Re: Side Effects - Plaquex vs. CCSVI and more

[Guest guest]

Cheylenna

what is your objection to plaquex ?

[Guest guest]

Hi all

I'm sure everyone knows MY thoughts and feelings regarding CCSVI.

I felt the need to repond to the debate and insistance regarding Plaquex's

superiority to CCSVI.

CCSVI has caused death - NO IT HASN'T!!

There have been deaths caused by doctors either not having the correct

techniques or knowledge of the patient's complete situation.

As many of us in the past have discussed in the past also, there sadly have been

deaths connected with the use of stents in the procedure.

The procedure isn't dangerous. It is one of the most minimal risk procedures one

can have......as long as your vascular surgeon and team are 'experts' in their

field. *please note that there is no need to again take me to task about using

the word 'expert' (not mentioning any names) - I think that petty debate has had

its day!*

I have no REAL opinion of Plaquex having just started to read up on it.

The sites which advertise or present Plaquex say that it clears arterial plaque.

Whilst I understand that someone who doesn't fully understand CCSVI and how it

all works might connect the two, I do have to underline that CCSVI is a

procedure to correct blood flow in order to help the body heal through being

able to drain the iron from the brain.

The procedure involves opening the narrowed and stenosed vens, it does not have

anything to do with arterial plaque - it has to do with the 'plaques' or

scarring in the brain and would probably be a waste of money for people were

they to purchase and take it.

I personally think it isn't even comparable to CCSVI and the results gained

through the procedure.

I would rather use my tried-and-true herbal methods to increase my blood flow

and drain the iron out of my brain.

As always, it is an 'each to their own' thing. Each person should research it

all for themselves and make their own decisions regarding ANY treatment - do

your own research on both CCSVI and Plaquex and see what YOU think.

'What we do in life, echoes through eternity.'

MARCUS AURELIUS (121 - 180 A.D.)

To: mscured

From: la_cayena@...

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 23:08:23 +0000

Subject: Side Effects - Plaquex vs. CCSVI and more

> You mention side effects, but what are the side effects of CCSVI ?

> there is a long list and one of them is death.

>

With any surgical procedure, there is always a small chance of death and with

CCSVI, it's been quite minimal.

[Guest guest]

Fyi, not all who have ccsvi procedure get good results. My fatigue and gait has

gotten worse immediately following. Be prepared for anything.

If you just have angioplasty as I did the risk of side effects is less. With

stenting you will be on blood thinners the rest of your life. Also, the chance a

stent could come dislodged is a slight possibility.

Be careful.....

-M

[Guest guest]

Thanksfor adding that Mike. I just took for granted that members would recall

the many posts I've made reminding people that it is NOT a miracle cure and that

each individual will get differing and individual results dependant on the

amount of damage that the dis-ease has done to THEM.

I am not running or jumping and perhaps to some others, MY results are minimal,

but they're not minimal to me!

As I've said many, many times before, improvements continue as we allow and

assist our bodies to heal.

I know that my body's as stubborn as I am and will heal over time. Anyone who

has the procedure and is a fair way down the 'MS' road with considerable damage

to their muscles and system, and is expecting 'miracles' will probably be

disappointed.

It's important to be realistic and also to give your body time to heal.

'What we do in life, echoes through eternity.'

MARCUS AURELIUS (121 - 180 A.D.)

To: mscured

From: mmacchiarella@...

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 05:39:46 -0800

Subject: Re: Side Effects - Plaquex vs. CCSVI and more

Fyi, not all who have ccsvi procedure get good results. My fatigue and gait has

gotten worse immediately following.

[Guest guest]

Just to update you all, as I am one of those " a fair way down the MS road with

considerable damage... " (PPMS 15 years, full-time wheelchair user for 8.)

I am not running or jumping either. I am still improving though. I can do

about 20 steps with my walker in the house now as part of my daily exercise

routine and my left leg is almost back to normal. Right leg still has a long

way to go but toes are starting to move (if you look closely). Can now balance

holding on to something just with one hand rather than gripping the walker with

both hands for grim death.

No miracle but I am far from disappointed. It has given my body the kick-start

it needed.

Glad you are experiencing good results, although minimal at present, .

We'll get there!

Janet

To: mscured

From: rachael.m.thomas@...

I am not running or jumping and perhaps to some others, MY results are minimal,

but they're not minimal to me!

Anyone who has the procedure and is a fair way down the 'MS' road with

considerable damage to their muscles and system, and is expecting 'miracles'

will probably be disappointed.

[Guest guest]

It's always good to hear of your improvements Janet!!

Mine are continuing and improving too - I just felt that I should weigh in on

the Plaquex V CCSVI subject and defend a procedure which actually DOES work

whether people got their 'desired' results or not.

I felt that once again, the 'RESEARCH prior to getting it done' angle had to be

outlined and highlighted. I feel terrible for those who've had the procedure

expecting someting more and/or those who haven't had the results they wanted.

Had I not been realistic and knowledgeable about the procedure, I might've been

devastated or just disappointed with MY results. Thankfully, I just went with

the 'any improvement'll do' mentality.

I still believe that for people who believe they're worse off afterwards, that

there must be a blockage not discovered or more blockage made from having the

procedure. I really don't know I admit, but it truly helps the majority of

patients and so I can be nothing but positive about the procedure.

'What we do in life, echoes through eternity.'

MARCUS AURELIUS (121 - 180 A.D.)

To: mscured

From: janetorchard@...

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:27:44 +0100

Subject: RE: Re: Side Effects - Plaquex vs. CCSVI and more

Just to update you all, as I am one of those " a fair way down the MS road with

considerable damage... " (PPMS 15 years, full-time wheelchair user for 8.)

I am not running or jumping either. I am still improving though.

[Guest guest]

WHOA ! who here had an " insistance regarding Plaquex's superiority to

CCSVI. " ??

are you referring to me ? I hope not.

I mentioned plaquex initially, I never meant to insist that plaquex was

superior to ccsvi, if

somehow I did or you took it that way, I want to clear that up right here

and now.

MAYBE I NEED ALL CAPS HERE, I do not insist that plaquex is superior to

CCSVI

I also dont want people now reading that because you say I insisted that it

was now true that I was insisting and that is my position.

I feel really bad, that you got worked up enough to write this long post

because

you think I insisted it was superior.

Maybe I will write something about what I did mean, but first things first.

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 4:31 AM, <

rachael.m.thomas@...> wrote:

>

>

>

> Hi all

> I'm sure everyone knows MY thoughts and feelings regarding CCSVI.

> I felt the need to repond to the debate and insistance regarding Plaquex's

> superiority to CCSVI.

>

> CCSVI has caused death - NO IT HASN'T!!

> There have been deaths caused by doctors either not having the correct

> techniques or knowledge of the patient's complete situation.

> As many of us in the past have discussed in the past also, there sadly have

> been deaths connected with the use of stents in the procedure.

>

> The procedure isn't dangerous. It is one of the most minimal risk

> procedures one can have......as long as your vascular surgeon and team are

> 'experts' in their field. *please note that there is no need to again take

> me to task about using the word 'expert' (not mentioning any names) - I

> think that petty debate has had its day!*

>

> I have no REAL opinion of Plaquex having just started to read up on it.

> The sites which advertise or present Plaquex say that it clears arterial

> plaque.

> Whilst I understand that someone who doesn't fully understand CCSVI and how

> it all works might connect the two, I do have to underline that CCSVI is a

> procedure to correct blood flow in order to help the body heal through being

> able to drain the iron from the brain.

> The procedure involves opening the narrowed and stenosed vens, it does not

> have anything to do with arterial plaque - it has to do with the 'plaques'

> or scarring in the brain and would probably be a waste of money for people

> were they to purchase and take it.

>

> I personally think it isn't even comparable to CCSVI and the results gained

> through the procedure.

> I would rather use my tried-and-true herbal methods to increase my blood

> flow and drain the iron out of my brain.

>

> As always, it is an 'each to their own' thing. Each person should research

> it all for themselves and make their own decisions regarding ANY treatment -

> do your own research on both CCSVI and Plaquex and see what YOU think.

>

>

> 'What we do in life, echoes through eternity.'

> MARCUS AURELIUS (121 - 180 A.D.)

>

> To: mscured <mscured%40yahoogroups.com>

> From: la_cayena@... <la_cayena%40yahoo.com>

> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 23:08:23 +0000

> Subject: Side Effects - Plaquex vs. CCSVI and more

>

>

> > You mention side effects, but what are the side effects of CCSVI ?

> > there is a long list and one of them is death.

> >

>

> With any surgical procedure, there is always a small chance of death and

> with CCSVI, it's been quite minimal.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Janet and all invovlved in using Plaquex,

I am a 42 years aged man with ppms for over 10 years and am in wheelchair for 2

years. I don't know much about plaquex and its use. Can you please let me know

how can I get started using Plaquex.

I tried a couple of procedures correcting my CCSVI (with no use of stents) and

it didn't work for me at all. I live in Melbourne, Australia and would like to

know how can I have access to and getting started using Plaquex please!

Thanks

Arshad

________________________________

To: MS-Cured <mscured >

Sent: Fri, 21 January, 2011 3:27:44 AM

Subject: RE: Re: Side Effects - Plaquex vs. CCSVI and more

Just to update you all, as I am one of those " a fair way down the MS road with

considerable damage... " (PPMS 15 years, full-time wheelchair user for 8.)

I am not running or jumping either. I am still improving though. I can do

about 20 steps with my walker in the house now as part of my daily exercise

routine and my left leg is almost back to normal. Right leg still has a long

way to go but toes are starting to move (if you look closely). Can now balance

holding on to something just with one hand rather than gripping the walker with

both hands for grim death.

No miracle but I am far from disappointed. It has given my body the kick-start

it needed.

Glad you are experiencing good results, although minimal at present, .

We'll get there!

Janet

To: mscured

From: rachael.m.thomas@...

I am not running or jumping and perhaps to some others, MY results are minimal,

but they're not minimal to me!

Anyone who has the procedure and is a fair way down the 'MS' road with

considerable damage to their muscles and system, and is expecting 'miracles'

will probably be disappointed.

[Guest guest]

Hi

Hows about we calm down and stop typing in capitals? I personally type in

capitals to emphasise a word or string of words - it would hardly express the

emotion to say quietly 'no it hasn't'.

I know you're obviously a passionate person and I respect that, but I'm sure

that no-one has intended to make this a 'personal' issue so there is truly no

need to get one's back up or to be offended.

The title of the emails has changed to 'Plaquex vs.CCSVI', so it follows that it

would come across as just that. *shrugs*

I'm sure no one including myself, had the intention of offending anyone else -

of that I'm sure.

If your response was/is aimed at MY (capital because if it were spoken I'd be

verbally emphasising it with a bit of strength - not yelling mind you) response,

I cannot understand the aggro as I was polite and considerate.

Thanks for presenting us all with Plaquex and giving us all something new to

look into and make our own decisions about.

That is, after all, what this wonderful group is for.

'What we do in life, echoes through eternity.'

MARCUS AURELIUS (121 - 180 A.D.)

> To: mscured

> From: ortcloud@...

> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:51:36 -0800

> Subject: Re: Side Effects - Plaquex vs. CCSVI and more

>

> WHOA ! who here had an " insistance regarding Plaquex's superiority to

> CCSVI. " ??

> >

[Guest guest]

As you addressed this to me, I feel I should answer but I don't know anything

about Plaquex.

I am with the slow improvement with CCSVI.

Sorry you have had no benefit yourself.

As I said, I know nothing about Plaquex but from a quick reading of their

website it worries me that it is about arterial plaque rather than venous

blockages which CCSVI is all about.

Short of going to Poland (where I had my angio done) I'm not sure I'd really

believe anyone who did my CCSVI. I went there as they and the Bulgarians has

had the most experience at the time of my treatment and I felt if they couldn't

do it, no one could.

All the best,

Janet

To: mscured

From: a_islam69@...

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 12:05:26 -0800

Subject: Re: Re: Side Effects - Plaquex vs. CCSVI and more

Hi Janet and all invovlved in using Plaquex,

I am a 42 years aged man with ppms for over 10 years and am in wheelchair for 2

years. I don't know much about plaquex and its use. Can you please let me know

how can I get started using Plaquex.

I tried a couple of procedures correcting my CCSVI (with no use of stents) and

it didn't work for me at all. I live in Melbourne, Australia and would like to

know how can I have access to and getting started using Plaquex please!

Thanks

Arshad

[Guest guest]

As you addressed this to me, I feel I should answer but I don't know anything

about Plaquex.

I am with the slow improvement with CCSVI.

Sorry you have had no benefit yourself.

As I said, I know nothing about Plaquex but from a quick reading of their

website it worries me that it is about arterial plaque rather than venous

blockages which CCSVI is all about.

Short of going to Poland (where I had my angio done) I'm not sure I'd really

believe anyone who did my CCSVI. I went there as they and the Bulgarians has

had the most experience at the time of my treatment and I felt if they couldn't

do it, no one could.

All the best,

Janet

To: mscured

From: a_islam69@...

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 12:05:26 -0800

Subject: Re: Re: Side Effects - Plaquex vs. CCSVI and more

Hi Janet and all invovlved in using Plaquex,

I am a 42 years aged man with ppms for over 10 years and am in wheelchair for 2

years. I don't know much about plaquex and its use. Can you please let me know

how can I get started using Plaquex.

I tried a couple of procedures correcting my CCSVI (with no use of stents) and

it didn't work for me at all. I live in Melbourne, Australia and would like to

know how can I have access to and getting started using Plaquex please!

Thanks

Arshad

[Guest guest]

huh ? the typing in capitals was not aimed at you at all ? I have no idea

you typed in caps.

I only typed in caps a few words to make emphasize something too.

look, I never said plaquex was superior, but you implied I did, I only

wanted

to bring attention to that fact. I think alot of confusion happens on here

because people usually dont read every email post.

But I want to make it a point, I did not insist that plaquex is superior to

CCSVI.

I wasnt yelling at you, I do need you to tell everyone and make it clear I

never

said it was superior.

This confusion all started when Janet Orchard took a look at the side

effects

of plaquex and said " no thank you, too many side effects " which is fine,

everyone

can make their own decisions, but it wouldnt make much sense if someone

were to choose not to do something that had minor potential side effects but

then

open to doing something like CCSVI that has potential much more dangerous

side effects.

so I replied that CCSVI procedure has side effects too, like death.

I just wanted to put things in perspective, as many people read

each others responses and judge.

so for the record, I am not saying anything is superior or that plaquex

is a substitute or that it is better or worse or anything and dont ever

say that I insisted that it is better. I think you should clarify that to

everyone who is reading this.

[Guest guest]

huh ? the typing in capitals was not aimed at you at all ? I have no idea

you typed in caps.

I only typed in caps a few words to make emphasize something too.

look, I never said plaquex was superior, but you implied I did, I only

wanted

to bring attention to that fact. I think alot of confusion happens on here

because people usually dont read every email post.

But I want to make it a point, I did not insist that plaquex is superior to

CCSVI.

I wasnt yelling at you, I do need you to tell everyone and make it clear I

never

said it was superior.

This confusion all started when Janet Orchard took a look at the side

effects

of plaquex and said " no thank you, too many side effects " which is fine,

everyone

can make their own decisions, but it wouldnt make much sense if someone

were to choose not to do something that had minor potential side effects but

then

open to doing something like CCSVI that has potential much more dangerous

side effects.

so I replied that CCSVI procedure has side effects too, like death.

I just wanted to put things in perspective, as many people read

each others responses and judge.

so for the record, I am not saying anything is superior or that plaquex

is a substitute or that it is better or worse or anything and dont ever

say that I insisted that it is better. I think you should clarify that to

everyone who is reading this.

[Guest guest]

,

I had said all I had to say - as I said last time, I was polite and gave you the

respect of replying.

I didn't imply anything. Having seen the title change (did you not see or

recognise that? and that had nothing to do with me), I felt it best to weigh in

on it for those who haven't yet done their research and I believe I had stated

before that it was never a thing to take personally.

'so I replied that CCSVI procedure has side effects too, like death.'

That's a very misleading statement. It's best to do your research properly on

CCSVI before making media-fuelled statements like this.

You and I completely disagree in regards to CCSVI - it just appears that you've

read too many hyped 'reports' and haven't looked at the real facts from the

appearance of your ideas about CCSVI. The procedure is far, far less dangerous

than you seem to know. Please, I've been researching this for years now and have

had the procedure myself - look further into it and try your hardest not to be

sucked into the negative and ignorant reports which fail to give all the facts.

I have no problem with you having a different opinion to mine, but I will always

stand up for what I know to be correct and will defend what is being

misrepresented.

'I think you should clarify that to everyone who is reading this.'

, I don't have to say anything to anyone - I think you've stated more than

enough times that you insist you never said this and as I respect the

intelligence of the other members of this group, don't feel I need to do any

such thing. They'll read the posts and make up their own minds.

You think what you think, and everyone else will make up their own minds too. We

can't change what another individual thinks about what they've read. People are

intelligent enough to make up their own minds.

Lets not make such a big deal out of nothing.

I hope this subject can be dropped now before it becomes childish.

'What we do in life, echoes through eternity.'

MARCUS AURELIUS (121 - 180 A.D.)

To: mscured

From: ortcloud@...

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:38:40 -0800

Subject: Re: Side Effects - Plaquex vs. CCSVI and more

look, I never said plaquex was superior, but you implied I did, I only

wanted

to bring attention to that fact. I think alot of confusion happens on here

because people usually dont read every email post.

[Guest guest]

You continue to misinterpret what I have said, you broadcast

this to the list and then ask me to drop it ? thats is not ok.

you have completely misunderstood what I am saying about plaquex

and CCSVI.

I will try once again to set the record straight.

I do not insist plaquex is better than CCSVI.

You said I stated this, it is not true, you lied and you should do the right

thing and admit I never said that.

Now you say " you and I disagree on CCSVI "

This is ridiculous too as you have no idea my position on

CCSVI, I have never stated it. I simply said one of the

potential side effects is death, that is true.

I have never stated an opinion pro or con of CCSVI.

When someone goes in for this procedure they have

you sign a paper informing you of the risks, the paper

says risk of death. So now that the doctor had you

sign this paper, you must be saying the very dr.

doing the procedure is now " against it " too right ?

At least two people have died after CCSVI, and

any invasive surgery like this has a risk of death

even if anyone hadnt died from it.

I think you need to just apologize to me and the group

of your ridiculous assertions.

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:22 AM, <

rachael.m.thomas@...> wrote:

>

>

>

> ,

> I had said all I had to say - as I said last time, I was polite and gave

> you the respect of replying.

> I didn't imply anything. Having seen the title change (did you not see or

> recognise that? and that had nothing to do with me), I felt it best to weigh

> in on it for those who haven't yet done their research and I believe I had

> stated before that it was never a thing to take personally.

>

> 'so I replied that CCSVI procedure has side effects too, like death.'

> That's a very misleading statement. It's best to do your research properly

> on CCSVI before making media-fuelled statements like this.

>

> You and I completely disagree in regards to CCSVI - it just appears that

> you've read too many hyped 'reports' and haven't looked at the real facts

> from the appearance of your ideas about CCSVI. The procedure is far, far

> less dangerous than you seem to know. Please, I've been researching this for

> years now and have had the procedure myself - look further into it and try

> your hardest not to be sucked into the negative and ignorant reports which

> fail to give all the facts.

>

> I have no problem with you having a different opinion to mine, but I will

> always stand up for what I know to be correct and will defend what is being

> misrepresented.

>

> 'I think you should clarify that to everyone who is reading this.'

> , I don't have to say anything to anyone - I think you've stated more

> than enough times that you insist you never said this and as I respect the

> intelligence of the other members of this group, don't feel I need to do any

> such thing. They'll read the posts and make up their own minds.

> You think what you think, and everyone else will make up their own minds

> too. We can't change what another individual thinks about what they've read.

> People are intelligent enough to make up their own minds.

>

> Lets not make such a big deal out of nothing.

> I hope this subject can be dropped now before it becomes childish.

>

>

>

> 'What we do in life, echoes through eternity.'

> MARCUS AURELIUS (121 - 180 A.D.)

>

> To: mscured <mscured%40yahoogroups.com>

> From: ortcloud@... <ortcloud%40gmail.com>

> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:38:40 -0800

>

> Subject: Re: Side Effects - Plaquex vs. CCSVI and more

>

> look, I never said plaquex was superior, but you implied I did, I only

> wanted

> to bring attention to that fact. I think alot of confusion happens on here

> because people usually dont read every email post.

>

>

[Guest guest]

You continue to misinterpret what I have said, you broadcast

this to the list and then ask me to drop it ? thats is not ok.

you have completely misunderstood what I am saying about plaquex

and CCSVI.

I will try once again to set the record straight.

I do not insist plaquex is better than CCSVI.

You said I stated this, it is not true, you lied and you should do the right

thing and admit I never said that.

Now you say " you and I disagree on CCSVI "

This is ridiculous too as you have no idea my position on

CCSVI, I have never stated it. I simply said one of the

potential side effects is death, that is true.

I have never stated an opinion pro or con of CCSVI.

When someone goes in for this procedure they have

you sign a paper informing you of the risks, the paper

says risk of death. So now that the doctor had you

sign this paper, you must be saying the very dr.

doing the procedure is now " against it " too right ?

At least two people have died after CCSVI, and

any invasive surgery like this has a risk of death

even if anyone hadnt died from it.

I think you need to just apologize to me and the group

of your ridiculous assertions.

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:22 AM, <

rachael.m.thomas@...> wrote:

>

>

>

> ,

> I had said all I had to say - as I said last time, I was polite and gave

> you the respect of replying.

> I didn't imply anything. Having seen the title change (did you not see or

> recognise that? and that had nothing to do with me), I felt it best to weigh

> in on it for those who haven't yet done their research and I believe I had

> stated before that it was never a thing to take personally.

>

> 'so I replied that CCSVI procedure has side effects too, like death.'

> That's a very misleading statement. It's best to do your research properly

> on CCSVI before making media-fuelled statements like this.

>

> You and I completely disagree in regards to CCSVI - it just appears that

> you've read too many hyped 'reports' and haven't looked at the real facts

> from the appearance of your ideas about CCSVI. The procedure is far, far

> less dangerous than you seem to know. Please, I've been researching this for

> years now and have had the procedure myself - look further into it and try

> your hardest not to be sucked into the negative and ignorant reports which

> fail to give all the facts.

>

> I have no problem with you having a different opinion to mine, but I will

> always stand up for what I know to be correct and will defend what is being

> misrepresented.

>

> 'I think you should clarify that to everyone who is reading this.'

> , I don't have to say anything to anyone - I think you've stated more

> than enough times that you insist you never said this and as I respect the

> intelligence of the other members of this group, don't feel I need to do any

> such thing. They'll read the posts and make up their own minds.

> You think what you think, and everyone else will make up their own minds

> too. We can't change what another individual thinks about what they've read.

> People are intelligent enough to make up their own minds.

>

> Lets not make such a big deal out of nothing.

> I hope this subject can be dropped now before it becomes childish.

>

>

>

> 'What we do in life, echoes through eternity.'

> MARCUS AURELIUS (121 - 180 A.D.)

>

> To: mscured <mscured%40yahoogroups.com>

> From: ortcloud@... <ortcloud%40gmail.com>

> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:38:40 -0800

>

> Subject: Re: Side Effects - Plaquex vs. CCSVI and more

>

> look, I never said plaquex was superior, but you implied I did, I only

> wanted

> to bring attention to that fact. I think alot of confusion happens on here

> because people usually dont read every email post.

>

>