This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

Very happy Early Adopter here as well. Happy not to have restless legs, heat intolerance, brain fog and shaky (extremely) hands anymore - and, like the label, I have the "highest degree of opinion leadership"and proud of it!

heyas, i just plotted some data from the tracking thread re: people who have had the procedure over time. the line is rising slightly and linearly so far although i'm not done. it think we'll have to wait for a steeper rate of adoption and then a down slope to show up to really be able to draw the lines between innovators, early adopters, and early majority etc. right now, looking at this almost horizontal line, i'm guessing we're still in the innovators phase. not that our tracking thread is a very scientific sample but all the same, interesting.

jimmylegs wrote:heyas, i just plotted some data from the tracking thread re: people who have had the procedure over time. the line is rising slightly and linearly so far although i'm not done. it think we'll have to wait for a steeper rate of adoption and then a down slope to show up to really be able to draw the lines between innovators, early adopters, and early majority etc. right now, looking at this almost horizontal line, i'm guessing we're still in the innovators phase. not that our tracking thread is a very scientific sample but all the same, interesting.

yes, interesting!

I believe in this diet:

"Dr. Budwig showed that by consuming flax oil and cottage cheese, cancer could be prevented and cured. It is such a simple thing to do, why not just do it? Read about it in her book Flax Oil As a True Aid Against Arthritis Heart Infarction Cancer and Other Diseases."

I am an early adapter and to those who are not convinced?? LAGGERS!!!!!!

Cece wrote:Take that 3,000 and apply Siskin's rule of thirds (a third 'wow' improvements, a third minor gradual improvements, a third no improvements) and consider that minor gradual improvements in a progressive neurodegenerative disease count in my mind as significant and...2/3rds of 3,000 is 2,000 with significant benefits. So, yes, I would agree with thousands, but just barely, estimated and approximated.

Are you serious? Sisikin's rule of thirds?

patientx wrote:

Cece wrote:Take that 3,000 and apply Siskin's rule of thirds (a third 'wow' improvements, a third minor gradual improvements, a third no improvements) and consider that minor gradual improvements in a progressive neurodegenerative disease count in my mind as significant and...2/3rds of 3,000 is 2,000 with significant benefits. So, yes, I would agree with thousands, but just barely, estimated and approximated.

Are you serious? Sisikin's rule of thirds?

It is a clinical observation by a doctor whose group has treated 200+ patients.

Early Adopters - people who have adopted children when they were six or so
Earlier Adopters - people who have adopted children when the adoptive parents were three or so
Earlier Earlier Adopters - people who adopted children when the natural parents were just dating
Really Early Adopters - people who adopted children when they were just a twinkle

Early Adapters - people who got used to having kids when the kids were twenty or less
Medium Adapters - people who never really got used to it but said what the hey
Late Adapters - hardware that connects HDMI inputs to DVI, but never on time

Early Ornithopters - flying dinosaurs not out of the flapping stage yet, but for whom marketers can be said to have 'a thing'

(This is my first, and I promise only, intentional crosspost. I hope everyone gets the joke. ;) )

Sometimes I think I have a split personality, one could post here, the other one on the personal experience thread.

I don't think there's such a thing like "healthy scepticism". Scepticism is an absolute way of thinking. Either you question things (scientifically), or you don't. Questioning things "a bit" (again, scientifically) is like being slightly pregnant.
On the other hand, what's considered healthy is very relative, consisting of comparison, common sense and average. So, if you say you're scepticism is healthy, it's like saying "I'm relatively absolute.".

A much more precise picture is that there are two conflicting opinions in my mind existing side by side. While I see the many personal experiences that are compelling to me, I also understand the importance of strict scientifical approaches.

The only way out of this dilemma is to draw the conclusion that it's futile to think in terms of a general "right" or "wrong". Each case is different and every decision must be made individually.

But what derives from that is the understanding that it is plain wrong to judge another one's decision.

cah wrote:(This is my first, and I promise only, intentional crosspost. I hope everyone gets the joke. ;) )

Sometimes I think I have a split personality, one could post here, the other one on the personal experience thread.

I don't think there's such a thing like "healthy scepticism". Scepticism is an absolute way of thinking. Either you question things (scientifically), or you don't. Questioning things "a bit" (again, scientifically) is like being slightly pregnant.
On the other hand, what's considered healthy is very relative, consisting of comparison, common sense and average. So, if you say you're scepticism is healthy, it's like saying "I'm relatively absolute.".

A much more precise picture is that there are two conflicting opinions in my mind existing side by side. While I see the many personal experiences that are compelling to me, I also understand the importance of strict scientifical approaches.

The only way out of this dilemma is to draw the conclusion that it's futile to think in terms of a general "right" or "wrong". Each case is different and every decision must be made individually.

But what derives from that is the understanding that it is plain wrong to judge another one's decision.

What has been called on this forum skepticim I like to refer to as the art of critical thinking. In the age of the internet critical thinking, in my opinion, is becomning a relic of the past. If you have belief in something there is going to be somewhere online that validates the way you feel . If I wanted to, within the next thirty minutes, I could post a ton of information from the internet proving that the dinosaurs did not exist. Does that make it true? So what is to be made of the people posting on the internet about being liberated?

A. People make stuff up on the internet so I am sure everything that has been written is not true.
B. The placebo effect is real and there are people who post improvememtns that are nothing more than placebo.
C. MS relapses and remits. Some of the people who posted about improvemnts may have improved anyway.


These things are PROVEN. So if I critically look at CCSVI and the liberation procedure why would I assume that the improvements people are posting about are not a result of ABC??? That is just the way my brain works.

From Wikipedia:

Skepticism

Contemporary skepticism (or scepticism) is loosely used to denote any questioning attitude,[1] or some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted.[2]
The word skepticism can characterise a position on a single claim, but in scholastic circles more frequently describes a lasting mind-set. Skepticism is an approach to accepting, rejecting, or suspending judgment on new information that requires the new information to be well supported by evidence.[3]




Skepticism-

[skep-tuh-siz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
skeptical attitude or temper; doubt.
2.
doubt or unbelief with regard to a religion, esp. Christianity.
3.
( initial capital letter ) the doctrines or opinions of philosophical Skeptics; universal doubt.
Also, scepticism.

Origin:
1640–50; < NL scepticismus, equiv. to L sceptic ( us ) skeptic + -ismus -ism

—Related forms
an·ti·skep·ti·cism, noun

—Synonyms
1. questioning, probing, testing. 2. disbelief, atheism, agnosticism.

—Antonyms
2. faith.

scorpion, my brain works just like yours, but my feelings have a mind of their own. That's what I tried to describe.

No, that's not quite correct. It's just that I don't have this black-or-white view of it. I don't take those videos as proof, but I wouldn't call them untrue either. They're more like diaries to me, but in summary they make the pendulum swing towards the direction of "true".

The fact that stenosis, treatment, re-stenosis and re-treatment has such straight effects to symptoms cynically makes the placebo effect very unlikely. Unlikely, not impossible. Another push in the same direction for the pendulum.

The fact that there's a growing number of phycisians looking into it and the fact that there's a huge history of studies that link MS to a vascular etiology are two other pushes. There are some more.

I totally respect that none of these explanations satisfy you (or any sceptic). I wouldn't say (yet) that the CCSVI hypothesis is true. But I haven't seen any argument against it that convinced me, but many that at least pointed in one direction.

Science isn't about finding out what's true. It's about finding out what's not wrong. Yes, there's a difference.

But I don't want to convince you of anything. To me, your point of view is as good as mine.

Scorpion

B. The placebo effect is real and there are people who post improvememtns that are nothing more than placebo.

These things are PROVEN

Since you're shouting that it is proven that there are people who post improvements after intervention for CCSVI that are due to placebo effect, could you please post a link to the randomized clinical trials that proved this? The sooner the better IMO. I've obviously missed these CCSVI studies and I'm definitely interested in reading them. Hopefully they're already published.

Please note I'm not asking for links to studies about placebo and MS. I'm asking for the CCSVI clinical trials outcome info, to include info on the placebo effect in those CCSVI clinical trials.

Thanks!

Sharon

Shayk wrote: Since you're shouting that it is proven that there are people who post improvements after intervention for CCSVI that are due to placebo effect, could you please post a link to the randomized clinical trials that proved this? The sooner the better IMO. I've obviously missed these CCSVI studies and I'm definitely interested in reading them. Hopefully they're already published.

I found it quite clear that he was saying the placebo effect is proven, so some of the people undergoing CCSVI treatment are probably experiencing the placebo effect.

The SIR said in their position paper on CCSVI that a robust placebo effect is to be expected, so you know, it's not just neurologists who say this.

The act of doubting is a sophisticated way of having preconceptions.

The act of inquiring and searching for the truth is entirely different.

This is the approach I favour:

Skepticism is an approach to accepting, rejecting, or suspending judgment on new information that requires the new information to be well supported by evidence.