 |
In Remembrance
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SE Kansas.
Posts: 374
|
|
|
In Remembrance
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SE Kansas.
Posts: 374
|
Tayla,
One of your more recent posts piqued my curiosity so much that, even though I think it unlikely you will answer, I have to ask a question.
You wrote: ...when I read the research of many very learned people who have spent years developing the theory behind the cause of RSD/CRPS then I tend to find comfort from the consistancy from these people. It also makes good sense to my level of understanding.
Can you tell me which theory you agree with?
Do you agree with the one that claims that RSD results from a peripheral nerve injury?
Or do you agree with the theory that this disease is caused by damage to nerves in the sympathetic nervous system?
Or do you agree with the one that says RSD begins with a peripheral nerve injury that completely heals, leaving no symptoms, which are then assumed by the central nervous system?
Oh, yes, and if you think they all make some sense, can you explain how you find consistency between these three competing explanations of RSD?
(Added later) The reason I doubt you will answer this is that you have not yet answered an important question I asked earlier on this thread:
Since it appears to be widely accepted that CRPS-I (the overwhelming majority of RSD cases) is NOT caused by nerve damage, why do you insist that it is?
__________________
The great end of life is not knowldege but action. T. H. Huxley
When in doubt, ask: What would Jimmy Buffett do?
email: :
.
Last edited by Vicc; 09-14-2007 at 05:55 AM.
Reason: move words
|