A team of vascular researchers from Naples was part of the multi-center COSMO study, but the three main auditors decided to throw out their results, since they felt the finding was too high to be valid.

The data of this group has just been published in the BMC Neurology Journal.  This trained vascular team found CCSVI in 76% of pwMS and 16% of controls.  They find longer circulation time in those with progressive MS, "suggesting a role of hypoperfusion in neurodegeneration." Here is the study.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/13/20/abstract

How can the COSMO study claim to be independent and relevent when 90% of the positive findings of CCSVI were thrown out by three men who were not even in the room when the doppler tests were done? In what way is this science?  

Here is more on this ongoing story:

Vascular specialists in the Lombardi region are angered that positive results are discarded by COSMO study. They offer a blinded doppler "redo" for people who participated.

link

The COSMO study results were adjusted by three central readers, who threw out 90% of the positive CCSVI results in pwMS, because they felt the number of positive findings was too high.

link

The study coordinator, Giancarlo Comi, blatantly violated a feature of clinical trials, in that he came out announcing negative results at ECTRIMS 2011, when more than 75% of the patients had yet to be tested.

link

the outrage continues,

Joan