MarkW wrote:Mose wrote: Please do go on.
Sorry I have more interesting things to do. My job is just making people think about facts and speculation...................
I agree with Mark that this is a really poor, counter-productive article. I encourage people not
to use this in your efforts to convince your neurologists, because it's too hysterical and riddled with errors and opinions. Use something fact-based, like the excellent Zamboni papers.
One of the statements that bugged me was this:
Ashton wrote:This is doubtful given that adequate vitamin D can prevent MS...
Since when is this a given? It's not. It's logically invalid to use speculation to support your assertions.
I also found it amusing that he first states that "MS research community has exhibited a similar, highly skeptical reaction to CCSVI and I expect they will not even consider incorporating CCSVI into their research plans," and then after that describes research into CCSVI such as the Buffalo study, and makes no mention of the NMSS CCSVI funding push or the imminent clinical trials at Stanford.
The fact is, the research community is
showing interest in CCSVI, and we can expect this interest to snowball if the early studies show positive results. That's how science works.