scorpion wrote:CCSVIhusband wrote:It's your tone ... your continuous tone.
it's like an itch you just scratch and scratch deeper and deeper until your bleeding to death because you scratched through a major artery eventually.
your tone is the itch.
(you could compare it to Chinese water torture too).
It's ALWAYS disagreeing with CCSVI ... have you ever had ONE post positive on CCSVI? Just one?
Where did I ever say I disagree with CCSVI??? Please link to whatever post/posts you are referring too. There seems to be a problem with each and everyone of us who post anything critical of CCSVI. Since you decided to pipe in, as usual, I will ask you the same question I asked Erinc14. What do you disagree with ot not like about the content of my post??
IN CONTINUATION OF MY POST (S)HE QUOTED:
It's the ALWAYS posting in opposition to certain people (me, but what do I care honestly and I think you finally figured that out), always dragging on people posting positives in regards to CCSVI (if it's not exactly scientific FACT, but something they FEEL, or have noticed).
It's like you're a parachute pulling against someone as they try to run. Or trying to run with weights on your ankles. Or trying to push a snowball up a hill. It's just a constant wear and drag.
It's not about one post above. It's about the whole. It's the nit-picking about semantics.
Look:
NOBODY disagrees CCSVI needs trials and to be proven. But is it ever going to be enough knowing it might not be the ALL answer? My guess is in your mind ... no ... until it's ALL it's nothing.
Read Bruce's posts, read mine about my wife, read HapyPoet, read Rose2, read Magoo, read TMrox (hell even read those who restenosed and went back and got a 2nd procedure and got the same results as the first time around) ... read the others who have had success ... and what's your immediate response? It's ... well look at x, y and z who didn't have success. Not responding in a positive manner to wow, great, so there is something to CCSVI there. (and I don't necessarily care that that's your post, because people do get both sides of the argument here - but that's just how it seems with you and the "skeptics" you care to associate with).
But do you ever admit that there might be something to CCSVI ... have you ever said it? No ... it's always, well IF it's linked (when you posted a hundred times on a study that DID link it). It's show me a study of this, or a study of that.
WE ALL have said, we know the risks, we know the potential outcomes ... great. We've all heard of placebo (can you tell us what we/our loved ones have experienced is placebo? NO ... for a FACT you cannot).
but I'm sure you're going to continue with your trend ... the past is the best indicator of future behavior. so carry on.
I'm sure these posts are going to get deleted - and there is absolutely no reason they should, because I think this is a reasonable discussion and not an attack ... it's how the rest of us see you and several others. It's not a discussion with you guys about CCSVI ... it's always an argument.
You can't have a discussion with someone who can't see the other side, all you can have is an argument. Yet what you think we're having is a discussion ... it's not - because you can't point to one positive comment you made about CCSVI. I made several of your arguments in my post already ... the possibility of placebo, the possibility of negative outcomes. I'm having a discussion. Show me one where you've had a positive side of CCSVI posted ... (if you can't - and I suspect you truly can't) ... it's not a discussion.
It's how your first post here at TIMS was in the stem cell forum ... and the majority of your posts continue to be. OK, so if stem cells is your interest ... perhaps there's a reason for your anti-interest (whatever you want to call it) in CCSVI ... (though I think both could be quite capable of great things together some day). We just don't know ... you're scorpion ... but WHO are you? Again, nobody knows. All we know is what we read, and read into your posts.
