Page 1 of 1
New Facebook post..Absolute nonsense!
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:29 am
by PCakes
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:28 am
by SoberSandy
Thank you for this revealing information - it is so helpful to look into the mind of the opposing argument regardless of how transparent and weak it is. I am surprised Shelly does not mind posting such negative information regarding Dr. David Hojnacki - to think he looked at another Dr's work (a doctor more qualified than he) and erronously interpreted it. I guess being a neuroligist it makes sence - he is not properly trained to interpret MRV and Doppler results like Dr. Zamboni is. Dr. Zamboni has been doing this work for many years and he is a highly trained Vascular Doctor who has dedicated his life to this. It would be like trusting the opinion of a Podiatrist regarding my eye exam. I trust the opinion of qualified persons regarding CCSVI and those quilified persons who are not being paid/influenced by Drug Companies. I wonder why Dr. Hojnacki would reveal this about himself at a seminar - embarrasing! Neurologist are not experts in CCSVI - they are experts in the study and function of nerves. Let them speak regarding nerves not CCSVI.
We gain strength in the truth!
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 1:25 pm
by nicko
Dr. Hojnacki stated that statistically in the Buffalo CCSVI Study, there is no difference between the abnormal ultrasounds in the control group verses the MS group. This means that he saw the same percentage of abnormal ultrasounds in the MS group vs. the non-MS group.
How interesting my Neurologist had the same opinion. He also went on to say that he expects the 50%(ms) and 20%(control) numbers to get closer to one another after more people are tested. Say the 50% drops to 40% and the 20% moves up to 30%.
I don't want to believe this, but its going to be in the back of my mind until the rest of the buffalo results are released.
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:36 pm
by frodo
Dr. Hojnacki stated that statistically in the Buffalo CCSVI Study, there is no difference between the abnormal ultrasounds in the control group verses the MS group. This means that he saw the same percentage of abnormal ultrasounds in the MS group vs. the non-MS group.
Please read it again. He probably states that there is no difference between the ABNORMAL ultrasounds in the control group and the ultrasounds in the MS group, also ABNORMAL.
He probably just means that you can have a real CCSVI without developing MS
Posted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:42 pm
by sbr487
None of us should get dejected with what others say. If CCSVI was accepted without resistance, I would never be a great idea. Great ideas radically change status quo and challenge lot of things we have taken for granted. We MSers tend to believe CCSVI more because we have seen MS from close quarters. Don't expect outsiders to believe it so easily.
Keep the focus on people who can help us. Ignore people who are here to distract. If you are distracted, they have won.
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 12:09 am
by costumenastional
All i can see nowadays is people stating that research is needed and all kinds of shit.
There is simply no time for us to wait.
Everyone, go check your veins and then discuss it.
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:17 am
by Direct-MS
I contacted Dr Hojnacki regarding Riley's posted summary of his talk and he has told me it is completely filled with errors and in no way represents what he had to say. I was not surprised to hear this given his established expertise and professionalism.
The posted "summary" of his talk provides one more good example of how information can be completely distorted by a biased listener.
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:42 am
by ozarkcanoer
Thank you, Direct-MS, for clearing this up since it was very disturbing !
ozarkcanoer
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:15 am
by PCakes
Direct- MS ..Dr. Embry... many many thanks..! clarity is so important.. any chance of a revised summary?
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:17 am
by SoberSandy
Yes, thank you!
hi all
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 3:51 pm
by wobbly