CCSVI being over hyped??
Nick
MS
http://www.ctv.ca/generic/WebSpecials/pdf/YMVA_4198_Zamboni_final.pdf
Now I don't claim to understand this paper fully. This is just my own
opinion
from what I get from the paper.
I've read claims that he stopped relapses in 75% of the treated patients.
But.... his numbers from his studay do not back up those claims at all.
This is what I understand from the study.
The annual rate of relapse free patients before surgery was 27%, and the
rate after surgery was 50%.
So thats a 23% increase in the amount of people who are relapse free.
Hmmmmmmm not quite 75%. Now taking in the consideration that placebo has
been known to show around 30% effectiveness. Is his procedure even effective
at all???
I know he has had a few patients completely relapse free since his procedure
was performed. So it does warrant testing... It could be his methods of
opening and repairing the veins could be improved. I'm still hopefull of
this theory and procedure. But I just don't like the false claims being
thrown around. Its not fair to us in the MS community.
What does everyone else think??
evilzona
> I just finished reading the final results of Dr Zamboni's study on CCSVI and
I think you dont have a clue as to what you're talking about.
timmythesaint
seems to have hit on something. Lets hope it shows some further
progress,
Tim
Fingers
"Nick" <ni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:oFgTm.56668$PH1.44444@edtnps82...
>
> I just finished reading the final results of Dr Zamboni's
> study on CCSVI and MS
> http://www.ctv.ca/generic/WebSpecials/pdf/YMVA_4198_Zamboni_final.pdf
>
> of the treated patients. But.... his numbers from his study
> do not back up those claims at all.
>
> This is what I understand from the study.
>
> The annual rate of relapse free patients before surgery
> was 27%, and the rate after surgery was 50%.
> who are relapse free.
I disagree. Your 23% figure comes from confusing
a percentage figure with percentage points.
Claimed rate before surgery: 27/100
Claimed rate after surgery: 50/100
Difference in rate: 23/100
Percentage change in rate: ((after - before) / before) * 100
> Hmmmmmmm not quite 75%.
Yeah, it's more like 85%, rounded to the nearest 1%.
(((50-27)/100) / (27/100)) * 100 = (23/27) * 100 = .85 * 100 = 85%
Of course, the actual percentage may not be as high as 85%
due to rounding of the reported 27% and 50% figures.
> [...] What does everyone else think??
I think Dr. Zamboni's proposed mechanism doesn't explain
MS lesions on the spinal cord. I think I'm doubtful about
this hyped surgical intervention can treat an inflammatory
disease.
--
Now actually, that is not the answer that I had in mind
because the book that I got this problem out of
wants you to do it in base eight. But don't panic.
Base eight is just like base ten really, if you're
missing two fingers.
Tom Lehrer, "New Math"
quoted by Gunther Anderson on the web page
_New Math - Tom Lehrer (Lyrics and Chords)_
<http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/newmath.htm>
Nick
But 50% of the RR patients in this study still had relapses post surgery did
they not?
Like i said, I was going off of my opinion. I judge somethings
effectiveness much different
then that 85% you came up with. 50 is 85% more then 27, but it does not mean
85% of the patients
were relapse free. From what I've read he claims his procedure stops
relapses in 75% of patients.
Like I said before I do not see those numbers.
In my mind if you had 50 people, and 25 people still had relapses then
something is only 50% effective.
But thats just my opinion :P
"Fingers" <fin...@arithmetic.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:9f09$4b1f5df2$453e92c4$19...@EVERESTKC.NET...
chsw
> Well you can run it through all the math you want.
>
> But 50% of the RR patients in this study still had relapses post surgery
> did
> they not?
>
> Like i said, I was going off of my opinion. I judge somethings
> effectiveness much different
> then that 85% you came up with. 50 is 85% more then 27, but it does not
> mean
> 85% of the patients
> were relapse free. From what I've read he claims his procedure stops
> relapses in 75% of patients.
> Like I said before I do not see those numbers.
>
> In my mind if you had 50 people, and 25 people still had relapses then
> something is only 50% effective.
>
> But thats just my opinion :P
I do not think Zamboni maintained that his surgical procedure
treats all MS, only those cases where there is the venous
malformation. Again, what appears to be happening is a breakdown
of the symptom-based rubric "MS" into other diseases based on
cause and treatment.
chsw
evilzona
> Well you can run it through all the math you want.
>
> But 50% of the RR patients in this study still had relapses post surgery did
> they not?
>
> Like i said, I was going off of my opinion. I judge somethings
> effectiveness much different
> then that 85% you came up with. 50 is 85% more then 27, but it does not mean
> 85% of the patients
> were relapse free. From what I've read he claims his procedure stops
> relapses in 75% of patients.
> Like I said before I do not see those numbers.
>
> In my mind if you had 50 people, and 25 people still had relapses then
> something is only 50% effective.
>
> But thats just my opinion :P
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
jesus nickwad, and everyone thinks I'M negative.
lighten up you bonehead.
Valentina
> I think Dr. Zamboni's proposed mechanism doesn't explain
> MS lesions on the spinal cord.
Actually he analyzes also the refluxes in the veins at the spinal level.
--
Valentina, from Florence Italy
Valentina
> Actually he analyzes also the refluxes in the veins at the spinal level.
It is the azygos vein (I never remember this name!), which drains the
bllod from the spinal cord.
--
Valentina, from Florence, Italy
BigArtie
"evilzona" <davei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:33b5c1d8-a1e8-471e...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
lol
Nick
So anything I say will result in some childish insult from him.
But I have a life and have waaaay better things to do then sit and argue
with such trash all day long.
"BigArtie" <XXX@.com> wrote in message
news:4b2028ac$0$31257$607e...@cv.net...
blah
davizonas fine points.
Was icing on the cake.But i've spent some time arguing with the retard, too
bad I couldn't get that time back.
We all need to find better things to do.
But geesh nick you don't seem very hopeful with the ccsvi findings.
It looks very hopeful to me for RR msers. But me being SP seems as i'm
out in the cold as usual. Crosses fingers hoping veins in the spinal cord
may help pp and sp.
"Nick" <ni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5cZTm.56841$PH1.6732@edtnps82...
Nick
opinions.
"blah" <f...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2lZTm.114531$cI5....@news.usenetserver.com...
evilzona
> oh little davey is just all upset because he was humiliated on my forums.
> So anything I say will result in some childish insult from him.
>
> But I have a life and have waaaay better things to do then sit and argue
> with such trash all day long.
gee, I dont nickwad, I'd say your post is much more childish than mine
was.
and if you have waaaaay better things to do than argue,then why are
you trying to start an argument?
evilzona
> Ain't it though....... I personally thought a sticky on trolls pointing out
> davizonas fine points.
> Was icing on the cake.But i've spent some time arguing with the retard, too
> bad I couldn't get that time back.
> We all need to find better things to do.
>
> But geesh nick you don't seem very hopeful with the ccsvi findings.
>
> It looks very hopeful to me for RR msers. But me being SP seems as i'm
> out in the cold as usual. Crosses fingers hoping veins in the spinal cord
> may help pp and sp.
>
> "Nick" <ni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5cZTm.56841$PH1.6732@edtnps82...
>
>
>
> > oh little davey is just all upset because he was humiliated on my forums.
> > So anything I say will result in some childish insult from him.
>
> > But I have a life and have waaaay better things to do then sit and argue
> > with such trash all day long.
>
> > "BigArtie" <XXX@.com> wrote in message
> >news:4b2028ac$0$31257$607e...@cv.net...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
a reply like that, and you're callimg ME a retard?
lol, you should be thanking the internet for anonymity.
I would imagine you look as idiotic as the crap you write.
Fingers
>
> Well you can run it through all the math you want.
It was only simple arithmetic, actually. Sorry it stumped you.
> But 50% of the RR patients in this study still had relapses
> post surgery did they not?
So?
> Like i said, I was going off of my opinion. I judge somethings
> effectiveness much different
> then that 85% you came up with. 50 is 85% more then 27,
> but it does not mean 85% of the patients were relapse free.
> From what I've read he claims his procedure stops
> relapses in 75% of patients.
Somebody either summarized the results wrongly
or you misremember what you read.
> Like I said before I do not see those numbers.
Read the paper you linked to.
"...the rate of relapse-free patients changed from 27% to 50%
postoperatively..."
See that word "rate" in there?
Do the arithmetic.
> In my mind if you had 50 people, and 25 people still had relapses
> then something is only 50% effective.
>
> But thats just my opinion :P
Alas, your opinion is faulty again. You failed to account for
the number of people who likely wouldn't have had a relapse
without treatment. The effectiveness of the treatment in your
example is almost certainly _less_ than 50%.
No one will know the treatment's effectiveness unless this
interesting pilot study is followed up by a randomized control
study, something Dr. Zamboni and his collaborators call for
in their paper which was mentioned at the beginning of this thread.
I can see why so many folks here are excited by the news.
No existing treatment is anywhere close to 50% in their
effectiveness rates, the surgery may likely have fewer side
effects than the existing drug treatments, surgery is a one-time
treatment as opposed to a lifetime of jabs with occasional
site reactions, and the surgery will almost certainly cost less
in the long run than existing chronic therapies.
However, there's a lot in this paper that should cool the jets
of the newly excited. Zamboni's work is a pilot study, there's
no control. The follow-up period is way too short (mean 18
months, two years is the usual _minimum_), a lot of promising
treatments have looked good early on only for them to bomb
out over time.
--
A: Because it disturbs the logical flow of a message.
Q: Why is top posting a sloppy form of writing?
Peter Black
>I personally thought a sticky on trolls pointing out
>davizonas fine points.
Life is too short. Kill file anyone who annoys you and move on. They
will continue to make their sophomoric comments about you, but
everyone knows them for what they are.
evilzona
hmmmmmm....people who have made sophmoric comments....
tickwad, tee, nickwad, dody, sylvania, dpnn, shelley, the list goes on
and on.....
even yourself dickhead.
who do you killfile, there are so many!!!!
Nick
I guess this isn't the place to have a intelligent conversation is it.
Someone spends all their time trying to find faults with numbers. But
doesn't wonder how the hell they represent the actual effectiveness of
something in the real world. Your completely missing my point. Also
your picking apart numbers I didn't even come up with. It seems as though
your going to pick apart anything I say, lol.
I find this commical,
> Alas, your opinion is faulty again. You failed to account for
> the number of people who likely wouldn't have had a relapse
> without treatment. The effectiveness of the treatment in your
> example is almost certainly _less_ than 50%.
My original 23% you know the one you totally scratched out. Was 50% minus
the pre op relapse free percentage of 27%. So if you'd take another look
you'd notice that you've jumped the gun in picking apart my numbers.
Also,
If you told most people this procedure cuts the relapse "rate" by 85%. They
would think
out of 100 people 85 would remain relapse free. But that is not the case.
That's why
I do not consider those numbers an accurate representation.
I started this thread for some conversation, not a bickering about numbers,
so don't stay
up waiting for anymore responses from this end. Life is too short.
"Fingers" <fin...@arithmetic.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:4d153$4b20c187$453e92c4$17...@EVERESTKC.NET...
evilzona
>
> - Show quoted text -
typical holier-than-thou dumass asms reply nickwad.
you fit in nicely here, you fucking moron.
you started the bickering.
Why dont you go make up some more childish idiotic sticky notes on
your forum. lol