According to some here, if they "obscure a sham treatment" with a general anesthetic then they are being highly unethical and the police should be alerted.
I thought I laid all that to rest, but now 'concerned' shows his concern by reviving it.
As I recall, what I objected to was his suggestion that 'we' should take 10 people and treat them with a sham procedure. Only not tell them, not only that they didn't get the procedure, but that they were even in a trial. Then, as now, I say that would be not only unethical but illegal. Consider: if they were not to be told they were in a trial, then presumably they would have to think they were *not* in a trial, in other words, they would have to think they were getting 'straight' Liberation.
So how did they get there? They would have been asking a doctor to perform Liberation on them. But what happened instead? "concerned" somehow got the doctors to agree that the next 10 victims should be given a sham, not told they were in a trial, and if even 1 of them actually improved, that would prove the placebo effect exists.
A heavy price to pay, I say, for such information.
I have been told that 5 people have to complain about someone (the same person) for anyone to investigate. I want to suggest we are all being duped. The persons who seem to do nothing but stir up trouble are: patientx, malden, scorpion, Lyon, and concerned. Sometimes they seem to post within a minute of each other. I think their purpose is to disrupt.
Most people who have sought out this discussion actually have MS. There are some really interested in the science, but I doubt most are.
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.
I suggest that Lyon could be someone who joined a long time ago, perhaps when LDN was first being talked about. Now he pontificates on CCSVI. He also seems to be interested in chemo, tovaxin. stem cells, and a few other red herrings.
patientx and scorpion appeared at nearly the same time. concerned and malden round out the bunch, and I have not been the only one suspicious
As far as I am concerned, all of them might as well be the same person. They have the same message. They do not see enough evidence. Who knows what will be enough, but it should be clear by now that there is no intention to believe anything, only to claim skepticism. They've got me convinced, they are skeptical. But other than that, they have nothing to offer a discussion of CCSVI, and nothing to show proof the theory is untrue.
I could just ignore them. But I am increasingly concerned they are successfully steering and disrupting as much as they can. If anyone agrees with me, especially if they can point to the actual text, private or not, please tell your nearest moderator in a PM.
About controlled trials with placebo, sham treatments: you always get told you are in a trial. You are told the odds of being on placebo. You sign a disclaimer to that effect.
Randomization is to blind the trial, so nobody, not even 'concerned' knows who gets placebo. In this case the surgeons would have to know, but that is all.
If somebody sedates me so I won't know they didn't treat me, and doesn't tell me that might happen, they are acting criminally. If they don't even tell me I'm being sedated, and/or don't tell me why, well how would you feel?