> on one line she says that "...the majority DO NOT develop MS" and in a
> preceding line she says "recurrent idiopathic transverse myelitis has been
> reported." The point I'm trying to make is that the reported findings by
> Tippett 1991 were based upon ONLY 3 INDIVIDUALS. A sample size of 3 CANNOT
> provide meaningful conclusions or allow for any significant statistical
> findings.
I don't remember for sure, but it seems to me, after reading all the stories
on the list for a couple of years now, that there are a handful on this list
who have had recurrences that have been diagnosed as a "relapse" -- retesting
did not show MS but the relapse (as opposed to just a flare-up of the same
symptoms) was as severe or worse than the first episode and/or involved new
areas that the first episode did not.. Still a small handful comparatively,
still maybe a proverbial drop in the pond statistically, but I think it is
true that in some cases something akin to a relapse can occur -- more than
one apparent episode of TM. I have read of some people saying that their
neurologists said a second occurrence indicates MS, yet some who have been
retested don't exhibit the "classic" MS indicators. I admit I am very much
out of my league here and certainly much more research needs to be done.
Maybe I am misunderstanding exactly what it was you were objecting to -- I am
not sure whether the three indicated there were three out of however many who
did seem to have recurrent idiopathic TM or whether the whole study only
involved three patients (that would seem a small number for such a study) --
but I think the point was that in some few cases it seems that another
apparent TM occurrence can happen without the patient going on to develop MS.
Barbara H.