NUCCA success rate

Exactly which argument of Stephen's are you talking about?

And exactly which theory of Henry's?

I'm not challenging you; I just want to make sure I am understanding eveyrone correctly.

 

I'm pretty sure my reasoning applies. I'll stand on my remarks.

 

Wow just stopping in to see what I have missed. I have been doing NUCCA for almost two years now and doing pretty darn good! The only thing the ENT gives me is my supply of meds. I have to say I get more info from my NUCCA doc and helps me a great deal to stay stable. I told him if he ever moves I will follow him! Lol
When I was diagnosed in 2006 I couldn't believe there is no known cure....that drives me crazy! I just suggest to keep working on yourself and find what works for each individual. Strange disease. I'm sticking with my NUCCA!! Good luck to everyone!

 

So glad you are doing well, Debin. Thanks for stopping in.

 

Hi Debin,

So you are taking meds for this and doing NUCCA?

 

Don't. Play. Games.

 

.....aaahummm....where's the camera?? Is this a debate forum?

 

I take a diuretic daily and I have Valium if needed. That is meds from my ENT. Go there yearly!
My NUCCA doc has me taking B Complex twice daily. Other than that I just take regular vitamins. Doing very well!!

 

I will repeat my question:

I am not playing games, but I am starting to wonder if you are.

 

No, I'm not.

Henry's 'theory' is detailed in many, many, posts. Stephen's less so, as some were deleted. I don't think I need to waste bandwidth in recapping the two.

My point is that one person is a self taught amateur, while the other is a self taught amateur with four decades of clinical research supporting his argument.

I've yet to see positive results from either camp.

 

Or more correctly, a sustained positive result. It is commonly accepted that anti virals provide initial or short term relief, with some exceptions.

 

Chris, his argument is that one should only look to science for a cure. But science has no cure. The only people who have been cured are those who did not use science. So what kind of argument is that?

The science argument though, goes further. It alleges that, for example, these people who have successfully treated what science cannot, are simply fooling themselves, or did not have Meniere's when they obviously had every Meniere's symptom in the book. Now again, for someone like me who knows better, that is a ridiculous argument.

Please, tell me; why do you, an otherwise reasonable guy, make these arguments, when they make so little sense?

 

Ah, sorry Henry....you are referring to your philosophical differences...I sit on the fence, there.

I was talking about your collective 'nut and bolts' cause and treatment of MD propositions. On that one, I do tend to lean toward the one more supported by clinical research.

I am a 'show me the proof/facts/data' man.

 

JSM frightened the hell out of me as a kid...

 

For me it was the crazy eye and irritable, verbal abuse....

 

Thanks Debin -- so how do you know it's NUCCA helping you and not the diuretic, valium or B complex -- or all three? LK

 

Nucca might help my friend Peyton