This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

That's great news.

That certainly does sound familiar!

Turns out Dr. Kerr at Hopkins told Chris he should have it checked out. So I'll discuss more with Mel, its great that Doug isn't stuck on one doctrine even though he's invested so much time and effort in AI. There could still be mutual links there of course. Certainly Mel's had great symptom relief and halt of progression from the Hicy but the inflammatory immune response could be excacerbating the injury from reflux, so a major dose of chemo would eliminate that response for a period of time but the underlying cause and lesion would still be there.

Just thinking aloud really.

Fingers crossed for Holly and Sharon.

any connection between ccsvi and optic neuritis?

IHateMS wrote:any connection between ccsvi and optic neuritis?

Bump....all new folks, please read this thread. It's long, but informative. You can see how the discussion evolved over the last six months. It begins with the Zamboni CCSVI paper of 12/08.

IHate-
Yes, there is a definite connection. we talked about this here:
http://www.thisisms.com/ftopict-7240.html

Loobie wrote:
I just thought of something that I didn't add from my early diagnosis days. The first guy that saw me was an opthamologist; not a neuro-optho, just and optho. At any rate, his initial thoughts were that I had "exercise induced ocular ischemia". And he was worried about my jugulars.


Man, you had a smart opthamologist, Lew. Sure, if your venous return is blocked in your jugular(s) you can suffer from ocular iscemia or venous stasis retinopathy due to congestion..even before the immune system is activated to go after the optic nerve. You don't need demyelination to have this. And exercise was the connection for you. Wow.

Opthamologists will be on the front line of diagnosis, if they refer patients for an MRV at fist sign of venous congestion. Think of the years of pain and suffering that people will be spared...

I didn't think Jeff was going to show blockage, either. Everyone thinks they'll be the first MSer without stenosis....but there hasn't been one yet!
cheer

Hey all, Cheer is right, 50 pages is nothing.......... a book on MS that was 100 pages would be small........ this is not a big deal to read. I've gone through it several times myself looking for stuff. And it's free!!

Bumped for Joyce-

bumped for newbies....

Bumped from the second page of topics....WOW! have we created a huge resource in a few months, or what???

Yeah this is a wealth of information and not at all as onerous as it seems to read. The person who starts at the beginning telling themselves itis as if I am reading a book will find it easier than that....lots of it is chat.

It has taken a little over 4 months to reproduce the same positive affect experienced by people using Inclined Therapy to help recover from multiple sclerosis. Early days yet. The report below, and the entire thread, in case you may have missed it is highly relevant to this discussion. Objections were initially raised and were addressed.

Now after 4 months of Inclined Therapy, which clearly is sufficient to reverse a significant amount of nerve damage from ms and other medical conditions including spinal cord injury.

Thanks to Foreverspring and her patience we can begin to understand how much her condition has altered and is altering over the months and as the months go by, based upon many case studies from people with ms, we shall undoubtedly see more improvements from such a simple non-invasive method.
http://www.thisisms.com/ftopic-6755-105.html

Some time back on a thread relating to spinal cord injury in the carecureforum, a number of people took it upon themselves to invent all sorts of reasons to falsify the evidence before them, suggesting that some of the people writing about their recovery were fabricated by myself, even though many had been members of the forum for years and some were known to other members of the forum and had even met each other?

Why is it easier to believe someone could spend fifteen years of his life helping others for no monetary gain and pretend he must have some alternative motivation than to accept that this is for real?

The question is, why so much resistance when the evidence is there before you?

The report on the video is factual!

Andrew K Fletcher

Hey Andrew, I have been doing the IBT for a month or 2 now. I don't know if I notice any real difference at the moment though. I am still having MS issues... as always some days are better/worse than others. It is very hard to measure its effect.

1. Have you noticed anything different about sleeping inclined?

Sleep patern, body temperature, skin tone, hair, nail quality, balance, spasm, pain, looking for anything unusual compared to sleeping flat.

4 months is the time when significant changes are reported, it would appear it can take this long for some people before they notice changes, though I suspect there are changes but they are not noticed. My take on this is that no one complains generally about feeling better so tend to report downturns more frequently.

Have you noticed any changes in pains? The type of pains that do not remain in one area but tend to move around the body?

Are the worse days any worse and are the best days any better?

Objections were initially raised and were addressed.

AKF I raised those objections and in no way concede that things were addressed. I find this paradigm absurd in the extreme and a waste of my precious time to try to debunk when you post volumes of nonsense medicalese that is not at all pertinent to bamboozle people. Nor will I waste my time in debate with you educating you about why this makes no sense on the other thread either...I just do not have hours to waste that way.

I say again IMHO the IBT paradigm makes no medical sense. It is not related to CCSVI and does not belong on this thread.

This CCSVI thread is huge and part of that is because you insist on imposing screen shot after screen shot of persuasion to try to gin up interest in your medically unsupported theories.

This thread is huge and hard for people to read to catch up as it is.

Cease to do this Andrew. We know where the other thread is interested people can read it and try it there.

We shall see who is correct in due course! Do I give a damn about your HO?

The fact that varicose veins are responding to Inclined therapy even if it does not make sense to you, will speak volumes when the full implications for this simple therapy and ms are realised.

You are welcome to your opinion and you do not have to listen to me or indeed other people trying this method but to say it does not have an affect without any first hand experience is a rather predicatable reaction to any new paradigm. I.T. is clearly related to the way circulation functions and the way vessels react to pressure changes but I can see you are not the only one who is wasting their time so please ignore my future posts and I will do the same for you.

Andrew

mrhodes40 wrote:

Objections were initially raised and were addressed.

AKF I raised those objections and in no way concede that things were addressed. I find this paradigm absurd in the extreme and a waste of my precious time to try to debunk when you post volumes of nonsense medicalese that is not at all pertinent to bamboozle people. Nor will I waste my time in debate with you educating you about why this makes no sense on the other thread either...I just do not have hours to waste that way.

I say again IMHO the IBT paradigm makes no medical sense. It is not related to CCSVI and does not belong on this thread.

This CCSVI thread is huge and part of that is because you insist on imposing screen shot after screen shot of persuasion to try to gin up interest in your medically unsupported theories.

This thread is huge and hard for people to read to catch up as it is.

Cease to do this Andrew. We know where the other thread is interested people can read it and try it there.

AndrewKFletcher wrote:Do I give a damn about your HO?

Most of this site is about leading others to research, and maybe giving a damn on others thoughts. I am sure mrhodes40 understands your lack of respect to her beliefs.

AndrewKFletcher wrote:You are welcome to your opinion and you do not have to listen to me or indeed other people trying this method but to say it does not have an affect without any first hand experience is a rather predicatable reaction to any new paradigm.

I have probably been the longest to trial IBT, on this web site. Therefore I can say that it has not assisted my MS to my best knowledge. Additionally, I also had a bout of thrombosis while using IBT (way past 4 months)

AndrewKFletcher wrote:please ignore my future posts and I will do the same for you.

One of mrhodes40 points is that IBT posts should not be repeatedly made in the CCSVI thread. A valid point I feel, and posting off-topic does add considerable time to the process.

AndrewKFletcher wrote:Objections were initially raised and were addressed.

I think you have been very dismissive of mrhodes40 point on this one. I read this as an accusation that you have misrepresented her previous posts.

AKF had claimed that "objections were raised and were addressed"

I said to AKF

I raised those objections and in no way concede that things were addressed

Cure said to AKF

I think you have been very dismissive of mrhodes40 point on this one. I read this as an accusation that you have misrepresented her previous posts

Yes, my problem is that there is no discourse on IBT. I attempted to look at it and show the difficulties with the idea and was met with a gargantuan post that threw out all kinds of things that are unrelated (starlings law of the heart--no way Maybe starlings other law.....) that sounded very knowledgable and medically sophisticated to the reader especially the lay reader. I spent several hours determining they were as far off the mark as they initally seemed and that AKF is not understanding how these things are not related as he thinks they are: he has rose colored glasses about IBT and misreads things that do not support him as if they do. Then I finally decided I can't change AKF's POV clearly there is NO WAY anything I say about IBT is going to cause him to see it as I do. SO I bailed; why spend hours and hours of my time on that?

I became angry at the implication that somehow my refusing to continue to play the game was AKF having "addressed" my concerns.

Fact is this is PROBABLY not a dangerous intervention

--but cure, a thrombosis?? Did the doc think it had anything to do with not getting your feet UP in the night so that the blood stagnated down there and was able to clot? so my logic was no harm in ignoring this....
but maybe not!

At any rate this thread is way too long and it needs to stay on topic. IBT IS not so I am done