Skeptic Mentality

A forum to discuss Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency and its relationship to Multiple Sclerosis.

Postby HappyPoet » Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:33 pm

concerned wrote:From Wikipedia:


Contemporary skepticism (or scepticism) is loosely used to denote any questioning attitude,[1] or some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted.[2]
The word skepticism can characterise a position on a single claim, but in scholastic circles more frequently describes a lasting mind-set. Skepticism is an approach to accepting, rejecting, or suspending judgment on new information that requires the new information to be well supported by evidence.[3]

concerned, I really enjoy when you give definitions; they make me think!

User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 1413
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:00 pm


Postby scorpion » Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:33 pm

cah wrote:scorpion, my brain works just like yours, but my feelings have a mind of their own. :) That's what I tried to describe.

No, that's not quite correct. It's just that I don't have this black-or-white view of it. I don't take those videos as proof, but I wouldn't call them untrue either. They're more like diaries to me, but in summary they make the pendulum swing towards the direction of "true".

The fact that stenosis, treatment, re-stenosis and re-treatment has such straight effects to symptoms cynically makes the placebo effect very unlikely. Unlikely, not impossible. Another push in the same direction for the pendulum.

The fact that there's a growing number of phycisians looking into it and the fact that there's a huge history of studies that link MS to a vascular etiology are two other pushes. There are some more.

I totally respect that none of these explanations satisfy you (or any sceptic). I wouldn't say (yet) that the CCSVI hypothesis is true. But I haven't seen any argument against it that convinced me, but many that at least pointed in one direction.

Science isn't about finding out what's true. It's about finding out what's not wrong. Yes, there's a difference.

But I don't want to convince you of anything. To me, your point of view is as good as mine.

Right back at you cah!
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:00 pm

Postby scorpion » Mon Nov 15, 2010 6:22 pm

This is what I mean when I say I have heard it before. From Thisisms when Aimspro was in its heyday:

"Having read the last post from Finn. I am wondering where this person gets all of their information. They seem to know everything about Daval. I don't think so? Daval has never ever charged any patient for Aimspro. Daval is a small company who has a product which they and a lot of eminent professionals in the medical world believe in. Daval has shareholders who have invested their savings with the belief that Daval has a product which will help so many people. Most of the investors have done this because they feel this will bring something to all those suffering from the devastation that MS brings, not financial rewards, they are ordinary people who have taken a leap of faith in something they have decided will help so many people.

A trial has been done the results are there - it just depends which song sheet you are singing from!!!

What all the negativity is about is certain factions dont want a side effect free treatment that works. They want drugs that make money for their shareholders! The MS society states that they are commited to investing in new research and treatments. Have they offered Daval any help?

How many of us take pills, the contraceptive pill, stuff in your medicine cabinets that have so many contra indications its frightening but we still take them without any thought to what they could do us in years to come.

The one thing everyone wants is something to help all MS sufferers. I feel negative posts are from people who have other agendas and do not want to see Aimspro work.

Please I am not comparing the two I am just showing the similarities in responses.
User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:00 pm

Postby concerned » Mon Nov 15, 2010 6:48 pm

I think you'd find responses like that across the board in talk about alternative treatments. I think the conspiracy theory angle might make things look ridiculous to researchers and even if the alternative treatment does happen to have merit, researchers might shy away because of the conspiracy theory or new age philosophy or just generally pseudo-scientific debate surrounding it.


Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)


  • Related topics
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Contact us | Terms of Service