You're right Bob, you're definitely not feeling well. Take some antibiotics and comeback and edit this weekend.......
Thanks Harry and Bob, I appreciate it.
CCSVI is different. What did I mean? Depends on what the definition of "is" is. yaknow? I'm interested in what "legitimate documentation" is. I think I know, you mean the aforementioned "peer reviewed journal articles".
I think I could write for the next hour about this, and I won't because I think I've used up my really good post for the day. But, I think we have an assessment process we go through when we see new stuff. We must each make a PERSONAL decision to accept, reject or become interested. I have taken an interest in reading about and learning more about CCSVI. That could change in the future. I became very interested in ABX when I first heard about it and perhaps responded to ABX much like Cheerleader has responded to CCSVI. I have not become interested in Andrew's inclined bed theory, but I respect his effort to share an idea enough to mention it. and, that's how I FEEL now, but that might change later too.
Fact is, we have diversity here and it's golden. If you go to other MS boards, there is nothing like the renaissance we have going on here. Lets all enjoy this place and the variety we have and respect it, like the religion's of others.
Documentation. code word for proof? FDA approved? someone did it and felt better? how about a series of videos of improved walks
. When I say different, I'm talking about that it's not an NTCRAB, it's not something that your typical neurologist is ready to give you pamphlets for. Undocumented? That requires judgment.
crap, I'm writing now. dang it Lyon! Ok, so undocumented. Key word, yes it is. It's gray, very gray. If you want to be strict about it, documented should mean FDA approved. Provigil would be undocumented, I think, post the approval and tell Dignan if I'm wrong. On the flip side, I see Kim overcoming multiple MS symptoms and others have anecdotal stories about overcoming MS symptoms on ABX. given that ABX is cheap and low risk, seemed like a no brainer to me. CCSVI, if it was cheap, easy to do and relatively riskless, sure, I think we'd be on it. So then why not mess with the bed? Don't know, I'm not there yet. I guess there is a lack of info about it and I don't like to get interested unless I already see a crowd. So maybe it's a combination test that's subjective and flexible. If it quacks like a duck, has feathers like a duck and swims like a duck......
I don't know if I can directly answer your question, but we have a rapport and think you deserve the best effort I can make. If you have not seen any of my posts that make an effort to provide documentation of abx, I can put something here. But is it conclusive, of course not.
But, just remember, even the articles in the journals begin with an assumption, upon which the entirely of the rest of the article is reliant.
We must all make our own judgments as we subjectively sift through the material we share here at TIMS. While there is no certainly, we obviously are not precluded from continuing our individual discernments. blessings to all, Ken