Medical Myths website Re: CCSVI - Comments please

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

Medical Myths website Re: CCSVI - Comments please

Postby avantitech » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:08 pm

Hi folks,
would anyone care to comment?

http://medicalmyths.wordpress.com/2009/ ... boni-myth/

I've put my 2 cents as a comment at the bottom of the page.

Cheers,
..Adolfo
User avatar
avantitech
Family Member
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:00 pm
Location: Melbourne - Australia

Advertisement

Postby MrSuccess » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:38 pm

this guy is dangerous. Better he sticks to feeding potatoe chips to rats. :wink:






Mr. Success
User avatar
MrSuccess
Family Elder
 
Posts: 891
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:00 pm

Postby AndrewKFletcher » Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:42 am

"and demanded funding from MS charities and government to make this available to all MS patients"

Working for the other side perhaps?
User avatar
AndrewKFletcher
Family Elder
 
Posts: 773
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:00 pm
Location: Paignton, Devon, UK

Postby LR1234 » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:07 am

Even if the theory in the end proves to be untrue (which of course we don't believe) I don't see why any theory should be ignored especially when it concerns an incurable disease that only some can be treated for.

This guy really angers me, not because he doesn't believe in the theory but because he is out ruling it before giving it a chance.
LR1234
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1505
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:00 pm
Location: California

Postby jimmylegs » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:59 am

i don't even care about naysayers at all, the fact that some people may believe them is not a cause of concern for me. the author(s) are probably gratified by spurring outraged retorts ... i have my own healthy skepticism about new developments but i don't have to slam things and that is because i have no vested interest in the status quo and no interest in pissing ppl off just for the sake of it. ppl like that get blocked from TIMS and that is part of the reason this is the only forum in which i participate.
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby 10yearsandstillkicken » Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:13 am

I have only been aware of CCSVI for a month or so and I see a couple of incorrect statements. Is it worth posting a point by point response here? There are members here that know the ins and outs very well. Certainly there is truth there as well. I guess that would be the reason for the studies. To answer for sure and quiet the naysayers.
Chuck
User avatar
10yearsandstillkicken
Family Member
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 2:00 pm
Location: Sactown, CA

Postby Algis » Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:20 am

I dont even see the point in criticizing any theory when it comes to diseases that defeat all treatments available right now.

Poor-minded people have poor opinions, let's move on :roll:
User avatar
Algis
Family Elder
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:00 pm
Location: XinDian, Taiwan

Postby 10yearsandstillkicken » Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:26 am

What worries me is that a lie told often enough becomes the truth. I'd hate to see incorrect statements be held as truth or the source of additional criticism. I just want to truth whatever that turns out to be.
Chuck
User avatar
10yearsandstillkicken
Family Member
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 2:00 pm
Location: Sactown, CA

Postby Mutley » Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:10 am

I've just left a comment on the site too. Nice to see that so far everyone is debunking his claims.
Mutley goes to Poland 1st symptom was Optic Neuritis in 1998, DX RRMS Jan 2001, DX SPMS 2007. Last EDSS by doctor 7.5
User avatar
Mutley
Family Elder
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:00 pm
Location: England

Postby ikulo » Wed Nov 25, 2009 7:19 am

LR1234 wrote:Even if the theory in the end proves to be untrue (which of course we don't believe) I don't see why any theory should be ignored especially when it concerns an incurable disease that only some can be treated for.

This guy really angers me, not because he doesn't believe in the theory but because he is out ruling it before giving it a chance.


Very well put. This guy is bursting with hypocrisy. He insists on getting all the research before making any conclusions, yet he concludes that this can't possibly be the answer because not enough research has been done. I smell a contradiction. What kind of a scientist is this? If he is really concerned about this matter his position should be a cautious uncertainty, not an outright denial. A subtle difference, but surely he should understand it. In conclusion, what a tool.
User avatar
ikulo
Family Elder
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:00 pm
Location: colorado

Postby pamf » Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:17 am

Looking at the site, I don't pick up any sense of compassion or altruism at all, which I would look for in a doctor who actually cares about people and doesn't have some sort of personal agenda. Posting photos of obese people and citing them as "examples" of everything that's wrong is pretty low. It smacks of judgementalism, as does his jab at Cheerleader.

I certainly don't know what qualifies him to be in a position of judgement on the issue of CCSVI.
User avatar
pamf
Newbie
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:00 pm
Location: UK

Postby MS_mama » Wed Nov 25, 2009 8:23 am

What a jerk. Since when did emerging medical research immediately become labeled "myth"?? And for the record, no one ever claimed this to be a cure. Nice--NOT--that he requires people to log in before they can comment, effectively limiting the number of replies people will submit.
dx RRMS Jun. 2009...on Copaxone and LDN and waiting for my turn to be "liberated"<br />
User avatar
MS_mama
Family Elder
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:00 pm

Postby cheerleader » Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:22 am

Most doctors that help patients and are curious about this theory don't have time to blog or to attack wives of MS patients. They're busy practicing medicine and publishing papers in medical journals. A new one coming from Stanford on the first CCSVI patients treated has just been accepted. Details to come.
cheer
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
http://ccsviinms.blogspot.com
User avatar
cheerleader
Family Elder
 
Posts: 5071
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:00 pm
Location: southern California

Postby ozarkcanoer » Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:24 am

cheer... that's great that a scientific paper is coming from Stanford. The people from Stanford have the highest scientific standing. I am so glad you and Jeff went to Stanford.

Ozark
User avatar
ozarkcanoer
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:00 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

Postby chrishasms » Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:35 am

123
Last edited by chrishasms on Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
chrishasms
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:00 pm

Next

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