1eye wrote:I'm not going to start from first principles and argue anything. I am saying, with *this* treatment with *this* history in *these* places all over the world, and the knowledge about it that exists, and the many strong proponents and supporters of many varieties, with all that is known today, the burden of proof should be on those who would obstruct and prevent this procedure from happening, that there is a good reason to do so. The burden of proof of a crime should presume innocence. These people are not scam-artists. This is not snake oil. This is not junk science. This is not criminal enterprise. This is not quackery. This is not unfair treatment of the disadvantaged or the sick or the desperate. It reminds me of a rape victim who must prove she didn't lead her victim on. It is almost as if the victim must show just cause why they should be allowed to pursue their own health!
Doctors are not criminals. They are not fraudsters. They are not con-artists. Let them practice medicine.
I agree with all your points, except of course the usual - this isn't a legal case -If it were, then you're right, the accuser should prove the guilt of the opponent.
But there are no accusations here. There is an answer that needs to be found - whether something works, how much it works, who gets the best results, who doesn't, what are the side effects, how to avoid/treat these, how to improve the procedure....etc. In reality, it's not one side vs the other as it's being portrayed. The "evil" vs. "good" approach doesn't benefit anyone.
Of course the procedure is not any of the things you noted - absolutely not - but the "blocking" isn't really blocking - it's just waiting for more data (broken record here).
The reason they wait rather than dive in feet first at every new finding? More than enough examples of good and bad decisions on the part of health policy makers who dove in before there was enough data to go on.
They'll get criticized either way - if they wait some complain that they're blocking treatment and it won't be available to many patients who are in a dire situation; if they approve quickly ... well, just ask the moms who took tholidomide during pregnancy because they lived in countries where it was quickly approved, if they were satisfied with that decision? Quick approval there is now known as one of the biggest medical tragedies of modern times! (lucky those folks that acted fast to approve).
Online research wasn't around then - but even if it was, no amount of googling would have prevented this since the studies showing the real effects were non-existent that early on. If you were a policy maker, would you have taken that risk?
(Please interpret above accurately; NOT at all suggesting that this is what will happen with CCSVI so don't even go there; I am talking about risks of approving too quickly)