Ashton Embry on CCSVI

A forum to discuss Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency and its relationship to Multiple Sclerosis.
Family Elder
Posts: 6061
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 2:00 pm

Post by Lyon » Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:27 pm

Last edited by Lyon on Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:00 pm
Location: Riverside, CA

Post by CureIous » Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:29 pm

Lyon wrote:
CureIous wrote: Lyon, if you get on the bandwagon, for a fee, I will attest to your having been firmly ensconced there from day one! :) Mark.
Glad to meet you Mark, my name's Bob and I never thought I'd have the pleasure of meeting someone as morally corrupt as I am!

On a serious note, how high is your fee and you would stick to your guns even if torture were involved?
Depends on the torture. Like Gene Wilder locked up in the hot box thingy in Stir Crazy for 3 days, he asked for one more day, "was just beginning to get inside myself", that kind would be cool. Nail pulling and the like, I dunno, like why stay true to my morals at that point anyways? So no, in all truth, there would be no sense of loyalty if pressed by a light wind..
RRMS Dx'd 2007, first episode 2004. Bilateral stent placement, 3 on left, 1 stent on right, at Stanford August 2009. Watch my operation video:, Virtually symptom free since, no relap

User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:00 pm

Post by patientx » Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:10 am

scorpion wrote:Funny that people find a geologist who has an interest in MS reputable but when it comes to neurologists and physicians who question CCVSI they are in the pockets of pharmas, stuck in old ways of thinking, etc. Thanks for doing your research Bob. I am not sure when someone posting a fact on this board makes you a Devil's Advocate????
Very good point. I think the important thing is to find someone who agrees whole-heartedly with the theory (even if this agreement is based on just reading a press release), no matter what his credentials. I know many PhD's in engineering, but I don't think I would really put too much stock in their opinions on medical, specifically vascular, issues.

Family Elder
Posts: 669
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 2:00 pm

Post by Rokkit » Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:39 am

I don't disagree with scrutinizing the credentials of those who think CCSVI appears to be a legitimate theory (which is all any of them have said as far as I can tell). But I also think it's important to note that so far NO ONE has come out and said CCSVI doesn't make sense. As far as I recall, every qualified doctor who has looked at it has become more interested in it. The only doctors who have reacted negatively have been neurologists in an office visit setting who have dismissed the idea out of hand without reading anything at all.

So for those who feel the call to bring skepticism into all this (which is fine with me), it may be time to start directing those efforts toward finding expert opinions that discount CCSVI instead of just critiquing opinions which support CCSVI. In the complete absence of expert dissenting opinions, the current approach is starting to ring empty to me.

User avatar
Family Elder
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:00 pm
Location: Argentina

Post by fernando » Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:49 am


That could be really, really useful. Doctors that actually read the papers, reflected upon them, tried to repeat them and came up with reasons why this won't fly. Words are cheap.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Last post