article "MS drug trial a fiasco"

A forum to discuss Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency and its relationship to Multiple Sclerosis.

Postby malden » Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:05 am

mmcc wrote:Why would you want people who have not neccessarily jumped in the CCSVI pond not to come here. Personally, although I am going to have the procedure, I think opinions from those who have decided to wait or not have it at all to be valuable.

This is not "magical." It should be a rational, science based decision. The truth is that "belief" is not the issue. Even the inventor of the procedure thinks more research needs to be done.

There have been many discoveries made which over the long haul were not nearly what was hoped for. This could be one of those. The risks are not yet clear - NO risk is clear in less than a year. The benefits are also not known - are they only a few months, are they years, are they permanent?

Anyone who thinks that they are having the procedure and are not being guinea pigs is not being realistic. NO DRUG would be administered by doctors without far more testing than this procedure has had.

If this thread becomes nothing but a cheering section, it has no value. The value is in sharing information - good, abd, and ugly.

Well said, and some more for them that forget were are we and why we are here:

Welcome to This Is MS

This is MS is an unbiased, unaffiliated site dedicated to eradicating Multiple Sclerosis. We offer an open-minded approach to *all* potentially viable treatments, ranging from the FDA-approved disease-modifying drugs such as Copaxone to alternative treatments such as Low Dose Naltrexone.
Our only purpose is to serve YOU.

Please join us, and welcome to the site.

I am not here for any voting or for segregation on believer or unbeliever.

I am here because I feel Welcomed here, but some of us here constantly make "Who is not with me, is against me" declarations.



Postby patientx » Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:19 am

Lyon wrote:
mshusband wrote:Scorpion, I don't know if you and your ilk (Lyon, Concerned, PatientX and a few others) have MS or not ... but NEVER get the CCSVI treatment, and let EVERYONE ELSE GET IT ... we'll see who is better off.

I missed this the first time around. Ouch, I've never been considered ilk before. I could write a long reply to this, but it would get too far off the topic of this thread. Let me just say that, yes, I do have MS. It's a great bunch of people here, but I wouldn't have spent so much time on this website the past 2 years if I didn't have MS.

By the way:
Point 6> Jonas Salk cured polio ... he worked on his own. Hmmmm ... I guess that was junk science because he worked alone (even though it's been proved years later through more research). Fine how about Louis Pasteur? Point invalid.

Neither Jonas Salk, nor anyone, has found a cure for polio.
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:00 pm

Postby concerned » Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:10 am ... sc-15.html

This thread has some great MShusbandisms too. I'm with Lyon.

Postby 1eye » Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:07 am

Function: noun
Meaning: a number of persons or things that are grouped together because they have something in common <weʼre looking for chestnuts and other items of that ilk for our autumn decorations> — see sort 1

Rhymes with very little. Silk, milk, bilk are all I could come up with.

You dirty rotten ilk. :?: 8O
This unit of entertainment not brought to you by FREMULON.
Not a doctor.
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 3725
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada

Postby Lyon » Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:10 pm

mshusband wrote:I don't mean to call ANYBODY out ... I don't want this to become and "us" vs. "them" thing.

But those are the names I continuously being ANTI-CCSVI even when good points are brought up by doctors that show CCSVI COULD be relevant.
While mshusband's quote is my example, mshusband in not alone in (for some unknown reason) feeling justified in labeling others as "for" or "against" CCSVI.

A sensible person would realize that being "anti-CCSVI" is a lot like being "pro-abortion" in that no one really is "anti-CCSVI" or "pro-abortion". In the absence of a decent argument, rabid proponents use such terms in the attempt to promote "their" cause with the misunderstanding that giving a negative label to those who would like to involve sense and objectivity to a situation is a suitable replacement for a valid argument.

For about the 30th time, I am not anti-CCSVI and in fact I have as high of hopes for the future of CCSVI.

THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME AND SOMEONE LIKE mshusband, aside from my being smarter and better looking, is that I choose to wait for some justification before allowing myself to be totally convinced of something.
Family Elder
Posts: 6061
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 2:00 pm

Postby tazbo » Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:23 pm

Surely this thread must be closed. If a thread strays so far from the original start or gets "high-jacked" or becomes full of flaming commentaries...does it need to be continued? I will send my request to the admin as I hate to see a good site decaying.
Family Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:00 pm
Location: Canada


Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)


  • Related topics
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Contact us | Terms of Service