Page 2 of 2

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:47 pm
by MrSuccess
EJC - I agree with your point ... BUT .....

....... in the case of the original Zamboni 65 ..... Professor Zamboni was not walking down the street of Ferrara ...... and grabbing random people off the streets ...... his test subjects ..... were NO DOUBT selected and refered to him by his CCSVI team associate - Dr.Silvi : Neurologist - who I am sure , was positive these people had MS.

The original CCSVI trial of Dr. Zamboni was to INCLUDE the Liberation treatment ..... this is EXPENSIVE . No shame procedures.

While the Zamboni-Silvi team was CERTAIN their test subjects had MS ....
they did not know if they had CCSVI.

Question: If 65 people walk into a room with a cast on their foot .... what do you think the chances are that all 65 have broken bones ..... upon x-ray testing ?

Seems simple to me ...... all 65 having CCSVI ..... 100%

Am I missing some logic here ?

Yeah ..... I know I enjoy my cocktails ........... :wink:

Mr. Success

Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 2:25 am
by bil
Lanie wrote:...“Our data set includes a number of ultrasound parameters not included in the Zamboni definitions,” explains A/Prof Chambers. “We intend to apply advanced statistical methods to determine which if any ultrasound variables are more prevalent in MS. Our results in healthy controls will also provide the best available venous ultrasound data to give a ‘normal range’ for comparison.”...

If their sonographer was trained in the Zamboni protocol they will find CCSVI - if it exists. Consistency and standardization in the protocol is what is needed for patients to get an accurate diagnosis. By changing or adding to the protocol based on their opinion only skews validity and ultimately affects patients getting treatment.
No, this means that there is - at least theoretically - actually more chance of them finding a link between the bloodflow and MS, if such a thing exists. They are not just using the Zamboni criterien, but are also looking at extra information gleaned from the ultrasound scans. So they have at least as much chance of finding a correlation as they would just using the Zamboni criterien - if one exists.

Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2011 4:04 am
by frodo
bil wrote:
Or maybe they've just got good sonographers who don't press down too hard and therefore don't end up seeing things that aren't there?
It is an interesting coincidence that sonographers tend to press harder in PWMS even in blinded studies, isn't it?