This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

Lyon, did I say conclusive proof either way before an argument can be made? You can't have much of an argument yourself if you have to put words into other people's mouths.

And since there is significant evidence that CCSVI exists and no evidence that people with CCSVI had "protruding tongue and eyes", then I guess I would have to say that his argument is apparently false.

Lyon, if you're going to be skeptic, then be one that uses good arguments. We need good arguments, scientifically and logically based. Circular arguments that prove themselves or arguments that are based on others NOT having 100% proof ARE a waste of time.

Scorpion, which Zamboni article are you talking about? And what is your evidence that Zamboni's "arguments are primarily based on innuendo, half-truths and conjectures, many of which have already been proven to be false"?

...Ted

fiddler wrote:Scientific debate concerning CCSVI is good....

It would be much more fruitful to read articles from critics and skeptics who have valid arguments and can back them up with evidence.
...Ted

You know, this sounds good, and is what TIMS was when I first joined. But despite what people will say, the CCSVI forum is not like that. When people post something questioning aspects of the CCSVI theory, even those who buy into the theory, attempts are made to quickly quash the discussion. We are either treated to some Pubmed abstract, told that the skeptical doctors cannot possibly understand human anatomy like the vascular doctors (who believe in CCSVI), that CCSVI is a condition in itself and who cares if it is related to MS, or that the various vascular specialists know best, and the patients need not concern themselves.

He's at it again ...
(copy and paste URL - I don't want to give him the link juice ...)

This 'Colin' guy has absolutely NO credibility. Look at these comments and please don't click on his links:

http://ms.about.com/b/2010/02/09/ccsvi- ... endium.htm

There are people out there that drive traffic to their sites in order to reap $$ benefits and to get higher results in SEO (search engines.) Do you think that's what this guy is trying to do? Why is he so negative? And what about this Tom Blackwell guy? Same thing? Hmmm.... just think about it... why be SOOOO negative? So that he can 'protect MSers from being disappointed if it doesn't pan out'? Oh, please.