jimmylegs wrote:heyas, i just plotted some data from the tracking thread re: people who have had the procedure over time. the line is rising slightly and linearly so far although i'm not done. it think we'll have to wait for a steeper rate of adoption and then a down slope to show up to really be able to draw the lines between innovators, early adopters, and early majority etc. right now, looking at this almost horizontal line, i'm guessing we're still in the innovators phase. not that our tracking thread is a very scientific sample but all the same, interesting.
Cece wrote:Take that 3,000 and apply Siskin's rule of thirds (a third 'wow' improvements, a third minor gradual improvements, a third no improvements) and consider that minor gradual improvements in a progressive neurodegenerative disease count in my mind as significant and...2/3rds of 3,000 is 2,000 with significant benefits. So, yes, I would agree with thousands, but just barely, estimated and approximated.
patientx wrote:Cece wrote:Take that 3,000 and apply Siskin's rule of thirds (a third 'wow' improvements, a third minor gradual improvements, a third no improvements) and consider that minor gradual improvements in a progressive neurodegenerative disease count in my mind as significant and...2/3rds of 3,000 is 2,000 with significant benefits. So, yes, I would agree with thousands, but just barely, estimated and approximated.
Are you serious? Sisikin's rule of thirds?
cah wrote:(This is my first, and I promise only, intentional crosspost. I hope everyone gets the joke. )
Sometimes I think I have a split personality, one could post here, the other one on the personal experience thread.
I don't think there's such a thing like "healthy scepticism". Scepticism is an absolute way of thinking. Either you question things (scientifically), or you don't. Questioning things "a bit" (again, scientifically) is like being slightly pregnant.
On the other hand, what's considered healthy is very relative, consisting of comparison, common sense and average. So, if you say you're scepticism is healthy, it's like saying "I'm relatively absolute.".
A much more precise picture is that there are two conflicting opinions in my mind existing side by side. While I see the many personal experiences that are compelling to me, I also understand the importance of strict scientifical approaches.
The only way out of this dilemma is to draw the conclusion that it's futile to think in terms of a general "right" or "wrong". Each case is different and every decision must be made individually.
But what derives from that is the understanding that it is plain wrong to judge another one's decision.
B. The placebo effect is real and there are people who post improvememtns that are nothing more than placebo.
These things are PROVEN
Shayk wrote:Since you're shouting that it is proven that there are people who post improvements after intervention for CCSVI that are due to placebo effect, could you please post a link to the randomized clinical trials that proved this? The sooner the better IMO. I've obviously missed these CCSVI studies and I'm definitely interested in reading them. Hopefully they're already published.
Users browsing this forum: Robnl