Conflicting CCSVI Data

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

Postby scorpion » Fri Feb 18, 2011 5:52 am

CureIous wrote:
scorpion wrote:
garyak wrote:burks is a partner in crime

Dr. Burks disclosed financial relationships with Acorda, Allergan, Avanir, Bayer, Biogen Idec, Novartis, and Serono.


8O Nevermind. Disregard the entire article!!!!!!!!!!


The whole thing just reads like a recap of stuff we already know and have hashed to death since 2009, most of the neuro articles are resoundingly, unequivocally negative, and the angio publications show something quite different.

News flash, this isn't that provocative. Though dangling the baited hook can be fun at times, when it becomes one's MO 99% of the time, the fish tend to just want to nibble a bit here and there.

This is about control, welcome to politics masquerading as science. This type of article also attempts to further cement into place a line, easily delineating who is pro and con so as to divide into "camps" as if it's "desperate patients grasping at straws" vs. "sound medical science" and nothing in between.

So yeah, there's not much to see here.


This is where part of our disagreement comes in I think. When studies obtain results that are not to your liking you immediately call them negative. While I am not thrilled that these studies SEEM to be showing CCSVI does not play as great(or maybe any) role in MS as Zamboni initially hypothesized, that does not mean the results are "negative". The researchers obtained these results and they released them. Period. As far as the implied grand neuro conspiracy to skew the results in a certain direction well I guess if people want to tell themselves that it is their prerogative. For the record I have respect for vascular specialists and neuros who are trying to solve the "mystery" of MS and I especially respect those who call it as they see it no matter what people want to hear.
User avatar
scorpion
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1323
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 3:00 pm

Advertisement

Postby 1eye » Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:45 pm

Lyon wrote:If proof isn't to be a necessity we might as well go with any other unproven alternative which might be less expensive, more quickly available, less invasive and less painful.

I only wish I could make you and others understand that some kind of substantiation really does have value but as you've mentioned so often, it's your decision.


It may be within the capability of others to decide not to die, in spite of how expensive, slow, invasive or painful the treatment might be. The alternative is bound to address most of those concerns, but may not be considered, especially when there is only one treatment on the menu, and a lot of people say it is a good one. You can't take it with you.

Hell, even treatments for RR'MS' sometimes kill you anyway.
"Try - Just A Little Bit Harder" - Janis Joplin
CCSVI procedure Albany Aug 2010
'MS' is over - if you want it
Patients sans/without patience
User avatar
1eye
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2960
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada

Previous

Return to Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI)

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Contact us | Terms of Service