Validity of drug trials

1eye · Post by **1eye** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:49 am

Well, I certainly don't have a 'Monopoly' on it...

Lyon · Post by **Lyon** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:32 pm

CCSVIhusband · Post by **CCSVIhusband** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:53 pm

Lyon wrote:
Cece wrote: Lyon, did you have a chance to read what I posted recently about permissive lesions? Option #4 is that the abnormal veins tip people over into having MS when a secondary factor is involved (a multitude of abnormal veins? a hyperactive immune system?). Treatment is to treat the permissive lesion(s).
This is going to sound and be taken as nasty, inflammatory or intentionally argumentative but honestly isn't intended that way, therefore the following is all I have to say on the matter so that this doesn't end up being another locked thread.

Considering that Zamboni first proposed CCSVI as a factor in MS, before CCSVI became a point of consideration it should have first been convincingly shown that people with MS more have venous obstructions more often and more seriously than "normals" and to date that still waits to be shown.

Considering that most basic and necessary factor remains to be proven I can't justify spending any more time on reading, consideration or arguing how something that might not even exists, works.

Good, I look forward to not having to argue with you then ... but since you won't be around to read this (as you stated above, it's not worth you reading any more), I guess you won't know it HAS been proven to exist more in MS patients than "normals".

http://www.bnac.net/wp-content/uploads/ ... _ccsvi.pdf

Also ... Dr. Zamboni's initial trial was blinded.

I guess you just choose what studies you want to use though.
Move that bar now ... and tell us how BNAC wasn't good enough ... or Dr. Zamboni is (well just laugh because zambonis are used to clean an ice-rink) - oh wait, since you're not reading about CCSVI any more ... I guess you can't. (I suspect one of your fellow skeptics will alert you to this information though - or post in your stead).

Cece · Post by **Cece** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:01 pm

BNAC results are supposed to be published next month, I look forward to reading them.

Post by **jimmylegs** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:18 pm

not necessary, lyon and husband.

CCSVIhusband · Post by **CCSVIhusband** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:33 pm

apologies ... i tried to be funny and not inflamatory.

I guess I only succeeded at one.

Lyon · Post by **Lyon** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:49 pm

CCSVIhusband · Post by **CCSVIhusband** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:02 pm

personally, I don't think either of us said anything inflammatory ... I think she (jimmy) just didn't want to see it turn into anything. This forum has been peaceful and pleasant to be at lately - with a lot of good discussion (see cece and I debating the role of the azygous - and presenting differing opinions). I think everyone appreciates that.

And after I stated my piece about BNAC results, and Dr. Zamboni's trial being blinded, I was done.

SO I think this is done ...

I wondered how long it would be until some tried to "get rid of" me in vengeance for their one fallen though ... appealing as if there was something wrong in THAT post.

But like I said, I don't think either of our posts were inflammatory ... so ...

and like I said, I apologize .... I was just trying to direct you to a study that proved the information you asked about. There was no attack in that!

Post by **jimmylegs** » Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:11 pm

by this time i can tell where something's going if it's not headed off at the pass. seems on track for the bottom so far.