Page 1 of 5
Severe Criticism & MOCKERY of CCSVI BY A Doctor SPAMMING
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:43 am
by friday_fc
i GOT this disturbing message sent to me, and i saw that this same 'cardiologist' in Canada is spamming the same message to all MS sufferers he finds on Twitter. He is obviously meticulously going through the Twitter CCSVI support group and sending the below link with the warning that CCSVI is "JUNK SCIENCE"
It has infuriated me, what do you all think?
http://medicalmyths.wordpress.com/2009/ ... i-surreal/
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:47 am
by LR1234
He is in idiot! I totally understand he has his beliefs but to try and prevent science investigating a new theory with regards to an incurable disease is daft!! Why rule something out before it has been scientifically ruled out???
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:52 am
by friday_fc
hE IS comparing Zamboni to past century magicians and hypnotherapists?
i blocked him on my twitter page as a knee-jerk reaction - hope everyone else he has spammed does the same. He is on a mission - very disturbing and when i looked at his 'status' before i blocked him, it said 'keeping people out of hospitals' - what a JOKE
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:11 am
by cah
This thing is old, already discussed on TIMS for example
here and
here. He says that there's no such thing as CCSVI as it is anatomically impossible (your eyes would pop out...). Bufallo and the CCSVI approval of the UIP already have proven him wrong.
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:43 am
by sbr487
Some comments make interesting read ...
He has been logically questioned by lay readers.
Obviously, he is thick skinned. Otherwise he would take a couple of minutes and looked within ...
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:42 pm
by CureIous
Reminds me of a kid throwing a hissy fit in the middle of a store. More you tell him to stop, worse it gets. I think it's sad that someone can become so jaded, they're more known for what they are anti, than what they stand for.
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:55 pm
by L
sbr487 wrote:Some comments make interesting read ...
He has been logically questioned by lay readers.
Obviously, he is thick skinned. Otherwise he would take a couple of minutes and looked within ...
They make for a good read, you're right. A good antidote to the first link in this thread. They get a bit too aggressive though, no?
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:13 pm
by fernando
Nice answers by Chris Sullivan
In fact Colin didn't respond.
Colin Rose said
February 15, 2010 at 13:01
From the look of your facebook portrait I would highly doubt you have severe enough narrowings in both jugulars to cause any disease. If you did, your face would look like someone who has been stranged, blue and swollen with protruding tongue and eyeballs.
What type of Doppler did you have? Having a friend, knowing your diagnosis, do a test on you, the interpretation of which is highly subjective, is not advised. If he had said you had normal veins would he still be your friend?
Before any surgery is done it is imperative to measure pressure gradients across the presumed blockage seen on a venogram. If upstream pressure is not high and there is no significant gradient, stenting would be useless as well as dangerous. Stenting of arteries is an entirely different procedure, irrelevant to any presumed venous pathology.
Chrisoneeye said
February 15, 2010 at 19:01
You admit they can cause disease?
Looks can deceive. Not working, walking, driving, riding bike, or playing guitar anymore. Fall way too often, especially when head not upright. Use wheelchair or non-mobile chair in house mostly.
Already addressed face. Think that’s how I started. Many ways to avoid purple+death. Onset is gradual, if you are not born with it. Being strangled veryslowly.
Doppler brand? Famous Japanese name. Need protocol, make, model? Very recent purchase. 5 MHz probe I think, but not positive.
Surgeon will take measurements he/she needs.
-Chris Sullivan
Chrisoneeye said
February 16, 2010 at 11:09
I hope anyone still reading this realizes that my last post (4., above) was in answer to Colin’s (5.above).
I can’t argue any more. I hope they have their minds made up. I do.
Thanks.
Chris Sullivan
http://medicalmyths.wordpress.com/2010/ ... -on-ccsvi/
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 6:48 pm
by chrishasms
Wow I just went off on him
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:48 pm
by MSBOB
It doesn't infuriate me. I am not convinced either way about CCSVI. It seems like a chicken or egg deal. Same thing about iron deposits. I don't know if he should go that far in his attacks. It does seem personal. Still, CCSVI doesn't look like a very good choice for most people. The same infuriation can be applied to all the hype in regard to CCSVI as being the cure all.
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:51 pm
by soapdiva884
This is about the only thing I can agree upon with this person:
"multiple sclerosis, one of the more miserable of chronic, incurable diseases"
What a jerk!
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:55 pm
by ikulo
Apparently McGill must have stopped teaching the virtues of scientific rigor and instead began focusing on spamming. If more people thought like CRose, the sun would still be rotating around the earth.
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:05 am
by frodo
cah wrote:This thing is old, already discussed on TIMS for example
here and
here. He says that there's no such thing as CCSVI as it is anatomically impossible (your eyes would pop out...). Bufallo and the CCSVI approval of the UIP already have proven him wrong.
That's fun. These people says that CCSVI is anatomically impossible, and at the same time, that it is produced by MS (instead of the other way around)
Anyway is not so bad. In other times we would be accused of heresy by our statements.
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:26 am
by DrCumming
Weird behavior. I have seen him post stuff from all around the net. Certainly entitled to his opinion but to tweet people directly seems to cross the line. I don't think the leadership at McGill would be impressed.
definition of spamming
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 8:32 pm
by colros
E-mail spam, also known as junk e-mail, is a subset of spam that involves nearly identical messages sent to numerous recipients by e-mail. A common synonym for spam is unsolicited bulk e-mail (UBE). Definitions of spam usually include the aspects that email is unsolicited and sent in bulk. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(e-mail)
Replying to individual twitters to discuss the topic of the twitters is not spamming. Why would anyone twitter and not want to discuss the topic of the twitter?