This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

obviously ..... there is a full moon .....

the usual suspects have awakened ....





Mr. Success

YES! A glass of warm milk and back under your rock you go!

esta wrote:There was a topic, i Swear i saw one.

And then the accusations and insinuations started.

MrSuccess wrote:obviously ..... there is a full moon .....

the usual suspects have awakened ....





Mr. Success

Waxing Gibbous here



HappyPoet wrote:
concerned wrote:
sarcasm (ˈsɑːkæzəm)
Cute... a Boston accent.


The 'a:' makes an 'ar' sound.

esta wrote:There was a topic, i Swear i saw one.

Esta what else can be said about the topic? There are mind readers on this board who know the motivation of each and every neruro who expresses their opinion about CCSVI so what do we talk about? That Dr. Smith's brother's uncle had an affair with a young lady whose husband worked for a pharma so therefore any statements Dr. Smith makes critical of CCSVI are due to his connection with the big pharmas? How long can you convince people that every time a neuro says something critical about CCSVI he has some ulterior motive? This tactic is becoming almost comical. Why is it so hard to admit that some neuros, because of the years they spent in school learning about the human body, just do not buy into Zamboni's theory? My guess is that by discrediting the person that makes the critical comments there is a sense that you than discredit their comments as well which means you hopefully can keep the skeptics at bay.

Since you're here (with bells on, I might add) and since *no*body is tired of hearing all about it from you, what exactly do you not 'buy into'. I'm tired of hearing nothing but generalizations and attacks. I want to hear details. What exactly, pray tell, what is the most difficult aspect of Dr. Zamboni's writing (however much of it you have actually read, so please do cite specific language and quote chapter and verse if you can) for you to 'buy into', believe, or otherwise understand or respect?

I have heard the good doctor's name slandered a lot, but never in any detail. Oh yes, I have seen the 0 and 100 percent numbers in great detail, but one has to question the relevance of that quibble when the sample size was so small. But what specifically can't you stomach, or is it just the success of it in the real world that you don't like?

patientx wrote:

Cece wrote:...do you have an explanation for the slow flow?

And in the time immediately before and after new lesion formation, there is actually increased cerebral perfusion:

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/127/1/111.full

Inflammation can be expected when cells die, and some minor increases in perfusion may occur. But the low oxygen levels that killed them are not caused by inflammation.

patientx wrote:But to answer your question:

http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/75/9/1288.abstract

Low GM perfusion could reflect decreased metabolism secondary to neuronal and axonal loss or dysfunction with a predilection for progressive forms of MS.

No the lower perfusion is not caused by low metabolism, though it does reflect it, in a secondary way. The cells will regenerate if flow is restored. Oxygen is a good Liberator, and Occam makes good razors. MHO

concerned wrote:"Beggars can't be choosers" is the more common saying, but both are correct. Furthermore, would anyone say the word "chooser" outside of this saying?

Depends on if you have available a good "decider"; much better than a chooser any time.

Malden wrote: I can quote some more original "radical" views on cardiovascular physiology from "DrSclafani answers some questions" topic, page two:

drsclafani wrote:...

So traffic continues... no reflux by driving in oposite direction on highway?

So why don't you direct your name-calling at him, and give him a chance to defend himself, rather than mis-explaining it? Or is your hart not in it?

1eye - you should know by now ..... which TIMS posts ..... have absolutely zero value . That small handful of [ fill in your choice word here ] that always post in bunch's [ why is that ? hmmm ] as far as I can see ..... are not capable of adding anything of worth to the debate .

The original post .... was a quote by Dr. Scalfani .... offering an opinion that Dr. Zamboni's theory ....seems sound .

Other health professionals are buying into it also .

The list is growing .


Mmmmm milk .



Mr. Success

I wish a moderator would check these people's IP addresses. Please JimmyLegs? See who is who is who..

But thanks for the link erinc. I only just saw this thread. And thanks Dr Sclafani.

MrSuccess wrote:The original post .... was a quote by Dr. Scalfani .... offering an opinion that Dr. Zamboni's theory ....seems sound .

Other health professionals are buying into it also .

I agree with this. It has helped, since hearing CCSVI maligned as ridiculous early on, to also hear the opposite view where experienced professionals state their opinions in support of it. The SIRs statement in favor of CCSVI may, I think, be significant in encouraging more IRs to get into this.

Let me think: yes, I was complimenting Malden's English while alluding to the debate over his first posts which went from broken English to fancy English rather quickly! I had no doubts that Malden would be able to explain his position, although I had much doubt that I would agree with it. It has been suggested that Malden is Lyon posting under another name. I do not know the truth of it, nor do I care for such games.

Patientx, thank you, the first link was not something I'd seen before and the second is indeed the alternative or autoimmune theory's explanation for the phenomenon of cerebral hypoperfusion. I wonder if the research Dr. Hubbard is doing with the fMRI or BOLD technology, with pre- and post-angio scans, will add to our knowledge. That is measuring oxygenation, which would be a result of perfusion, is that measuring the same thing?

I think Dr. Sclafani has been a good representative for CCSVI in the various media outlets although my favorite is the Endovascular Today since that one is read by IRs and may have some influence that way. Plus it showed that while he is able to explain things to us on one level, he can elevate to that highly technical and professional level too. That EVT article was solid, it was packed.

L wrote:I wish a moderator would check these people's IP addresses. Please JimmyLegs? See who is who is who..

But thanks for the link erinc. I only just saw this thread. And thanks Dr Sclafani.

I'm not sure of my IP address or I would gladly give it. What exactly do you think that would tell you?

If big pharma really is aware of and concerned about the theory of CCSVI and has power you accredit them, it seems they would at least have someone on staff to alter IP addresses to protect the identities of us pharma pawns/skeptics.

HappyPoet wrote:

concerned wrote:sarcasm (ˈsɑːkæzəm)

Cute... a Boston accent.

That was funny. (to me, anyhow, but I just smoked a joint)

1eye wrote:Since you're here (with bells on, I might add) and since *no*body is tired of hearing all about it from you, what exactly do you not 'buy into'. I'm tired of hearing nothing but generalizations and attacks. I want to hear details. What exactly, pray tell, what is the most difficult aspect of Dr. Zamboni's writing (however much of it you have actually read, so please do cite specific language and quote chapter and verse if you can) for you to 'buy into', believe, or otherwise understand or respect?

I have heard the good doctor's name slandered a lot, but never in any detail. Oh yes, I have seen the 0 and 100 percent numbers in great detail, but one has to question the relevance of that quibble when the sample size was so small. But what specifically can't you stomach, or is it just the success of it in the real world that you don't like?

Ok quickly since I have said it before

1. 100%, 100%, 100%
2.no blind study to test against placebo effect
3.participants in his study continued to take MS therapy drugs
4. he went straight to the social media which bypassed any critical review of his research by his peers
5.to perform the "liberation" procedure at such an early stage in his research was a questionable ethical decision
6. to operate on his wife was a questionable ethical decision
7.the word "liberation" should never have been used to describe his surgery. liberation means to be free of. what a misleading term.

1eye any scientist or even a layman like me should see that Zamboni's results were obtained through flawed science. If Zamboni's results were obtained through sound science the CCSI fanatics would not need to make ridiculous claims of pharma conspiracy, neuro conspiracy, and even infiltration by pharma reps. on certain MS blogs.
.

The existence of CCSVI has social media to thank for the popularity it has seen over the last year. People who have very little knowledge in the vascular system continue to pop up and claim to have more insight than people who have spent ten years studying anatomy, chemistry biology, etc. in top universities. Social media should not dictate what direction science takes or we end up with what we got now which is a bunch of misinformation and paranoia. Very sad.

Cece wrote:...Let me think: yes, I was complimenting M's English while alluding to the debate over his first posts which went from broken English to fancy English rather quickly! I had no doubts that M would be able to explain his position, although I had much doubt that I would agree with it. It has been suggested that M is Lyon posting under another name. I do not know the truth of it, nor do I care for such games.

If it's necessary I can explain, only for you Cece, because I admire your comitment to help.
My level of english depends on my current level of my RRMS. If I am remiting then I have patiece to check spelling and do dictionaries and thesaruses, but if I am in relapsing stage (like I am those days) I wrote instant, no energy, no time to recheck. Apologise to you all who read my posts, I try to be understandible.

Best regards,
M.