80% for CDMS - It's Real

[TFau]

Could someone please tell me what NMO stands for?

[pegmegrund]

Sure! NMO (from wikipedia):

Devic's disease, also known as Devic's syndrome or neuromyelitis optica (NMO), is an autoimmune, inflammatory disorder in which a person's own immune system attacks the optic nerves and spinal cord.

It can resemble MS, especially for those of us who have mainly spinal lesions...

[TFau]

Thanks pegmegrund!

Interesting that the control group specifically says that it includes familial controls. It will be interesting to see how the occurence of CCSVI is distributed amongst the control group.

[Lyon]

..

[ozarkcanoer]

Sotiris,

Nice chart !!! It gives some great perspective on all the numbers that have been flying around.

ozarkcanoer

[Lyon]

..

[Squeakycat]

After taking into account the significant digits of the percentages in the buffalo press release and with some assumptions, the raw data should be as follows:

I see you have assumed the 38% for CIS, but why not put the MS group at 80% based on the same article noting the 38%?

Is there something specific in the original press release that says you can't do that?

[Sotiris]

I see you have assumed the 38% for CIS, but why not put the MS group at 80% based on the same article noting the 38%?

Is there something specific in the original press release that says you can't do that?

Because the "about 80%" refers to "those with more advanced symptoms of the disease" and we have no clue about how many they are.

[Billmeik]

Quote:


Yes.

-------Original Message-------

From: Bill Meikle
Date: 2/14/2010 10:53:10 AM
To: rzivadinov@bnac.net
Subject: cdms and cis numbers...

Hi Dr.Zivadinov

So the CBC reporter compared the rates for CIS subjects to "those with more advanced symptoms of the disease".

would that be CIS vs CDMS?

Thanks.



so there's our answer, for people who actually have ms it's 80%! Thank you dr ziv if you are reading this!!

hmm that table is very nice graphically but at least the top number where it says ms and puts 56% next too it is probably wrong. Those numbers are for the whole group including cis.

I am pondering writing dr ziv AGAIAN and asking for clarification AGAIN but wasting busy people's time isn't on. What part about the above
exchange is unclear? How would a new question have to be worded to make the disinformation stop?

[Squeakycat]

@ Billmeik

Two important questions I still have about the data are:

1. What percentage of the Healthy Controls were relatives of the MS patients (and therefore a group where you would in fact expect to find some number of people with CCSVI who are undiagnosed MS)?

2. Are the RIS included with CDMS, or CIS in terms of percentage CCSVI in the first 500 tested?

[Sotiris]

Quote:


Yes.

-------Original Message-------

From: Bill Meikle
Date: 2/14/2010 10:53:10 AM
To: rzivadinov@bnac.net
Subject: cdms and cis numbers...

Hi Dr.Zivadinov

So the CBC reporter compared the rates for CIS subjects to "those with more advanced symptoms of the disease".

would that be CIS vs CDMS?

Thanks.



so there's our answer, for people who actually have ms it's 80%! Thank you dr ziv if you are reading this!!

hmm that table is very nice graphically but at least the top number where it says ms and puts 56% next too it is probably wrong. Those numbers are for the whole group including cis.

I am pondering writing dr ziv AGAIAN and asking for clarification AGAIN but wasting busy people's time isn't on. What part about the above
exchange is unclear? How would a new question have to be worded to make the disinformation stop?

People with more advanced symptoms of the disease are for sure CDMS so the answer of Dr. Zivadinov holds true. If the MS group was divided into two subgroups, CIS and CDMS with 38% CCSVI and 80% CCSVI respectively, then we should have 158 persons with CIS (60 of them with CCSVI) and 122 CDMS (98 with CCSVI) which is wrong acc. to Dr. Zivadinov's presentation in Hamilton, where he states that the CIS population for the whole study consists of 50 persons.
But if you can ask Dr. Zivadinov again, you could ask if the CIS group is a part of the 280 people with MS or a part of the rest 59 people. You could also ask to how many people the 80% figure (of people with more advanced symptoms ) refers.

[Squeakycat]

@ Sotiris

This breakdown works, but does perhaps unrealistically assume all 50 people with CIS in the study are included in the first 500.


People CCSVI CCSVI
MS 280 224 80%
HC 161 36 22%
CIS 50 19 38%
OND 9 0 0%
Total 500 279 56%

[Lyon]

..

[Cece]

I am pondering writing dr ziv AGAIAN and asking for clarification AGAIN but wasting busy people's time isn't on. What part about the above
exchange is unclear? How would a new question have to be worded to make the disinformation stop?

I think the main question is about who exactly is at the 80%...so you could ask, "Does the 80% apply to all CDMS? Or does it apply only to a subset of CDMS with more advanced symptoms?"

[Billmeik]

People CCSVI %

MS 280 158 56.5%
MS-BORDERLINES 250 155? 62%
CDMS 200 160? 80%
HC 161 36 2%
CIS 50 19 8%
OND 9 0 0%
TOTAL 500


really the only problems are the question marks. In order to make the percentages correct they are slightly changed. They should both read 158.


dont know why even the 62% doesnt work out.