Dr Arata CA medical board license revocation proceedings

A forum to discuss Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency and its relationship to Multiple Sclerosis.
Post Reply
Cece
Family Elder
Posts: 9331
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:00 pm
Contact:

Dr Arata CA medical board license revocation proceedings

Post by Cece » Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:56 pm

http://www2.mbc.ca.gov/BreezePDL/docume ... 244624.DID

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-re ... race/74337

California medical board legal medical license revocation proceedings against Dr. Arata

ElliotB
Family Elder
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 4:08 pm

Re: Dr Arata CA medical board license revocation proceedings

Post by ElliotB » Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:51 am

It is amazing that even with Dr. Zamboni's recent revelations about the ineffectiveness of CCSVI, there are still so many supporters who believe and want to believe in the procedure.

Cece
Family Elder
Posts: 9331
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Dr Arata CA medical board license revocation proceedings

Post by Cece » Tue Sep 04, 2018 6:08 am

https://www.medpagetoday.com/neurology/ ... osis/70118

Dr. Zamboni sounds firmly in support of CCSVI in this interview ten months ago.

User avatar
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
Posts: 12028
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:00 pm

Re: Dr Arata CA medical board license revocation proceedings

Post by jimmylegs » Thu Sep 06, 2018 3:24 pm

column a, meet column b http://www.cmaj.ca/content/190/1/E28

User avatar
NHE
Volunteer Moderator
Posts: 5254
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Dr Arata CA medical board license revocation proceedings

Post by NHE » Thu Sep 06, 2018 11:04 pm

It should be made clear that Dr. Arata went off the deep end with his own theory about venoplasty stimulating the vagus nerve and was no longer really treating CCSVI and blood flow. That said, there were design flaws with Zamboni's study. One was that they lumped people who had successful restoration of blood flow via venoplasty with those that did not. I compared it to the following example.
NHE wrote:
ThisIsMA wrote:What I want to know is if they did a separate analysis of improvements for the 53% of participants who achieved increased blood flow?
If not, it seems to be a flaw in the design of the study. A good analogy might be something like this... Suppose you were tasked with determining the mileage of a car by using the average of a fleet of 20 identical cars to be tested. Now, suppose that half of the cars had properly inflated tires and the other half had grossly under inflated tires say around 5 psi. Would it be correct to include the low mileage from the cars with the flat tires? No. No company would do this. But that's just what happened when the data from the people with the successful angioplasties were mashed together with the other half of the data set with unsuccessful angioplasties. Moreover, the study was grossly under powered statistically due to very low recruitment into the trial. If n is too low, a small treatment effect is unlikely to be significantly different. I suspect that if this had been a drug study by a pharma company that the results never would have seen the light of day.
Cece clarified the issue by adding...
Cece wrote:...I believe they did not. They looked at the whole group as "treated" whether or not the blood flow improved.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post