dt79
December 2, 2018, 7:36am
635
He knows it was a hamster study. If he doesn’t, then he has a mental defect severe enough to be declared mentally incapacitated by law. He’s just trying to weasel his way out of it by playing with words hoping to confuse people.
Look at what he did here:
dt79:
Second, lies to cover up lies…
Please stop scribbling on your posts so I can read it, you child. Neil Riordan PA, PhD references in his book Stem Cell Therapy A Rising Tide. The study of 23 trials (1,255 participants) probably hamsters, concludes that there is evidence that bone marrow MSC’s have a beneficial clinical effect in the long term. And that a review of 31 clinical trials (1,521 participants) reports a significant reduction in mortality and hospitalization, as well as an improvement in quality of life. But I’m sure YOU can interpret the study better than him, along with your editing abilities.
You are referring to this study. The one where it was stated:
"#### AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS:
This systematic review and meta-analysis found moderate quality evidence that BMSC treatment improves LVEF. Unlike in trials where BMSC were administered following acute myocardial infarction (AMI), we found some evidence for a potential beneficial clinical effect in terms of mortality and performance status in the long term (after at least one year) in people who suffer from chronic IHD and heart failure, although the quality of evidence was low ."
And I had already posted this, which you acknowledged but claimed to have “skipped past this part”:
dt79:
Exact copy of text from the abstract:
“Autologous bone marrow stem cell treatment reduced the incidence of mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.53, P = 0.0001, 8 studies, 494 participants, low quality evidence ) and rehospitalisation due to heart failure (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.94, P = 0.04, 2 studies, 198 participants, low quality evidence ) in the long term (≥12 months). The treatment had no clear effect on mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.41, P = 0.30, 21 studies, 1138 participants, low quality evidence ) or rehospitalisation due to heart failure (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.06, P = 0.06, 4 studies, 236 participants, low quality evidence ) in the short term (< 12 months), which is compatible with benefit, no difference or harm”
Stem cell therapy for chronic ischaemic heart disease and congestive heart failure - PubMed
Remember? The one where you intentionally modified the conclusion of the report on the study?
You’re just going around in circles with one lie after another. Your posts do not just disappear after some time has passed nor when you switch to a new thread, zep.
He thought everyone had forgotten about all this after some time had passed so it was ok to repost this study and pretend it said something else again.