concerned wrote:My mother does have more realistic expectations now, but it's still a common thing with her and with here that this is being hidden or blocked because how much money pharmaceutical companies stand to loose but I haven't seen anything that would suggest that people should stop taking their medications and just get "Liberated" (how i wish there was a less emotional word for that.)
The word "cure" was used by the media. I have not seen anything from Dr. Zamboni or anyone other advocate doctor that says "cure." I don't like using those terms, either, because they are too broad and expose us to doubt. I feel the same about terms like "scam", "hoax" and the like for the same exact reason.
I will say, though, that there must be a reason that things aren't moving as fast as they should. Let's make an easy analogy.
Let's say I had a heart attack, God forbid. Would I be denied an angioplasty or arterial stent because I had MS? Of course not.
If I had renal failure and required dialysis, would they not treat my vein with angioplasty if it stenosed? Of course they would.
If I had varicose veins, could I get them treated right now? Yep. MS or not.
So why can't we treat a vascular condition because we have MS?
People are feeling better. To varying degrees, yes- but in reality, that is how people are doing now on traditional treatments. Some people respond well to CRABS. Some progress in spite of them- like me.
So why is there a concern in the medical community over the variety of responses to the treatment?
It doesn't add up.
I could understand the concern if we were talking about taking arsenic in small amounts. Or if we were talking about grafting the veins, or brain surgery to remove lesions. Criminy, those are all things that warrant a whole lot of research and proof before anyone moved forward.
But a vascular issue to be treated? With a known procedure that is used thousands of times a year? With positive results for most?
Why the hell not?