I personally didn't see Robbie's post as 'humour', within the context of other posts being made - after all, the thread was locked a few days later.
I agree Phil. Maybe humor wasn't the correct term because it wasn't ha-ha humorous but maybe a touch of irony?
However you make the point that treatments need to 'be run through respectable channels' before gaining recognition. So where does this leave many of the alternatives listed in the Treatments section of this website? There are a swag of treatments shown. Do they all meet the 'respectable channels' test?
Gosh, of course I have my personal opinion but I'm not the person to judge these things. My personal opinion is that the rules are the same for any treatments, alternative or not....I don't mean to badmouth alternative or natural treatments or hint that they shouldn't be viewed with interest, but the truth is that any claims made about them are unsubstantiated until they've gone through the proper channels......ANY treatment is unsubstantiated until it's gone through the proper channels.
Bob, because you are a researcher yourself
I consider a lot of us on this site "researchers", but so there is no misunderstanding, I'm not in the medical profession.
you must have some idea in response to my inital question of 'how many?' persons need to benefit before a treatment is taken seriously or are you suggesting that it is not a matter of how many patients are positively treated but rather, who is endorsing a certain treatment?
Well this is a situation in which my opinion varies from the medical establishment and it's also necessary to realize that there is a great need to....I shouldn't say rush but to expedite beneficial treatments...get them to the people who need them as soon as possible. I read a paper from 2001 last night in which the researcher...I think that paper was George Ebers, speculated that a 10 year clinical trial with a few patients in some ways might be considered more valuable than a 2 year clinical trial with hundreds or thousands. I don't know, who is to say at what point a treatment should be considered valid but I think the point in this situation is accurate documentation by a trusted source and that might be the biggest aspect that the alternative treatments are lacking.
And finally, if hypothetically, SF1019 or Aimspro were rigorously tested (in the US) and given the support of reputable professionals, would this sharpen your opinion?
Absolutely. No question. It wouldn't even have to be US researchers to convince me, just a clinical trial under study conditions at a reputible institution. Keep in mind that I'm convinced that the loss of the parasites we evolved with is the primary reason we are seeing ALL of these immune disorders so I'm the last person who would think that anything is too "weird" to be beyond consideration and I'm the last person who would think that the "cure" for MS can only be created in some mad scientist's (sorry biodoc) test tube