BooBear wrote: I would assume that everyone that struggles with this disease wants a cure. Period.
Despite what they
say about assumptions, I share your assumption.
BooBear wrote: Now, if you believe CCSVI is part of that answer, it would make sense to devote a lot of time to this board to get the answers you seek. But if you really don't believe that CCSVI is the answer, power to you; wouldn't your energy, then be better spent finding something that you can believe holds the answer for you? As I stated in my post (clearly), I can't wrap my head around why anyone would want otherwise.
Part of the problem is the very thing that you are engaged in, and that is the automatic assumption that if someone is not "for" CCSVI they are, by default an opponent
of the theory of CCSVI. That's not an accurate assessment and it's not generous to allow only those two choices to those who don't happen to share your outlook.
It's not for lack of vocalizing on the parts of "Scorpion, concerned and their ilk" that the easily convinced can't seem to grasp that we are
interested and hopeful for the future of the theory of CCSVI and we are not opponents
of the theory of CCSVI. It seems we do require a higher level of proof, or at least SOME proof before becoming convinced.
BooBear wrote: Personal experiences, positive or negative, as an example, I don't ever challenge. Because I have no right to challenge someone's personal experience. Unfortunately, I have not seen the same in response on some of the posts that I have read.
If you have a specific example in mind, please share it. Otherwise the most obvious example which comes to my mind is Radeck being accused of being a snitch and trouble maker by his ilk (pro CCSVI'ers) after he was unlucky and inconsiderate enough to suck a loose stent into his heart.
Actually, Lyon, you and I are in complete agreement. Fair and rational discussion, even debate, is welcomed by me (and I doubt that I am the only pro-CCSVIer in that camp, either).
Speaking to you specifically, Lyon, I have always found your posts to be non-judgmental about the person and fair in the discussion of the issues. You may be on an opposite side of an issue, but you have been willing to explore an opposing thought as well. That is not negative at all; that is constructive. As you note above, you are looking for at least SOME evidence before you are convinced. That is absolutely your right and this board is more than appropriate for that. We should all be open to that.
But then, Lyon, there are those that can't seem to let a comment pass without a post. I am not just talking about a comment on a topic; I am talking about a comment in general. It's almost like being contrary just for the sake of being contrary. That's the behavior I don't get. That seems like a lot of wasted energy that could be spent finding another answer that may work for that person.
As a point of reference, I did not qualify "ilk" as anti-CCSVI so much as I was referencing those that just post negativity or solely wish to be argumentative. It's those folks I don't get.
Maybe I will understand them in the coming days with all this improved clarity I have post-Liberation.
Three veins angioplastied. One renewed life.