Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (33012)	11/27/2009 9:35:28 PM
From: Ian@SI	Respond to of 52153

Peter, Thanks for the helpful response and venal/venous correction. I hate to admit that English really is my first language. :( <<<<< So his theory is certainly quite plausible, but like any idea out of left field one needs some independent confirmation. This is totally true but almost unbearable for many of those who've been on a steady decline with sharp reductions in quality of life. And it's almost impossible in this country for them to get even the Doppler scan done, let alone have a vascular surgeon resolve any problems which may be found. Two approved, tried and effective procedures but unavailable due to lack of scientifically acceptable proof whereas the proven treatment results in certain death for some.

To: Biomaven who wrote (33012)	11/28/2009 3:54:34 PM
From: IRWIN JAMES FRANKEL	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

>>MS and venous strictures >>The "treatment" stuff he has done doesn't lend much weight in my view - MS is just too unpredictable to place much weight in basically anecdotal results. I agree with that statement. To be meaningful they need a much bigger "n" or much longer duration without exacerbation. Absent that the anecdotes are not necessarily instructive - just interesting. >> If you take what Zamboni has shown at face value, then there clearly is at least correlation here. Yep - the one thing that stuck out to me was the apparent correlation of CCSVI to MS. >>If that is independently verified, then we have to establish the direction of causation. I do not understand your "if" statement. You posted the study* that tied CDMS to CCSVI with a P-value < 0.0001. When I read the abstract my "if" for correlating CDMS to CCSVI vaporized. I certainly appreciate the issue of which direction the causation flows. So what have I missed? * Message 26119362 Very respectfully, ij