This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

A disinterested neurologist would be disappointing. A combative neurologist would be _____.
Please go ahead and fill in your own word here. I was thinking bizarre, but a few others might fit. Great? Awesome? Sweet? Ridiculous? Sad? Infuriating?
Knock yourselves out.

If no stones are being thrown, why does Dr. Stewart not allow Dr. Godley to speak his mind in this "debate"? http://www.albertaprimetime.com/Segment ... 041410.flv

It doesn't seem like he finds nothing interesting about CCSVI, he is completely ignoring and discrediting it.

This is the problem at hand at the moment, no-one has the scientific evidence to say if CCSVI is a factor in Multiple Sclerosis. The debates here (TIMS), the articles posted by Colin Rose and so on, are all insignificant.

Lyon: 
What you are simply stating is that members of the medical profession have free will. That is a given. The real question is, "What is responsible, professional behavior in light of a radical and promising new theory." What I hear you saying is that they are free to do whatever they please without regard for the opinions of those they say they serve.  This does not stike me as the actions of a responsible professional. 

CCSVI did not break onto the scene as some crackpot idea with no hard evidence. Rather, it was put forth in a series well researched studies by experienced professionals and published in respected, peer reviewed medical journals. In addition, it has the emphatic support of those lucky few who can testify to it's efficacy. In spite of this we have had "professionals" quoted in the popular press labeling CCSVI a "hoax." If that is not throwing stones, then I don't know what is.  

Again, if this were merely an intellectual exercise for some bored Mensa members then favoring one theory over another would be no big deal. That is clearly not the case.  Our opinions matter because it is our skins that are on the line. 

My father happened to be a fantastic doctor who did not care at all for the opinions of his patients. He was a veterinarian.

.

.

Lyon:
So you simply discredit anyone who happens to be associated with Zamboni? Bad form, my friend. Oh, and you're right, CCSVI is not a promising new theory. It is actually a very old theory, one that keeps popping up and won't seem to go away.

To Everyone Else:
Shouldn't there be a newbie sticky that warns us not to try to convince Lyon of anything? I'm sure the rest of you old timers are sitting back and laughing at the latest Don Quixote. Sheesh!

.

what took you so long to figure Old Bob out ?






Mr. Success

.

Lyon, Others,

I don't know if this is going to help but I am going to narrate a personal experience as a student ...

I was in one of our college professors' at the end of my semester to discuss some personal matter that would impact upcoming semester. Since there was another gentleman that was needed for discussion, I had to wait there ...
The professor continued his discussion about the fate of a student who had appealed to committee since he felt he did not deserve the marks he got.
The professor's argument was that the student had not attempted the problem in the same manner as was prescribed in the textbook, but used a completely new approach. He said, "I have read, re-read his answer paper till 2 am and seen all standard approaches and I am not able to understand how we came up with this approach. I think this approach is worthy of IEEE publication to share with larger community. We are debating if his case should be reconsidered, but I would say he is worthy of emulation". With something like that he rested his case.
That was such an humbling experience and till today I try my best to take lessons from that incident. This is what I would expect from a seasoned professional.

One of the Neuro Dr. said he does not see a single Neuro in Canada believing in CCSVI theory. What could be the reason for that? Not any of them have offered counter theory. If they had so much concern for MS patients (as they claim), they would do this. If Mark-thehoax-freedman was to do this, he would be a hero.

Lyon, I do agree when you say that what a researcher investigates is his own decision. But these are people who are "foremost MS experts" and people who have spent almost all their life studying MS.

.

Lyon:

With respect to your uncertainty regarding whether Dr Freedman actually made his "hoax" remark to the press, you can now find plenty of evidence that he made the comment..

Last Saturday he was called to task on his comment by the interviewer for W5 . It was televised. She asked him about the comment that he made to the newspaper. His response is very telling.

Lyon said " I've heard that contention but have yet to see the statement in print or video but IF TRUE, you're right. I've heard it was Dr Freedman and not "professionals" which makes it sound like it's not the isolated instance that it seems to be in reality, if at all. "

Dr. Freedman's very public, very dismissive, and very disrespectfull comments are all the more disgusting and shamefull because he is medical advisor to the MS Society of Canada. His position gives him the power to influence many. With that power comes a responsibilty to act with integrity, and to ensure that public statements are well informed.

FlashHack

Thanks for starting the thread. Have enjoyed your thoughtful and thought provoking (not to mention Lyon provoking) comments.

Flash hack,
I enjoyed the woods/search analogy...very apt. You sound like a theology student.
Anyhow, Bob is a pest...but sometimes you just can't resist a rebuttal. (and Bob, I'm not going to respond to your outrage at my saying that, because I am too busy today, and you know it is true)
Why

.