This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2010 10:01 am**

http://www.fondazionehilarescere.org/pd ... 8-ANGY.pdf
This meets the criteria you ask for Scorpion...and when I read over the posts...I find it more than possible to see more than what you say you are merely asking for.

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2010 10:11 am**

Scorpion,

Yes, in all of the forums of thisms there is a double standard, ccsvi included.

Now, would you mind to answer two questions (ok, maybe three)?

what do you think of this quote:

"We normally only dilate arteries. Dilating veins is highly experimental and the structures are so weak that people will die," he warns. "

and

What would you think of someone who subjects himself/herself to a therapy not approved by the FDA and without medical supervision, a "therapy" which is proven to have deleterious effects to the health?

Not only that, what would you think about the people cheerleading this person while he/she is conducting such an experiment?

Thanks

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2010 10:41 am**

scorpion wrote:
sbr487 wrote:
oreo wrote:Scorpion, the answer to your question is YES. There is a double standard. Anyone who questions anything about CCSVI is wrong. Those who champion it all deserve the Nobel prize.

As for myself, I am still waiting for science to answer a lot of questions before I make up my mind either way.
This is one forum where selfless people (despite the issues they face due to MS) are going out of their way to help each other. And you felt that they are trying to further their own cause. The fact of the matter is that anything against CCSVI is spoken as a matter of fact and anything for it is "yet to be proven"

If you think MS people are foolish to blindly rally around CCSVI then why don't you try to float your own theory on MS (or any other disease) and see what happens?
CCSVI has not come to this level of acceptability just like that ...

I do not think anyone is foolish, blind, or anything else. I am also not interested in floating any Scorpion theories around the interent. All I was asking, once again...... was for example why a medical doctor's credentials are questioned when he writes an article slightly critical of CCSVI but when people from this forum and other places, who have no medical background whatsoever, write highly technical posts relating to CCSVI they are considered experts. I was hoping for some responses but it looks like "it aint going to be so".

Welcome to the internets.

http://laughingsquid.com/someone-is-wro ... -internet/

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2010 2:33 pm**

fernando wrote:Scorpion,

Yes, in all of the forums of thisms there is a double standard, ccsvi included.

Now, would you mind to answer two questions (ok, maybe three)?

what do you think of this quote:

"We normally only dilate arteries. Dilating veins is highly experimental and the structures are so weak that people will die," he warns. "
and

What would you think of someone who subjects himself/herself to a therapy not approved by the FDA and without medical supervision, a "therapy" which is proven to have deleterious effects to the health?

Not only that, what would you think about the people cheerleading this person while he/she is conducting such an experiment?

Thanks

1.
<shortened url>

http://www.springerlink.com/content/rt234q3n27368npx/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g152w17820q32647/

Fernando I really want to respond to your second and third question but they are very vague. I mean if someone has a cold and decides to drink prune juice to cure it and as a result has "deleterious effects" I would think it is pretty crappy but not a huge problem. However if someone has a cold and decides to drink cyanide to cure it I may have some concerns. If you make your questions more specific I would love to have a discussion with you but the problem I see is I could answer your question as you posted like five different ways!

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2010 2:51 pm**

I see that in your reply you link to some information, but I really would like a reply from you in your own words.

On the 2nd and 3rd q's

Among the harmful effects there are anemia and weight loss and the illness is devastating. This person is not using other approved therapies believing his/her own treatment will make him/her better . What do you think now? And remember, NO doctor is supervising the experiment.

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2010 3:27 pm**

"We normally only dilate arteries. Dilating veins is highly experimental and the structures are so weak that people will die," he warns. "

Fernando the only way I or anyone else can validate or invalidate this statement is to research it which I did. Please post any research stating otherwise.

I still need more data to give you a thoughtful answer to your questions. What disease are we talking about? What stage are they in? What is the treatment? The way my brain works is questions breed more questions. I am really not trying to be evasive but simply trying to give you some feedback to your questions!

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2010 4:29 pm**

scorpion wrote:"We normally only dilate arteries. Dilating veins is highly experimental and the structures are so weak that people will die," he warns. "

Fernando the only way I or anyone else can validate or invalidate this statement is to research it which I did. Please post any research stating otherwise.

Dr. Sclafani addressed this in his thread. "Veins have been dilated since 1980. This statement goes against common sense and practice."

Here is a link to research articles on vein dilation:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en ... =&as_vis=0

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2010 5:00 pm**

Scorpion,

My friend, just google for angioplasty and veins. There are 1.500.000 hits. The first one says

http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=angioplasty

What are Angioplasty and Vascular Stenting?

Click to view larger

Drawing illustrates angioplasty
used for treating plaque.
Angioplasty with or without vascular stenting is a minimally invasive procedure performed to improve blood flow in the body's arteries and veins.

The 3rd hit says:

Policy/Criteria

Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, with or without stenting, may be considered medically necessary for the treatment of venous vascular stenoses in the following instances:
Stenotic lesions of arteriovenous dialysis fistulas and grafts, and ipsilateral venous stenosis in the outflow of a functioning dialysis fistula and graft
Superior vena cava in patients with malignant superior vena cava syndrome, when standard treatments (radiation and/or chemotherapy) have failed
May-Thurner Syndrome (iliac compression syndrome)
The use of angioplasty and/or endoprostheses for creation of intrahepatic shunt connections between the portal venous system and hepatic vein may be considered medically necessary.
Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, with or without stenting, is considered investigational for all other venous indications, including but not limited to:
Deep vein thrombosis
Axillary-subclavian venous thrombosis (Paget-Schroetter Syndrome)

Please, present a research that says that vein dilatation "in general" causes death. Every procedure has risks. In that sense, angioplasty of arteries sures cause death too, but not "in general".
Otherwise I would think that you use a double standard.

The disease is cancer and the "cure" is bloodletting.

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2010 5:44 pm**

After reading the links Scorpion posted, it looks like Dr. Hebert's statement, while tending toward hyperbole, does have some basis. People have died from a vein rupturing during ballooning.

Those who have undergone the procedure - I'm curious if the doctor told you of this possible complication, and if he or she was ready for it?

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2010 6:45 pm**

The links posted by Scorpion don't state that vein angioplasty is "experimental" reports only one death, and two isolated life-threatening events. In fact it says that "Stent placement is an accepted primary treatment for SVC syndrome". How could this be experimental then?

In any case, under that light, artery angioplasty "cause death".

But I'm stating the obvious.

Posted: **Thu Jul 01, 2010 7:39 pm**

scorpion wrote: All I was asking, once again...... was for example why a medical doctor's credentials are questioned when he writes an article slightly critical of CCSVI but when people from this forum and other places, who have no medical background whatsoever, write highly technical posts relating to CCSVI they are considered experts. I was hoping for some responses but it looks like "it aint going to be so".

I had decided never to respond to a certain posters but here it is -

if opinion by a certain community is looked with skepticism or dismissed is because they have brought it upon themselves.

On what basis did Dr. Freedman call Dr. Z theory a hoax
On what basis did Dr. Khan compare it with Snake oil
On what basis did the german neuro team called it "valueless". Their article was more like an essay with full of wishful thinking

I can go on so many unprofessional acts ...

There are people here who are more objective than I can be and try to be objective to some of the CCSVI critical papers. I cant be. Even if Dr Freedman or Khan say that CCSVI is indeed credible, I would not give much importance to them because these guys have no credibility ...

Note to others: we have seen lot of these unprofessional acts by people wrt to ccsvi. We have info about these scattered. How about collating them . It would be interesting when we look back 2-3 years from now.

This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

Toronto Star Article