cheerleader wrote:sigh. Not the angle I had hoped for when I first brought Dr. Zamboni's research to Stanford...but it is the truth, if only partial.
cheer
After reading Cheer's entry in her CCSVI facebook site, I was expecting much, much worse. I thought it was not that bad an article, if you ignore the headline. Typically the author of the article does not write the headline, as I understand it, it is his editor's call.
The % of blockages in MS found Zamboni was 100% , not 60% but the article did saythe 60% were jugular blockages, and Zamboini was far more comprehensive than that. The article did suggest that Cheer referred people to Dake, and technically that is incorrect, but she did encourage us to learn more about the condition and was gererous with her information that Jeff had been treated by Dr. Dake, and that he was a wonderful and caring doctor. It didn't really say she was a cheelader of Dr. Zamboni, just for his theory, and I think that is fair and correct. And God Bless her for that !!!
Comment to Cheer: Keep up the good work. What you have done is wonderful and lauditory in every regard. One of the things I personally appreciate is the thoughtful and scientific approach everyone is taking on this forum, and for that the tone was set by You. although the article may not have been 100% acurate, it was fairly good and correct by the standards of current journalism, and frankly was lauditory of you. Besides, those that really matter, Jeff and those of us at the various CCSVI websites are the ones that matter and we love you.
As an addendum, much as we all admire Dake and want his skill and talent to keep treating MS patients, it is true that there is no clinical trials or other rigourously scientific evidence yet that the treatment helps MS. That being the case, if there is no scientif evidence yet that there is a reason to perform the procedure, and once the procedure shows any risks, especially serious ones such as requring subsequent open heart surgery and causing, albeit in an indirect manner, a death, then the institution where the procedure is being performed is essentially operating without any saftey net if they ever get sued. It is a sad state of affairs, but in our system right now I am afraid Stanford really didn't have a lot of choice.