"Dr. Zamboni's studies were unscientific."

Dr. Zamboni and his team conducted a series of experiments and have published a set of related papers. Protocols and methodologies varied in each experiment, but in every case they were entirely appropriate for the conclusions drawn in each respective paper.

In experiments aimed at determining the relationship between MS and CCSVI, the Doppler technicians and interpreters were blinded regarding whether the patients they were examining had MS or not. After unblinding, it was shown that only the MS patients had CCSVI. Preliminary results from an in-progress study at the Buffalo Neuroimaging Analysis center in the U.S., as well as completed/published studies in Poland and Jordan, have all confirmed the basic finding that CCSVI is significantly correlated with MS.

Generally, it is Dr. Zamboni’s study on the safety and efficacy of the CCSVI Treatment via balloon angioplasty that has been singled out for criticism, largely because it was an “open label” study, which, by definition, means that control groups were not used. However, such criticism is mystifying: at the initial stage of most medical investigations open label studies are commonplace. For example, early pharmaceutical trials usually do not have a control group and are not blinded – they are “open label.”  Their goal is to establish safety guidelines, understand technical challenges, evaluate outcomes and outcome measures, determine proper dosing, and provide guidance for future clinical trials.  Dr. Zamboni’s open label study addressed many of these same issues.

What matters in scientific research is whether the conclusions drawn from an investigation are appropriate for the methods used and outcomes reported, and once again Dr. Zamboni’s conclusions in his open label study, which are merely that “the results of this pilot study warrant a subsequent randomized control study,”¹⁰ appear absolutely valid. Note further that all of Dr. Zamboni’s studies have been peer-reviewed and published in legitimate scientific journals.

If you remain concerned about the scientific legitimacy of Dr. Zamboni’s work (and similar work on CCSVI), we urge you to read the studies and decide for yourself.

View References