Steve,

You make some very good points and you're right - it is about factual discussion. However, we got off topic due to a strange and heated exchange between myself and Randy and there many, many posts on this forum with Randy fighting with others. Sean seems to be his biggest issue and it makes no sense to me. But, Randy does seem to fight with a lot of people and the question is why?

As to your comments, I have read studies that drew into question the validity of the French studies and in particular that this study used only successful outcomes. There were concerns about "fingers" vs. "hands" to count the number of patients. The paper, published in England, was highly supportive of NA as an alternative treatment (as am I), but pretty trashed the French data. So, it cannot be used as proof.

The factual discussion I'm trying to have is to counter the bold statement that surgery causes more nerve damage than NA. Even if someone "believes" this, that's OK, but it does provide the basis for making this statement. I have asked if anyone can provide hard data to support this and it appears no one can.

What concerns me is that the responses to my question seem to be to claim that I am anti-NA and then it degenerates into a cat fight. Well, I've had enough of the fight, but to be clear, I AM FOR NA AS A VALID TREATMENT FOR DUPS.

I hope this is clear and I wish that others would cease saying otherwise.

What I am against is making statements saying that surgery is performed by dumb doctors who do not understand the value of NA and more, importantly, using this forum to bold and misleading statements that could lead someone to make a wrong decision. As a fellow sufferer, I would not want to happen to me and am concerned that someone could avoid surgery because of false information that are not based on any real data. And, you know, at the end of day, there has to be some proof and not studies such as the French using selective data.

Hey Wolfegang,

While lately I've been accused of being a "angry, evil, nasty bully" spoiling for a fight at every turn, I don't suffer from multi personality (But naturally I can't stop myself from pulling the wings off butterflies every change I get).

Francis, this whole little brouhaha started when I made this statement:

"NA has proven to be *far* safer than OS in terms of nerve damage."

I wonder if I would have also been so vigorously challenged had I said:

"So far, In over 1,400 American performed procedures, NA is proving statistically to be far safer than OS in terms of nerve damage."

That's just a statement of verifiable fact. No proof required. Though an angry, evil, nasty bully with webbed feet, I actually like this restatement better. It's more defensible against individuals who's standard of medical "proof" will only be satiated after NA becomes more mainstream and actual $$dollards$$ can be spent to do the kind of peer reviewed study that many CHS will need to change the currently predominant medical thinking. And, as Sam has pointed out, not to skew the data, severity of the disease must be controlled for. Because he is talking all comers, Eaton's data is.

Thanks for the kind words from a number of posters. But.....I see a butterfly out my window. Got to go.

Sam: You are again off medical forum topic. Just challenge randy to meet on the playground at recess. lol, jey

To members of the forum,

Well, there certainly are some interesting messages on this forum and some silly ones. I like the interesting messages better and will say that I found some very good and useful information here. The recent string of messages about nerve damage seemed a good question and I don't was ever answered.

The gentleman who posts as Randy states that it is well proven that surgery causes much more nerve damage than NA. Well this is just 180 degrees different than what my doctor says and the research I have undertaken supports this. So, please, if anyone can provide some references that I can use, I would be grateful. My doctor knows about NA and while not supportive, he was certainly not down on it. His take is that its best for elderly patients who may not tolerate surgery well, but that there a very high correlation between NA in younger patients and recurrance of this condition and that worries me. He also expressed concern about nerve damage and told me that published studies indicate that nerve damage is a big problem with the NA procedure. I'd like to get it taken care, but don't want to risk selecting the wrong procedure.

So, I guess I have two questions. One, does NA cause a high recurrance rate and two, is there any good public information to support the statement that NA does not cause nerve damage. It seems hard to believe that it does not cause nerve as you cannot see the tissue. Hard to know what to believe.

Francis-----
Just answer the questions without a commercial. The questions are not unreasonable. The French study you refer to is not accepted in the scientific community.