[/quote]Lyon wrote:I'm glad you are the person delegated to define "shooting down ideas" because the rest of the world has been in sore need for a better definition for "objective science".Loobie wrote:So please tell me why in the world you wouldn't just say Good Luck and my thoughts/prayers are with you?
To me, only shooting down ideas and not offering any alternatives is weak.
LR1234 wrote:My only major worry is that if only a selected group of dr's can identify CCSVI that makes me worry about it being something that is 100% fact.
The problems arise (as they have done with me) That one dr can see something that another dr can't.
This really makes me cautious as how can a study be taken forward to the masses and be considered fact if the average dr cannot see the occlusions?
Is it because the dr's who cannot see the stenosis are inexperienced in knowing what to look for?
patientx wrote:I would really like to see others perform these vascular scans, to validate the results seen by Zamboni and Dr. Dake.
We saw the same thing with CPn, where no one could replicate the results seen at Vanderbilt and USF.
PX anyone anywhere could see that on my MRV. YOU could too.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users