"A rose is still a rose regardless of whether or not someone finds it less complicated to try to convince others that they are "treating CCSVI" rather than MS. "
Interesting that you would choose to use the words of Gertrude Stein, who was, in fact, trying to articulate the essence of a 'rose' by using repetition and thereby believing she was getting closer to a 'rose' (in language anyway).
scorpion wrote:It looks like the myth of a "miraculous cure" is being perpetuated through the internet and it is a shame because if there is anything positive about being treated for CCSVI how in the world will we ever know????
CenterOfGravity wrote:cheer, thanks so much for that video. As a Stanford grad with multiple degrees, I'm rather proud to see the type of doctor and a Stanford guy representing CCSVI. Even though it should go without mentioning, Stanford's medical school and medical center is a rather pre-eminent place, and they don't usually have "charlatans" on staff there. I don't see how anybody could watch that video and not at least think "well, maybe they are on to something, and I look forward to the science to see how it plays out", instead of needing to be a contrarian.
MarkW wrote:As usual the naysayer Lyon seeks to mislead pwMS by opening a thread with totally the wrong question.
Interventionlists should diagnose and treat CCSVI syndrome. If you have MS then have your veins checked and treated (if required) by a vascular specialist. Your neuro's opinion is irrelevant.
Lyon wrote:http://www.theheart.org/article/1175909.doIt's a high-profile [procedure] that's getting a lot of press, and if we crap the bed on this, it's going to affect interventional and endovascular medicine in a big way."
Users browsing this forum: laurentiu100