Dr. Zivadinov finds CCSVI in 100% of pwMS, 0% of controls

[MrSuccess]

more on '' icing on the cake ''

Big Pharm announces a new drug for Lupus today. This is FDA approved and the first new Lupus drug in over 50 years of Lupus research.

as Mr. Success has said ..... they are moving onto other areas of lucrative
drug sales ......


CCSVI has them running scared .....

If I were Dr. Zamboni ..... I'd hire a food tester

Are you available Bob ?




Mr. Success

[1eye]

I'd hire a food tester

Are you available Bob ?

Mr. Success

You must be on good terms...

[1eye]

Not sure what this means though:
“No results for correlation between VHISS and CBV or MTT survived multiple
comparison correction.” (From pg 2)

I think it means they do not have as much confidence in them as they do in the CBF result.

...

I'm just pointing out the obvious hard questions that are going to be asked about this study since it is saying once again that an US can reliably detect CCCVI and CCSVI is 100% in MS patients and 0% in controls.

I don't think too much acting ability was required since these were RR patients with hardly any disability (<5.5) who were not having an attack and had not had one lately. It ain't hard to do foot drag (see the film The Usual Suspects).

...

...discussion of Wallerian degeneration...

I think the point they were trying to make was that 'primary ischemic' (i.e., CCSVI) was more likely than WD.

[Lyon]

CCSVI has them running scared .....

If I were Dr. Zamboni ..... I'd hire a food tester

Are you available Bob ?

Free food? Hell yeah I'm available!

Believe what you want but not only is Zamboni and his theory safe and not a concern to the pharmas but I'm sure they've had some good laughs over cigars and scotch in the board room.

In all seriousness, it's clear to everyone except the most hardened CCSVI zealots that the theory of CCSVI has started circling the drain.......I think "all over but the crying" is the correct term.

Why do you think I seldom write anymore unless someone like you calls me out? Because I don't feel the need to rub someone's nose in it. All I could hope to gain is to make people question their decision and there is nothing in that for me.

You don't find it the least bit concerning that in well over a year, in the entire WORLD, Zamboni is the only one able to replicate his work?

Maybe in Italian science it holds some value for the same guy to replicate his own work but to the rest of the scientific world it's justification for their earlier doubts. "Desperation" is the term that first comes to mind.

I don't have high expectations for CCSVI but I'd be a fool not to want options for my wife so I continue to have hopes for CCSVI.

[Cece]

You don't find it the least bit concerning that in well over a year, in the entire WORLD, Zamboni is the only one able to replicate his work?

Beirut study. 12 out of 13 people with late RR MS were found by gold standard catheter venogram to have CCSVI.

[MrSuccess]

Rake less ...... Read more





I like twins !




Mr. Success

[Lyon]

Oh, well then the science community must be convinced and CCSVI is mainstream now! My bad!

[patientx]

Isn't the title of this thread incredibly misleading? I don't believe Dr. Zivadinov performed the ultrasound tests to determine who had CCSVI. And he is but one author listed (and the last one listed).

Beirut study. 12 out of 13 people with late RR MS were found by gold standard catheter venogram to have CCSVI.

Actually, the authors of that study never use the term CCSVI. And wasn't this the study you deemed "invalid?"

[Cece]

Isn't the title of this thread incredibly misleading? I don't believe Dr. Zivadinov performed the ultrasound tests to determine who had CCSVI. And he is but one author listed (and the last one listed).

Beirut study. 12 out of 13 people with late RR MS were found by gold standard catheter venogram to have CCSVI.

Actually, the authors of that study never use the term CCSVI. And wasn't this the study you deemed "invalid?"

If I recall, the Beirut study set the bar very high for what would be considered a stenosis. So actual stenoses did not get counted. Valve issues were excluded, missing jugulars were excluded.... So for the 12 out of 13 late RR MSers to be found to have ccsvi stenoses (by whatever name), they had to really have it to clear that high bar.

Some studies might have more false positives, some might have more false negatives. The Beirut study, by setting the bar too high and excluding stenoses that might have been included, would lean toward more false negatives. I was angry, as I recall, of how they set that up, since it was our first catheter venogram study. But I doubt it is the last. And in a study weighted toward false negatives, the positive findings of 12 out of 13 late RRMSers having CCVSI is valid.

[1eye]

You don't find it the least bit concerning that in well over a year, in the entire WORLD, Zamboni is the only one able to replicate his work?

That's why they gave him top billing.

Anyway, without disrespect, I can think of a few people on this forum I would pay to do that, and a few I would not. If he were here, I would include him first in the former list. The latter are not hard to guess.

[1eye]

Oh, well then the science community must be convinced and CCSVI is mainstream now! My bad!

I don't think anybody here blames you. I think very few of us even understand you!

[1eye]

"Desperation" is the term that first comes to mind.

Speaking for myself and not completely sure what "the rest of the world" is thinking, I think I have heard that term misused somewhere before...

[Cece]

Oh, well then the science community must be convinced and CCSVI is mainstream now! My bad!

I don't think anybody here blames you. I think very few of us even understand you!

All-or-nothing thinking: CCSVI is entirely disproven, CCSVI is entirely proven. You can't argue either of these and I don't hear many people trying.

[Lyon]

I'm not afraid to say that the situation is well beyond pitiful. I'm not sure a fitting word has been invented http://www.thisisms.com/ftopicp-141847.html#141847

MS diagnosis is highly inaccurate....until accuracy fits the need to justify Zamboni's 100%PWMS/0% controls. I see today "we've" gone back to accepting that MS diagnosis is highly inaccurate.

Originally CCSVI was directly associated with MS, maybe causing MS, now it goes back and forth between association and being a separate disease, partially depending on what fits the need to con the insurance company.

Zamboni is a hero, an icon and future Nobel prize winner, but he calls for staying on medication and not being "liberated" unless it's part of a study but that isn't convenient so he evidently becomes a dumb hick at that point and as many as 10,000 (I don't believe it for a minute) decided to ignore that an be "liberated" anyway.

When it comes to CCSVI and "liberation" placebo isn't a factor, for all we know placebo doesn't even exist.....whooops! NOW placebo is convenient! http://www.thisisms.com/ftopicp-156632.html#156632

The "facts" of CCSVI change so quickly and are so variable that I don't see how anyone could hope to keep up with them.

If I recall, the Beirut study set the bar very high for what would be considered a stenosis. So actual stenoses did not get counted. Valve issues were excluded, missing jugulars were excluded.... So for the 12 out of 13 late RR MSers to be found to have ccsvi stenoses (by whatever name), they had to really have it to clear that high bar.

Some studies might have more false positives, some might have more false negatives. The Beirut study, by setting the bar too high and excluding stenoses that might have been included, would lean toward more false negatives. I was angry, as I recall, of how they set that up, since it was our first catheter venogram study. But I doubt it is the last. And in a study weighted toward false negatives, the positive findings of 12 out of 13 late RRMSers having CCVSI is valid.

Edited to do some coloring-blue

[1eye]

The "facts" of CCSVI change so quickly and are so variable that I don't see how anyone could hope to keep up with them.

I have 'MS' so you have that much in your favour: I don't even try.