This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

MarkW wrote:
If anyone wants to see open label data from de-stenosis go to:
http://ameds.co/about-us/recent-informa ... centrum,37

Griff wrote:
Would you take a new drug whose efficacy is based on people's survey?
Why can not they check their Polish patients regularly? Poland is not a huge country.

Balloon venoplasty is not a 'new drug' but using an existing procedure in a novel way. Drugs are used this way all the time. Its called off label prescribing. Doctors use drugs 'off label' without any testing or people's survey.

For us Europeans Poland is geographically large. Why should people with MS pay for extra check ups??

MarkW

PS Liberation theory does not exist , so how can it have holes shot in it ?

eric593 wrote:They aren't collecting data because they don't have to. They are in business providing CCSVI treatment because there is a demand for it. They aren't in the business of research, they are in the business of opening veins for profit.

In spite of that, we DO have publications out of many of those performing CCSVI treatments. They may not have collected the information future patients might want to read, but many ARE sharing certain aspects of what they're finding. This was obvious at the SIR conference.

But they aren't doing this as researchers. They are treating us as practitioners because we ask them to and pay a lot of money, not to be research subjects, but to be patients of angioplasty.

It seems unrealistic to expect them to do more than treat the demand for angioplasty.

I beg (there I go, begging again) to differ slightly. They have new machines; they collect data because they can, because they like to, because they're curious, and to amortize their machines for the bean-counters. It's all there. It just costs money to publish it. I ain't got it. You got it? I think there's more data there than you can shake a fist at.

Liberation theory does not exist , so how can it have holes shot in it ?

heeeeyyyy....


I thought Liberation was supposed to be a bad word, with unfortunate connotations of freedom from enslavement, made up by bad people who want to give it propaganda value, and at the very least it was inflaming the debate. How come all of a sudden it's ok for it to be used to describe CCSVI 'theory'? Is it OK now? Shall we start using it again?

"While this may suggest an association between the MS and CCSVI, association does not imply causality," Zivadinov

it looks non-conclusive and like they need to continue their research...

Mathd wrote:

"While this may suggest an association between the MS and CCSVI, association does not imply causality," Zivadinov

it looks non-conclusive and like they need to continue their research...

Zamboni's original results shoud be tossed out the wndow and for researchers interested in finding a possible connection between CCSVI and MS, yes, their reseacrh should continue. It loks to me that MS may cause some damage to the veinuous system and IF that is the case the question becomes do these changes result in additional stymptoms. In my opinion Zamboni needs to come forward and admit his original study was flawed.

well, they do say ms is an inflammatory condition...

What surprises me is Dr. Sclafani's statement that he had NEVER encountered vein issues like this before, in his entire career. If this is as prevalent in other disorders and healthy people as reported by BNAC, I am very surprised that an IR who spent his entire career in veins had NEVER encountered this before.

jimmylegs wrote:well, they do say ms is an inflammatory condition...

You are right Jimmylegs. You just never know when things are going to flare up!

MarkW wrote:
Liberation theory does not exist , so how can it have holes shot in it ? Answers naysayers please.............

1eye wrote:
I thought Liberation was supposed to be a bad word, with unfortunate connotations of freedom from enslavement, made up by bad people who want to give it propaganda value, and at the very least it was inflaming the debate. How come all of a sudden it's ok for it to be used to describe CCSVI 'theory'? Is it OK now? Shall we start using it again?

I used the phrase 'liberation theory' to tease the naysayers as neuros say it can be shot through. Prof Zamboni has moved forward to calling his 'baby' CCSVI syndrome. Not a disease nor the cause of MS but a treatable syndrome. Sorry for using the 'L' word even to tease naysayers.

MarkW

Q E D

I had never heard of "QED". Maybe I'm not alone. I post this to help educate the rest of us. From UrbanDictionary.com:

1. QED 1051 up, 242 down
Originally Latin meaning "quod erat demonstrandum" or "which was to be shown or proven", now used mainly by physics students to insult someone when something is proven wrong or false, typically with the words M***** F***** added for effect.
Ha! Your wrong.. QED mf!
by ChickensBitch Oct 27, 2003 share this

2. QED 813 up, 61 down
An abbreviation of the Latin phrase "quod erat demonstrandum". It literally translates as "which was to be demonstrated", and is a formal way of ending a mathematical, logical or physical proof. It's purpose is to alert the reader that the immediately previous statement, which naturally was arrived at by an unbroken chain of logic, was the original statement that we were trying to prove.
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic." -- Douglas Adams, from "A Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy"


Proof that x + 3 = 0 if x = -3

x + 3 = (-3) + 3
= 0
QED

good old urban dictionary.

here's wikipedia's version
QED is an initialism of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, which means "what was to be demonstrated". The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument when what was specified in the enunciation — and in the setting-out — has been exactly restated as the conclusion of the demonstration.[1] The abbreviation thus signals the completion of the proof.

ps. i stand by my use of QED

Lyon wrote:Study shoots hole in 'liberation' theory for multiple sclerosis

Read more: <shortened url>

"Hmm!!" i was going to make a comment about how the author of this article
as of last night didn't have a place for readers to chime in and post
comments either for or against CCSVI . However, as of now i see this has changed!!!

Noticed how all of the comments are for CCSVI and NOT bashing it!!

Regards,

Bob

,,,,,,,,,,,

....