Lyon wrote: I can't say that's not what is happening, but it doesn't seem like utmost caution is being exercised.
I anticipated this kind of response from you - which is one we are accustomed to seeing. Basically your approach to anything to do with CCSVI is that it is all too early and that we need to wait until everything is in place - funding, trials, expert opinion, whatever etc etc. On the surface that kind of POV can be attractive and get traction with some people. Political opponents use this mechanism to garner support, all the time.
ThisIsMS is a very powerful tool for the progress and resolution of issues associated with CCSVI - the involvement of Dake, ctv, Simka's treatment, Zamboni's publicity etc all started here. Realistically, the resolution of issues associated with CCSVI is going to come from the ground up.
It might mean a little trial and error in the early stages but this will probably seperate out those who want to take control of their lives, from others, thereby reflecting the human psyche in any field of endeavour, you care to look at.
The doctors try to ascertain what it going on in each individual case. We've seen double valves, cysts, malformations, and now for Joel (and potentially Marc) we see bones. Each MS patient will have a different cause.
Some people will wait, some people won't.
We didn't and are glad we didn't but for others the procedure was nowhere near as straight forward.
Same with all MS treatments though, none are without risk.
Doing nothing is a risk in itself.
There's no right answer.
Also, even if the control group had a reduction of 15%, the result is treported that the treatment reduced relapses by 30%
But when you talk about whether the treatment will help one person, those variables are important. For example, if a treatment says that relapses were reduced by 30%, you don't know if everyone had a reduction of 30% or if half had no reduction and the other half had a reduction of 60% (unless they include this analysis in the work-up).
Users browsing this forum: ALA