My Evidence

[cah]

This might sound foolishly romantic, pathetic and naive, but to me, one conclusive evidence for the CCSVI paradigm is what the CTV show revealed: The love of Dr. Zamboni to his wife as a motor to his studies. In a quite logical way, at least to me, this really is a quite weightily fact. The conclusion is: Let's assume (for a very VERY short moment ) that he is wrong (and he knows this). If he loves his wife, then he must be really mad and evil to betray her like that. (If that would be the case, this would easily be recognized by his fellow scientists and others.)

If you look at him in the interview, you can but believe him. Being close to tears several times. His modest, honest smile when he tells that helping his wife is the "best price" of his efforts. If he's acting when he says this, he should get an academy award for best acting in a documentary right away.

Well, just a thougt that came to my mind when I saw the CTV show the first time. I understand that no scientist will acknowledge this.

Cah

[dlb]

OK maybe I'm a hopeless romantic too.... But I agree 100% to what you say

[mrhodes40]

good point!
Another thought I have had along the same lines is that let's assume he wants it badly, he really REALLY believes this has to be it and so he ''makes sure'' it turns out somehow ie by injecting the dye so to make a stenosis appear or to pretend that the blinded parts were blind when really you knew who was MS patient and who not so you could ''make sure'' you got 2 abnormals on the MSers and not try on the others. (some people have suggested this is how he got his 100%)

What kind of creep would divert MS research funds to a bogus or equivocal model when their own wife is in the pool that needs the good research?

And even if you think he could do that, what would be the point when treatment will not work and eventually you will be found out. I mean forget about your research career after that.

And Why, in God's name, would the other 7 researchers go along with this? They all agreed to pretend they were blind? Are you kidding me??

I can see the point made on a blog about the unblinded venograms POSSIBLY being open to a little bit of biased interpretation, but at that point after hundreds of patients had already been evaluated blindly with reliable correlation that the venous drainage is altered does anyone blame them for having some degree of confidence that probably stenosis is causing altered hemodynamics in these patients?

At any rate there are some common sense things that a person can apply here, I agree that it si exceedingly implausible thst given the circumstances there is any falsifying going on here. The blinded and controlled parts of the studies done are well done to assure they could avoid fooling themselves.