This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

replicate replications.



without venography, 5 of the 6 proposed studies will get results in the 60% range.


either we say that's great or we insist they add venography.


hard to get controls to do something with radiation...


really if 5 centres can get to buffalo's 60% figure we should cheer and say

great!



adding venography will take them all to 95% a year or two later. Must be patient.



maybe they can invent a less invasive way of doing the dye/motion sequence. '


anybody made their venogram into an avi or .mp4?

replicate replications.



without venography, 5 of the 6 proposed studies will get results in the 60% range.


either we say that's great or we insist they add venography.


hard to get controls to do something with radiation...


really if 5 centres can get to buffalo's 60% figure we should cheer and say

great!



adding venography will take them all to 95% a year or two later. Must be patient.



maybe they can invent a less invasive way of doing the dye/motion sequence. '


anybody made their venogram into an avi or .mp4?

This is insanity. They say Dr Zamboni's study was too small and they are going to do less. Plus we have 1,000 already tested from Buffalo. This is just a time waster and money spender.

Now if this was a drug trial would they sit at home and try to reinvent the drug first or would they simply test what is recognised as the drug in question?

I suspect they would use the drug in question.

Now we have an imaging trial and the scientific attitude seems to be that they must reinvent the imaging protocol to prove it is real

How can we convince them to go to Italy and learn about an obvously novel approach that no one else has thought of so far?