How many digits of accuracy can you have in 65 patients? (answer? 2.) The result you so easily call a lie would be very easy to see even if the error rate were, say 10%, and that corresponds rather nicely with the 90% I have seen elsewhere. In real scientific experimentation the possibility of error is quantified and it does not need a 'Lyon' to see that a 5% or so error rate would only be a small handful of patients, 2 or 3. 2 would be 3%. 3%! Don't give me any guff about 100% and 0%. In a sample size of 65 what would an error of 1 patient be? (answer, 1.5%) When the question has a yes/no answer? With venography... oh I don't want to bother with this imbecilic argument.Lyon wrote: Show me evidence that Zamboni's 100% and 0% results were achieved by using venous catheter on both those with and without MS and the whole thing will immediately seem plausible to me.= I can assure you, you are wasting your breath.
We both wish it was just me Rokkit, but we both know that the extreme unlikelihood of Zamboni REALLY achieving those results is one of the most damning and universal arguments used against Zamboni's work. I'm sure Zamboni's fans don't like it but industry skepticism isn't and probably shouldn't be restricted to only those particular study results and realistically, as with anyone else's work, should be viewed with a critical eye.
There is a double standard here, where theories 'not invented here' or stated in opposition to conventional, wrong-headed thinking, are held to a standard of perfection, where drug trials whose placebo group is better than treatment subjects is blindly accepted as not perfect, but approximate, therefore good enough.
Zamboni's evidence, like all evidence, is subject to error. The important thing is which ballpark he is in. I think I'll attend any game played in this park.