cheerleader wrote:thanks for posting over here, erin.
I found it this am and posted on Facebook. I think it's a very well-reasoned editorial, but of course I would. Because I've seen evidence of CCSVI in someone I love. Mark W has seen it in his own body. And Philip wants to have it diagnosed in his wife.
I was told in Bologna last September, by a doctor who didn't know who I was or why I was there, (he only saw an unattached woman at a medical conference) that CCSVI proponents were "zealots." And, to this particular doctor, who compiles research and does not personally know anyone with MS ("MS patients are numbers to me, Joan" was another memorable quote)--it was going to take a lot more information to make him a "believer." But he sincerely hoped this wasn't real, or he was "out of a job."
I believe the hurdle is lack of published research. And the frustration is that none of us can accomplish this. We need more doctors studying CCSVI treatment--like the current study at BNAC. Until there is more published research, the press is going to remain cool. Even though it's more than obvious to thousands of pwMS and their loved ones who have seen that CCSVI real---to those for whom pwMS are simply "numbers"---there's simply not enough science.
Rokkit wrote:Scorpion, do you have any constructive purpose whatsoever for being here?
cheerleader wrote:Rokkit wrote:Scorpion, do you have any constructive purpose whatsoever for being here?
Scorpion has many wonderful posts in the stem cell section--he happens to find me and my research into CCSVI to be misguided, rokkit. Whatever. I just try to answer his questions-
Users browsing this forum: harry1