paulmur wrote:drsclafani Unfortunately The Wall Street Journal is a one way street. I say that if Montel opens a debate we can rebut with a lot of positive press. His could be a vehicle for getting the right stuff out.
HappyPoet wrote:Hi Dr. S,
I know how busy you are, but if you get a chance, could you please read this thread and get back to Cheerleader with your thoughts?
Thank you very much!
scorpion wrote:"if it weren't for some negative press about Mike Dake's two unfortunate outcomes in the Wall Street Journal, about thirty more patients would have been liberated by me by now, I would have extended to a second hospital and had fewer hurdles regarding safety with my IRB ."
Two unpleasant outcomes?? Two people losing their lives are not just unpleasant outcomes doctor. Cheer what I do not understand is ANYONE, including Montel, who has some type of investment(especially financial) in any other treatment or research besides CCSVI is automatically self-serving. What about people invested in CCSVI research? They are all only in it for the common good,right? Sorry for the unfortunate hurdles doctor.
ssmme wrote:I have been involved in a clinical trial for alemtuzumab (campath) and death has been the outcome at least once plus ITP has been the outcome multiple times which if caught in time can be treated but death is still a possible outcome. It's a strong chemotherapy drug and depletes the lymphocytes and white blood cells of the immune system. I could die from contracting a 'bug' that normal people can fight off. Why is ccsvi getting more negative press about it's possibly related one death and one unfortunate stent that migrated? How many times has this procedure (ccsvi) been performed around the world? How many times has death been the outcome? I don't equivocate ccsvi with death. I could die getting hit by a car crossing the street. Oh wait a second...MS keeps me from walking I guess I should keep MS so I won't get hit by a car.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users