fiddler wrote:Scientific debate concerning CCSVI is good....
It would be much more fruitful to read articles from critics and skeptics who have valid arguments and can back them up with evidence.
You know, this sounds good, and is what TIMS was when I first joined. But despite what people will say, the CCSVI forum is not like that. When people post something questioning aspects of the CCSVI theory, even those who buy into the theory, attempts are made to quickly quash the discussion. We are either treated to some Pubmed abstract, told that the skeptical doctors cannot possibly understand human anatomy like the vascular doctors (who believe in CCSVI), that CCSVI is a condition in itself and who cares if it is related to MS, or that the various vascular specialists know best, and the patients need not concern themselves.