. It starts at the top of the head, and ends in the chest.
cheer

cheerleader wrote:M--
apologies. I did not reply to the Swedish study. you're right, I cut and pasted from the general thread.
...

Apologies accepted.

cheerleader wrote:this is the third negative study, nicko. Now we have Germany, The Netherlands and Sweden. The researcher in this one, the Swedish study posted by Malden, utilized MRV technology and scanned C2-C3 in the neck. See my post above for Dr. Haacke's MRV protocol. It starts at the top of the head, and ends in the chest.
cheer

cheerleader, that's very helpful to know just in case my dr brings it up because I am going to schedule soon. Good to have some concrete info as to why this study is not valid. thanks!

Here is what CTV news says about the study

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20100 ... nt-100804/

hehehe 'multiple scerlosis'

jimmylegs wrote:hehehe 'multiple scerlosis'

Jimmy, what that meen?? Are you spaming this serious thread?
You just closed interesting and dynamic thread "Fun with C. Rose" where we we just start to worm up and now this. Ok. I will accept it. You'r the boss.
Best regards, M.

that's how the ctv announcer pronounced it.

jimmylegs wrote:that's how the ctv announcer pronounced it.

OK

....and what about C.Rose thread? ;)

So if all of these studies are "junk science" solely because they're not following "the Protocols of the Learned Family Elders of Zamboni", what makes people so sure that the protocols themselves aren't "junk science"?

Also, it is my experience that conspiracy theorists always complain about THEIR protocols, not their own sides protocols.

concerned wrote:So if all of these studies are "junk science" solely because they're not following "the Protocols of the Learned Family Elders of Zamboni", what makes people so sure that the protocols themselves aren't "junk science"?

That's why studies that follow Zamboni's protocols are desirable.

Also, it is my experience that conspiracy theorists always complain about THEIR protocols, not their own sides protocols.

Your experience has not let you down. You are quite right, it is not desirable to attempt to reproduce a protocol whose authors claim does not work.

L wrote:

concerned wrote:So if all of these studies are "junk science" solely because they're not following "the Protocols of the Learned Family Elders of Zamboni", what makes people so sure that the protocols themselves aren't "junk science"?

That's why studies that follow Zamboni's protocols are desirable.

Also, it is my experience that conspiracy theorists always complain about THEIR protocols, not their own sides protocols.

Your experience has not let you down. You are quite right, it is not desirable to attempt to reproduce a protocol whose authors claim does not work.

I'm pretty sure that didn't address anything that I said.

Ladies.. Gents..
Not fluent in medspeak but this just seems obvious.. Dr Zamboni spent years researching a vascular connection to MS.. in that time he developed a particular protocol to diagnose this condition.. How can this theory be confirmed or denied if that same protocol is not exercised?
It's not magic or slight of hand.. it is diagnostic protocol.. why change it? to what end? any change will taint the results?

It does seem odd that the exact Zamboni protocol is not being followed. However it also seems peculiar that variations in technique fail absolutely to detect any ccsvi. It raises interesting questions

1. The Zamboni protocol is the only accurate method to detect ccsvi. Correlates with positive anecdotal results.

2. Alternatively the Zamboni protocol makes it appear that ccsvi exists but in fact the other methods are more accurate and ccsvi is an artificial result that only appears using a flawed method. Correlates with false positives in buffalo study.

My wife tested postive for ccsvi using zamboni method but I'm starting to get nervous that only "zambonis" method works...any alternative method used to detect it results in zip...

yes, but, wouldn't the beginning be the right place to start? if the theory was replicated exactly and the results varied widely, this would have more impact.. ?

Is it uncommon to have a singular diagnostic protocol?