The science and politics of CCSVI and Multiple Sclerosis

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

Postby dialed_in » Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:49 pm

concerned wrote:
dialed_in wrote:From this page:

concerned wrote:Well, I don't work, so whatever... I do take care of my mother, who has MS... IF I'm supposed to be paid by big pharma for this, show me the money.
So anyone can make any calim they want and call it science, and nobody has a right to question it? There is nothing in those studies which points to any kind of proof...


From page 1:

concerned wrote:Also, I'm not a scientist or neurologist or vascular doc so reading those studies means literally nothing to me. Seeing a consensus built in the relevant fields would. But in the mean time, I think it's time to stop the groupthink, hyperbole, fuzzy analogies, character assassinations, etc....


So which is it? You obviously won't even read the material, but you'll run around here posting that there is no proof. Not to mention at the same time you are trying to tell Cheerleader (someone that HAS done the reading) how to conduct herself. Who should take responsibility for how you conduct yourself? Colin Rose maybe?


So these studies have generated a consensus in their relevant fields? I said that would point towards "proof" to me and I don't see that. Where is the contradiction in what I said?


I figured it would be fairly easy to see, I guess I overestimated you.

Let me explain. In the first quote, you said there is no truth to the studies. In the second, you admitted to being too ignorant to even understand what the studies were about.

What else do you need help with?
User avatar
dialed_in
Family Member
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:00 pm

Postby concerned » Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:01 pm

So I assume you have the specialized training to evaluate the studies?

I said what would point towards some kind of "proof" to me would be a consensus in the relevant fields and I haven't seen that, so I don't think that any of those studies point to any kind of "proof".

What don't you understand?

EDIT: I guess you just wanted a chance to say that I'm ignorant, hence disqualifying any questions I may pose?

EDIT 2: I didn't say there is no truth, I said there is no proof. If you look at my posts, you will see that I actually have kept an open mind towards this and have just said that more studies should be done before claims of miracle cures or whatever are made.
concerned
 

Postby Lyon » Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:35 pm

.
Last edited by Lyon on Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby Cece » Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:42 pm

dialed_in wrote:I figured it would be fairly easy to see, I guess I overestimated you.

personal attack
Lyon wrote: Pretty intense, although it would have been in your favor if you would have made a bigger fool of concerned than you made of yourself.

also a personal attack

not cool
"However, the truth in science ultimately emerges, although sometimes it takes a very long time," Arthur Silverstein, Autoimmunity: A History of the Early Struggle for Recognition
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 8994
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby concerned » Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:45 pm

I agree.

Edit: the part about Lyon was edited in after I wrote that. Standing up for someone being attacked isn't the same as attacking someone with no basis.


There's been a wave of personal attacks against me in the past few days. But I guess if you have nothing meaningful to say, you should just say something mean.
concerned
 

Postby Lyon » Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:00 pm

.
Last edited by Lyon on Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby blossom » Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:08 pm

cece, it sounding more and more to me like there are certain ones posting that seem to be here to aggravate and agitate more than anything else. they know what buttons to push. they are good at what they do. i'll bet that makes them proud. maybe they should start their own site and see how many care enough to follow. nothing meant to anyone personal like. if the shoe fits wear it.
User avatar
blossom
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1365
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: south western pa.

Postby Cece » Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:16 pm

blossom wrote:cece, it sounding more and more to me like there are certain ones posting that seem to be here to aggravate and agitate more than anything else. they know what buttons to push. they are good at what they do. i'll bet that makes them proud. maybe they should start their own site and see how many care enough to follow. nothing meant to anyone personal like. if the shoe fits wear it.

I agree and I am tired of it. I think that swearing and personal attacks have no place here but I hope that does not mislead anyone on where I stand.
"However, the truth in science ultimately emerges, although sometimes it takes a very long time," Arthur Silverstein, Autoimmunity: A History of the Early Struggle for Recognition
Cece
Family Elder
 
Posts: 8994
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:00 pm

Postby concerned » Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:25 pm

Well, I'm not sure about swearing, as I've seen it here and on other forums on this site in other contexts, but nobody has complained then.

As others have noted, we are all adults, BUT I'd agree that the people who just make snide remarks about other posters on this forum should maybe go start their own site.

The Rule of the forums at This is MS are: use common sense.

For example, if you post an article from another site, credit it (and provide a direct link).

One of the great benefits of this site is that it is entirely independent. There are no corporate overlords, and thus no agenda and no strict censorship. If we don't serve YOU, we serve no one. Everything is fair game, assuming it is correctly classified and within good taste. If you can't find the right forum to post it in, just drop an e-mail to support@thisisms.com and we'll set one up.

Off-topic subjects are encouraged! This is a site for the MS community, which is comprised of vibrant people, who don't necessarily just want to confine themselves to discussing narrow topics. Again, please keep things in good taste and you won't have a problem.

All that being said, the boards are moderated on a volunteer basis-- there are a number of people who have volunteered to keep an eye on the forums to try to make sure things don't get out of hand (illegal ads, personal attacks, revealing personal information, etc.). That being said, we cannot and do not monitor every posting for content-- all problems should be reported to the moderator(s); otherwise assume we have not seen the offending posts.

Enjoy, have fun, and please let us know if you'd like anything to change.
concerned
 

Postby erinc14 » Wed Jun 23, 2010 6:08 am

http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/Articl ... ?e=2626318

the cost of doing science must not be at the cost of wasted lives.
User avatar
erinc14
Family Elder
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Montreal

Postby erinc14 » Wed Jun 23, 2010 7:07 am

Doctors like industry perks: study


Some doctors look favourably on gifts from pharmaceutical industry representatives or sponsored lunches, a U.S. study suggests.

About 72 per cent of 590 doctors and medical students who responded to a survey found industry sponsored lunches appropriate, and 25.4 per cent considered large gifts acceptable, researchers reported in the June issue of the Archives of Surgery.

Many doctors are exposed to pharmaceutical industry and medical device marketing during medical school, according to Dr. Deborah Korenstein, of Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, and her co-authors. The relationship ranges from drug samples and free food at work to larger payments such as reimbursement for educational meetings, conferences, and speaking and consulting fees.

As awareness grows about the practice, there has also been greater interest in the potential conflicts of interest, with individuals and organizations recommending more transparency and independent regulation, the researchers said.




Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/06/ ... z0rgO0z1bq
User avatar
erinc14
Family Elder
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Montreal

Previous

Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Contact us | Terms of Service