The images as presented would imply the assumption that they are progression/improvement over time on the treatment (ie to show the benefits of the treatment/protocol). However, they are from the same date. When someone makes one statement that is misleading, it will garner mistrust of all their future and prior statements.AntonioBR wrote:Why would it mistrust the protocol?
On TIMS you present the protocol and as such, if anything you say appears misleading in anyway, that will reflect onto the protocol itself. For example, advertisers will use loved personalities that the "people" trust to present their products to the general population. If that personality is caught out lying or doing anything underhanded, they will be dropped from the advertising.AntonioBR wrote:Yes, it's true. All the images have been taken on the same day (Aug 20, 2015).
I am guessing you are now talking about the last set of images. Further confusing the matter and appearing to contradict what you say simply makes the issue worse. I find it really confusing how you yourself question the validity of MRI for measuring the treatments effects, and yet you started this thread and similar threads on MRI results on multiple forums (ie not just here on TIMS)AntonioBR wrote:The photos above aren't from the same day. They have a year apart.
I am no doctor, however, most medical treatments are analysed based on the effects of a population, not the individual. As for the individual (which would only be valid for that one individual), the MRI can be used (brain shrinkage is possible parameter). I actually do not know MRI measurements well enough, someone else may like to chime in. But I do know that my neurologist can comment if my MRI shows worsening even though I have no enhancing lesions. So it is possible.AntonioBR wrote:Then, how you analyse a ''true'' improvement on patient's condition if both self-reported and MRI exams aren't the best approach?
Outside of an MRI, there are other measurements such as EDSS etc but a BIG thing for me personally on believing any improvements for a treatment outside of a full trial protocol, is rater blinded. This method/technique I think would bring a considerably more validity to the results without adding significant costs.