- Family Elder
- Posts: 2203
- Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 2:00 pm
- Location: Bedfordshire UK
http://www.davalinternational.com/marku ... 7-4-05.cfm
Make of these what you will. I'll leave them with you!
All quotes from Daval's solicitors, my emphasis and edits:
The trial at Oxford University was not a small study ...
Indeed, the treatment was clearly effective as nine of the eleven patients on the trial ...
Eleven patients only that, in my view, is a small study.
... the treatment was clearly effective as nine ... patients on the trial have subsequently contacted our clients requesting that they be permitted to continue their treatment with Aimspro.
This is not a clinical measure of effectivness.
I am what I am
However, whether you are pro or con Aimspro at the moment, let's be honest; we're all making these decisions on the basis of faith (in either direction).
With only 11 patients the chances of a statistical error (specifically, Type II, finding that the treatment "doesn't work" when it fact it does) are astronomical. I think they are close to 80%.
Yes, that's right, they probably had a 80% chance of not finding statistical significance even if the treatment is fantastic. If you assume, like any MS treatment, that it will only work for some, then these chances may even be higher.
That they did find significance on some of their measures is an important finding. They need much bigger trials but to me, it seems a bit hyper-vigilant of the MS Society to be damning Aimspro without all the data in.
At this point, it has compelling anecdotes in its favor and a small study or two which found some pleasing results.
Keep in mind: This is all the evidence I had to base my evaluation of anti-chlamydial therapy on, and I found it compelling enough to go forward with it.
(Of course the anti-chlamydial regimen has logic and mechanism of action in its favor, and lots of circumstantial evidence; Aimspro is simply a mystery, which may be why some people are put off by it).
Just some thoughts.
It's totally possible Aimspro will be a bust, of course, but at this point we have no more quality evidence to claim THAT then we do to claim that it is a miracle drug.
Story tries to discredit and debunk what seems to be a promising treatment.
A site like that should remain unbiased and neutral until the facts are in,perhaps a major drug company is sponsoring the site.
It actually makes me hopeful that aimspro will work out,someone seems to be afraid of it.
- Similar Topics
- Last post