bnac study statistical problem

Cece · Post by **Cece** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:46 pm

http://bmartinmd.com/2011/04/ccsvi-nons ... arker.html

Addendum: Also to further muddy the waters, the CCSVI rates in the Buffalo study between healthy controls and patients with other neurologic diseases were not significantly different (P = .39).

I am quoting a blog, so not sure of its validity, does anyone know?

Much has been made of the fact that MS patients had CCSVI rates of 62%, other neurological diseases 42% and healthy controls 22% in the BNAC research. The fact that it was elevated in other neurological diseases has turned up in arguments diluting the importance of CCSVI in MS.

How significant is it if there is no statistically significant difference between rates in healthy controls and patients with other neurological diseases? P=.39 is not where it needs to be (p=.05 at the minimum).

This is so unproven, it should not have made the news or been treated like a fact.

MegansMom · Post by **MegansMom** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:59 am

If my memory serves me, I recall that BNAC included blood relatives of the MS patients in the healthy controls.
They also used Doppler not venogram.

Many other centers have statistics more in the 90% range.

Zamboni excluded relatives.

I definitely question their statistics.

Lyon · Post by **Lyon** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:31 am

1eye · Post by **1eye** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:49 am

MegansMom wrote:
They also used Doppler not venogram.
That's been a problem with nearly every ccsvi study since the very beginning.

This is not true at all. I was reading yesterday:

http://alturl.com/k6akj

This paper is from 2007, and is fairly concerted in its use of the Doppler ultrasound for velocity and direction measurements as well as colored imaging. It has been unfairly discredited in questionable statistics. It is a very accurate tool for quantitative analysis, as you can see from actual reading of this document, if you bother to do so.

The venogram and the fluoroscope are the gold standard for the Liberation Procedure, and IVUS and other tools are proving their worth to provide irreplaceable help for some problems. DUS is the tool that has proven, in a reasonably inexpensive way, that most people that thought they had "MS" of some kind, have CCSVI.

Lyon · Post by **Lyon** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:07 am

1eye · Post by **1eye** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:53 am

http://www.mediafire.com/?ef2edr2sbnodod5

Lyon · Post by **Lyon** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:01 am

1eye · Post by **1eye** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:19 pm

Actually if he is "selling" anything it is a much more capable unit FDA approved for Doppler ultrasonography of the deep cerebral veins, which as I understood it required proprietary software. I am kind of hoping to get scanned with that beastie someday.

The paper discusses these veins in detail, and I believe, even though they have somehow been deprecated in CCSVI officialdom, they will prove to be key to understanding the true nature of the cerebral part of this problem. In fact, the correspondence shown between disability and reflux is astounding. Has anyone seriously tried to reproduce this, or is it in the "we're not going to get *that* involved" category, with enhancing lesions? The testers who have been to the course seem to have no problem detecting reflux. Some others even seem to be able to do it.

Let's fish or cut bait. The bait's going to be deceased, defunct, departed, expired, extinct, inanimate, offed, inert, it will be late bait, lifeless, no more, it will have perished, it'll be stiff, wasted, at the end of the bait-road, bereft of bait-life, bait-belly up, baiting the big one, baiting the dust, baiting the farm, it will have ceased to bait, gone to meet it's baiter, it will have joined the choir invisibule, kicked the bait-bucket, passed away, pushing up bait-daisies, rung down the bait-curtain, shrugged off its mortal coil, sleeping with the other bait, snuffed it, stone dead; this bait will be too late to cut. So let's fish. Eh?

Lyon · Post by **Lyon** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:53 pm

Cece · Post by **Cece** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:07 pm

Great link, 1eye. I printed it out, I've been meaning to reread Zamboni's papers, now that I understand more.

1eye · Post by **1eye** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 5:15 am

Lyon wrote:
1eye wrote:In fact, the correspondence shown between disability and reflux is astounding. Has anyone seriously tried to reproduce this, or is it in the "we're not going to get *that* involved" category, with enhancing lesions? The testers who have been to the course seem to have no problem detecting reflux. Some others even seem to be able to do it.
I get the idea that most uninvolved and objective researchers are not especially interested in determining why and how elimination of ccsvi works until after it's determined that there even is such a thing as "ccsvi" and if it does exist could it cause the symptoms we have come to know as "MS".

Yes it exists. You know that, I know that, objective *and* non-objective researchers know that. People who think or say it does not are seriously deluded and I fear for their sanity. I advise them without prejudice to get a grip. Life will continue. The earth will still orbit the sun and spin on its axis and even the moon will circle the sky. Don't take my word for it. See for yourself.