May I suggest that we all stop trying to explain the complexities that have been hidden for years. We just might be fulfilling the silent hopes of the neuros who dismiss the findings we're so excited about as nonsense....
On May 23 I wrote:
Unfortunately opinions on this chatroom get treated as facts. They are repeated to Neurologists, who laugh at CCSVI. The good research work being done is lost in the noise of discussion. Sad because this actually hinders the case for CCSVI.
I hope more people will appreciate that we do not need to explain CCSVI to argue it is our right to have it treated.
Cece wrote:I think in many ways we are here for support, emotionally and intellectually. Four years ago, when I was first diagnosed, this is the place where I found the best information, which was what I needed to work through the emotions. So for some of us, playing with the complexities is helpful and enjoyable. (I try to put "I think" and "the theory is" and "maybe" qualifiers on pretty much every post I write!) I spent four years with "autoimmune MS" to which none of the explanations really clicked and none of the many facts (LDN helps, smoking hurts, copaxone works by mysterious ways, that island that had an MS epidemic, etc) fit together to form a picture unless we are talking a Pollock. And now...it all keeps fitting.
All of CCSVI is an unproven theory, when you think about it, and we're still talking about that.
Trish317 wrote:For me, it keeps going back to the fact that NO ONE knows what causes MS, and EVERY form of treatment for it is unproven theory. So, why NOT CCSVI?
Cece wrote:Trish317 wrote:For me, it keeps going back to the fact that NO ONE knows what causes MS, and EVERY form of treatment for it is unproven theory. So, why NOT CCSVI?
Exactly...and it's not like the treatments are uber-effective, with low risks and side effects, either.
Trish, I hope your darling man knows what a gem and a fighter he has in you.
Users browsing this forum: blossom