Page 5 of 14
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:54 am
by prairiegirl
BTW, and back to serious, I loved the following quotes in this thread. Thanks Dr. Sclafani for taking the time to post here!
drsclafani wrote:
I see these veins in MS and i am convinced they are abnormal. When i show my vascular colleagues , they are impressed. They readily accept that this is not normal. Why....need i answer? it is our expertise and we know what looks normal.
dr z was speaking about ultrasound. This test is a long standing test that is highly operator dependent. The techniques used prior to ccsvi are not applicable. I think we have already discussed that in many areas. It is not that the ultrasound doppler test for ccsvi is particularly difficult to perform. it is just different and people continue to do the ultrasound the way they know, not the way it should be performed FOR THIS ENTITY. It will just take some education before it is as regular a diagnostic test as any other ultrasound it. But for the moment, zamboni is the main teacher.
but in answer to your assumption that in the heat of battle things get missed, i would say generally no. When life and death are in the balance, my mojo gets going and i think i become hyperaware, not distrated or sloppy. its the nature of the game.
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 2:03 pm
by blossom
prairiegirl, i liked your input of humor myself. my yada, yada was not meant for you. it just seems that if some were actually put in a boxing ring what round would ever be enough.
nzer1 said it right.
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:00 pm
by Cece
prairiegirl wrote:Jugular wrote:
and don refrigerated toques to let cooler heads prevail.
Could we shape them like cones, and see if we could do a retro skit on Saturday Night Live?
I was going to suggest that we see if Gordon can make any teeny tiny versions, so that it could be thoroughly tested on eae mice first.
But I was afraid of being yada yada'd.
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:23 pm
by jimmylegs
not sure nz's comment was aimed at you, pg!
if we do not bait each other and we do not rise to the bait
@cece: that is the key!
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:20 pm
by Cece
(from another thread)
CCSVIhusband wrote:Cece (I know what I'm doing is getting old ... but isn't it what they 'the skeptics' did to so many valuable threads over the past 10 months I've been here?) Fair is fair right? Am I not raising true, and good points? Plus I've got a lot of PMs in support ... saying it's about time someone stood up to them.
Two wrongs do not make a right? The policy is clear, if there's anything to document we can do so, and if it's sent to jimmylegs and passes muster, it would be addressed publicly. In the meantime, there is something of an agreement in place (concerned and scorpion and myself?) to raise the discourse, to treat people with MS with the respect they deserve, etc. I am trying to do my part too. The Beirut study is worth discussing.
A question for the skeptics: are you gleeful when bad-for-ccsvi news comes across, or does it just seem that way?
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 4:26 pm
by scorpion
Cece wrote:(from another thread)
CCSVIhusband wrote:Cece (I know what I'm doing is getting old ... but isn't it what they 'the skeptics' did to so many valuable threads over the past 10 months I've been here?) Fair is fair right? Am I not raising true, and good points? Plus I've got a lot of PMs in support ... saying it's about time someone stood up to them.
Two wrongs do not make a right? The policy is clear, if there's anything to document we can do so, and if it's sent to jimmylegs and passes muster, it would be addressed publicly. In the meantime, there is something of an agreement in place (concerned and scorpion and myself?) to raise the discourse, to treat people with MS with the respect they deserve, etc. I am trying to do my part too. The Beirut study is worth discussing.
A question for the skeptics: are you gleeful when bad-for-ccsvi news comes across, or does it just seem that way?
Thanks Cece.
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:40 pm
by dreddk
"I teach medical students and residents, and one “clinical pearl” I always stress is that our own experience with patients is anecdotal and is therefore not necessarily representative. In fact, there is published evidence that following treatment guidelines based upon scientific data leads to better outcomes than relying upon personal clinical experience. That’s because personal clinical experience, no matter how compelling, is anecdotal."
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=174
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:48 am
by jgkarob
When this thread was transferred, I wasn't a happy bunny. This forum is a bit of a scary place to be honest.
As for feeling gleeful?
I'm horrified.
Questions like that are exactly why this forum can be an unpleasant place.
Discussion is purely that. I need to know more about this and the last couple of months, with more and more accounts about restenosis, have been disturbing.
So I'm going back to lurking. If just wanting to discuss CCSVI involves people regarding me as 'gleeful' then sod it. It's not worth the stress.
Cece wrote:(from another thread)
CCSVIhusband wrote:Cece (I know what I'm doing is getting old ... but isn't it what they 'the skeptics' did to so many valuable threads over the past 10 months I've been here?) Fair is fair right? Am I not raising true, and good points? Plus I've got a lot of PMs in support ... saying it's about time someone stood up to them.
Two wrongs do not make a right? The policy is clear, if there's anything to document we can do so, and if it's sent to jimmylegs and passes muster, it would be addressed publicly. In the meantime, there is something of an agreement in place (concerned and scorpion and myself?) to raise the discourse, to treat people with MS with the respect they deserve, etc. I am trying to do my part too. The Beirut study is worth discussing.
A question for the skeptics: are you gleeful when bad-for-ccsvi news comes across, or does it just seem that way?
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:18 am
by scorpion
Jgkarob,
Sorry you feel the need to go back to "lurking" but please reconsider. The more "new" people to contribute on this forum the better since us old folks have pretty much beat are arguments into the ground. Anyone WITH MS knows none of us would be gleeful if the CCSVI hypothesis turns out to be a flop. Although it should not have to come to this many of us who want to have an open discussion about CCSVI PM each other with questions and comments and believe it or not we all have civilized discussions! Scorp
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:03 pm
by Cece
jgkarob, I never considered you in the group to which I was referring. I even put a wink on it....it was meant as good-natured, but an honest question too.
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:49 pm
by Lyon
..
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:41 pm
by Cece
ok, now that was magic....(us both changing our posts without any "edited 1 time" on there
)
If I see a post that seems hurtfully gleeful, I'll link to it here, we can discuss.
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:09 pm
by Lyon
..
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:13 pm
by Lyon
..
Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:18 pm
by Cece
Lyon wrote:Cece wrote:If you claim skeptical as your title, does that cast us all as blind believers?
Absolutely not, and I'm aware that you know as well as any of us that out of 9319 registered members here at thisisms, there are an equal number of different opinions and outlooks and we have to approach each of them differently.....that isn't to say that there aren't some blind believers here.
Then you'd also agree that among those 9319 members, there are also some fearmongers masquerading as skeptics?
But actually, yes, there are undoubtedly blind believers in that count, and that is not a good thing.
Nothing bad to edit out??? Every other word was the most terrible cussing. I learned a few new ones....
(humor) (attempted)