Why would using the word "cure" be unfortunate?
Because it is NOT a cure!
In order to get CCSVI accepted by IRB's in hospitals, to therefore get the testing and procedure done in the most advanced way that is currently known, and to further advancement thru the published reports, you cannot mislead and call it a cure--that will immediately put a halt to any IRB getting involved.
It is also misleading to any MSer who hears about the procedure from a source calling it a cure.
I understand that we have to be cautious about the effects of this procedure, most of which are unknown outside of anecdotal reports. However, I don't understand why calling the liberation procedure a cure in a local newspaper would put an end to IRB approval. It may make the IRB look at the issues a bit closer (and that's a big maybe), but the published evidence is there. If IRBs are taking their cues from local newspaper articles then we have bigger problems. Moreover, you have to put this into context. If the MS society came out calling this procedure a cure, it would be irresponsible and borderline negligent. Who in their right mind would automatically believe an article like this?
In any case, this article does not claim that liberation IS a cure. It merely says that this one particular patient hopes it is a cure. I think it's safe to say we all HOPE it's a cure. The article was fairly balanced overall.
It's so sad that the word "cure" would have such a stigma surrounding it.