Lyon wrote:
L wrote:
We are not forming opinions based on what we want to believe, we are basing our opinions on proposed theories, peblished papers, anecdotal evidence and personal experience.
I'm not clear on the value you find in the distinction between "anecdotal evidence and personal experience" which seem nothing more than different names for the same thing to me.
Who says I am making a distinction? They are synonymous, aren't they? See, nitpicking, arguing for the sake of it.
Quote:
Proposed but unsubstantiated theories in themselves don't hold any value and I guess it doesn't serve any purpose discussing the fact that you evidently assign much more value than most to published articles based on substandard studies. All in all if the above are sources of comfort to you, I support you.
"Proposed but unsubstantiated theories in themselves don't hold any value " ?
So you mean the theory of CCSVI, indeed any theory (like the earth being round) is, or was (in the case of the theory about the earth) of no value until validated? By what measure do you judge value by? I mean, it holds value for me personally because it has improved the quality of my life (which is what you mean by 'source of comfort' I am guessing). Or perhaps I've misread the whole statement, it's a little cryptic..
Quote:
L wrote:
You're in no position to talk about logic though. In what respect is actively encouraging people to undergo a risky (sepsis, cancer) procedure, with very little evidence for its efficacy one minute and then the next advising people against a much less risky procedure with slightly more evidence for irs efficacy and a great deal of anecdotal evidence to back it up logical? Obliterating and reconstructing the immune system is certainly a simpler concept than CCSVI and all the unknowns which surround it.
I have special interest in the Hygiene Hypothesis and rebooting the immune system, neither of which bear any resemblance of what you mention. If you'd like, please explain a little more accurately so that I can determine what you're talking about.
What is unfamiliar about High Dose Cyclophosphamide? It carries a significant risk of sepsis, of bladder rupture (I forget the medical name for the condition) and of cancer in later years following treatment, was that the unfamiliar part?
Quote:
L wrote:
And I don't think it in any way illogical to pay attention to anecdotal evidence, to peoples personal stories and videos.
I absolutely agree. I can't imagine how anyone with any sense of curiosity wouldn't have interest, while remembering at the same time that the value in an uncontrolled environment is extremely limited, even confounding.
L wrote:
I really don't think that you are driven by a search for logic, I think that you just like being contrary. Making ridiculous statements like "a theory without the least bit of non-anecdotal evidence to support it," ridiculous because you know it to be untrue, whilst at the same time harping on about 'facts' and 'logic.' There's nothing logical about making statements you know to be untrue!
I disagree with every bit of what you said but I'm at a loss on how to argue against what you
don't think and have a chance of changing your mind.
L wrote:
On the other hand I think it quite illogical to put the improvements seen in all those nefore and after videos down to only the placebo effect or the disease's natural progress - Gerry Peters walking tall after an unremitting 20 year decline, Linda Torbert tracking her finger without going cross-eyed for the first time in 15 years, Denise Manley making a step exercise video. I think that it's really illogical to think that, from one day to another, there was the huge coincidence of the illness following its natural path and improvements spontaneously happening, or that so many life changing results for so many people can be down to the placebo effect and the placebo effect alone. I think your the ones failing to use logic!
Earlier tonight someone pissed me off and in that post I hinted that they were experiencing placebo effect, otherwise I don't directly attribute anyone's experience to placebo. I DO often point out that for anecdotal evidence to be of any value efforts need to be control the situation and efforts made to determine if and how much placebo is responsible for.
So, if you don't attribute it to the placebo effect then it might be wise not to post on this forum with the sole intent, as you claimed it was earlier, of expressing your doubts regarding the procedure and, effectively, discouraging people to seek CCSVI treatment! But I think that you are just arguing for arguments sake.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
