Dr Arata CA medical board license revocation proceedings

[Cece]

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]

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]

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

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

[jimmylegs]

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

[NHE]

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.

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...

...I believe they did not. They looked at the whole group as "treated" whether or not the blood flow improved.