1eye wrote:But constantly repeating the same negative message about CCSVI and Liberation is one thing. I think another purpose (as witness the 'concerned' post, above) is to disrupt. I think my words were suitably twisted, and if I hadn't noticed it he would have got away with completely high-jacking a discussion that had originally been quite an innocent query about Buffalo, in a failed attempt to get a rise out of me.
Cece wrote:drsclafani wrote:As i said, i cant even figure out how to take a minimally invasive procedure that can be done under local anesthesia and put patients under general anesthesia so that they cannot tell whether they are treated or not. Hard to imagine an IRB committee agreeing to that one. I find it inhumane at this point.
And then he has been proven wrong, by the IRB at Buffalo at least! The problem is the treating by general anesthesia when local anesthesia is all that's needed. The general anesthesia is just to obscure whether a procedure is done or not.
Users browsing this forum: ALA