Final Thoughts on the Buffalo CCSVI Research Effort von DIRECT-MS, 17. May 2011 - facebook prikbord

Introduction

I was told if I watched the videos of the recent presentations of the University of Buffalo researchers on their CCSVI work (http://www.bnac.net/?page_id=667), I would change my opinion about their work. Accordingly, I watched the videos to see if they addressed any of my serious criticisms in my original essay on the overt, anti-CCSVI bias of their recent publication (http://www.facebook.com/notes/direct-ms/buffaloed-the-anti-ccsvi-bias-of-the-university-of-buffalo-researchers-and-their/210099172352923 ) and in my reply to their less-than-adequate response to my criticisms (http://www.facebook.com/notes/direct-ms/my-reply-to-a-letter-from-bianca-weinstock-guttman-and-robert-zivadinov/210575515638622 ).

Statistical Trick

In their article and accompanying press release, the Buffalo researchers played a statistical trick by how they dealt with 52 “borderline” patients whom did not receive a complete Doppler assessment. They did CCSVI prevalence statistics by excluding the borderlines from the analysis (the obvious and proper procedure) but then also did the statistics putting the borderlines in the negative CCSVI category. This latter calculation has absolutely no justification and took the prevalence of CCSVI in those with MS from 63% to 56%.

In the video, Dr Zivadinov claims that putting the borderlines in the negative category is a conservative approach which is nonsense. It is a completely invalid and unacceptable approach. Because such a calculation is completely unreasonable, such a move was clearly a statistical “dirty trick” to lower the prevalence.

Notably, Zivadinov says in the video, with a smirk on his face, that such a minor lowering means little. However, it really means a lot. With a 63% finding, most people reasonably round it off to about two thirds of persons with MS having CCSVI, an impressive finding that the Buffalo researchers clearly did not want publicized. By using their dirty trick, they brought the CCSVI prevalence down to 56% and they stress this phony number in their published discussion and their press release. As expected, many reporters rounded off the bogus 56% number to 50% or about half of persons with MS having CCSVI. Thus, by the use of a statistical “dirty trick”, they changed the public’s perception of CCSVI prevalence in MS from a scientifically determined 2/3 of persons with MS having CCSVI to a bogus and much less impressive prevalence of about ½. ........