Page 32 of 41 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 401

Thread: Rch4

  1. #311
    Forum Member Kayleigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    1,291
    Quote Originally Posted by tomasz View Post
    The subject of my message was different, namely the unexplained hostility towards the life prolonging product. So your criticism is not justified.
    I am not updated by the charity about the availability of the drug , but may suggest that they put it at the web page.
    Hi Tomasz,

    You are entitled to your own opinion and so if you think what I wrote is unjustified then that's fair enough. I hope RCH4 continues to work well for you.

    Kayleigh

  2. #312
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    6
    How should I know?
    I have no idea how many people use RCH4.

    I have one question: did anyone, ever, contact the Charity Group, before the trolls' attack (when their contact info was available on their website), and have been refused by the Group?

    Ionel

  3. #313
    ccinjersey
    Guest
    I have a question as well, who are you calling 'the trolls' ? Those that question the validity of this drug, and the Charity ??

    Had the Charity Group simply attended the 2018 Symposium that they had been invited to educate, and inform the medical community about their discovery of their drug, and it's positive effective results those forum members on this thread pop up to share here, much if not all of the controversy surrounding their drug could have been put to rest.

    The reason they didn't show is a simple one; They have no clinical support to back up the claims those random pop up members that post here are stating are effective, and true.

    With that being said, I too wish all those who were able to access this drug much continued long term success with it.

    CCxx
    Last edited by ccinjersey; 31st August 2019 at 21:14.

  4. #314
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by ccinjersey View Post
    I have a question as well, who are you calling 'the trolls' ? Those that question the validity of this drug, and the Charity ??

    Had the Charity Group simply attended the 2018 Symposium that they had been invited to educate, and inform the medical community about their discovery of their drug, and it's positive effective results those forum members on this thread pop up to share here, much if not all of the controversy surrounding their drug could have been put to rest.

    The reason they didn't show is a simple one; They have no clinical support to back up the claims those random pop up members that post here are stating are effective, and true.

    With that being said, I too wish all those who were able to access this drug much continued long term success with it.

    CCxx
    Hi,
    WHY you are writing things which are not true? The charity has thousands of man/month, formatted reports which we are sending every month. There is a lot of identified evaluations at the PLM site and individual charts within the discussion threads. They wanted to present their statistics in Glasgow orally, but were given poster session among hundreds of worthless posters reporting studies on rodents. Actually MNDA should invite them for a key note speech , so the consistency of RCH4 claims could be publicly verified.

  5. #315
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Epworth
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by IONEL View Post
    How should I know?
    I have no idea how many people use RCH4.

    I have one question: did anyone, ever, contact the Charity Group, before the trolls' attack (when their contact info was available on their website), and have been refused by the Group?

    Ionel
    Did you actually read the post from MND Admin?

  6. #316
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Romania
    Posts
    6
    Of course I read the post from MND Admin.

    I am sorry I wasn't clear enough!
    What I meant is that: did any patient suffering of MND contacted the RC Group at the time when their contact was available and had enough supply, asking for drug and get refused by the Group?
    But, never mind; after all, it is a rhetorical question as long as everyone knows the answer.

  7. #317
    ccinjersey
    Guest
    Tomasz,

    You have your opinion, and I have mine.

    All the best to you.

  8. #318
    Forum Member nunhead_man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    London
    Posts
    503
    Good evening Ionel

    Quote Originally Posted by IONEL View Post
    What I meant is that: did any patient suffering of MND contacted the RC Group at the time when their contact was available and had enough supply, asking for drug and get refused by the Group?
    That would be me - and the correspondence that I had about it was posted in this forum without my permission, resulting in somebody being banned from it.

    Best wishes

    Andy
    Warmly


    Andy

    ​Diagnosed 03/2015. Limb onset (arm) sporadic ALS/MND.
    MND hitting - now 50% left arm and 90% right arm, plus other bits including left shoulder

    "Things turn out the best for people who make the best of the way things turn out"

  9. #319
    Posted by Tomasz, yesterday:

    I worked for 35 years in academic research and proposing poster instead of oral presentation is considered as downgrading for lower quality research.

    -------

    That may have been the perception 35 years ago, but things have been very different for quite a while.

    Over the past two decades I have attended and organized many international scientific conferences. Nowadays, poster sessions are a crucial part of the schedule. They have a number of advantages: the content of the paper is in front of participants for far longer (24 – 72 hours) compared to the 20-30 minutes of an oral presentation; participants can question the authors and discuss their findings face to face over extended periods.

    No scientist of any standing, having been offered a poster or oral presentation at a conference, would risk damage to their reputation by withdrawing from the programme without a very good reason. This does occasionally happen. Typically, it is because the data anticipated at the time the abstract was submitted has not been forthcoming.

    While I’m here, may I ask anybody who can to post a reference to a paper in the peer reviewed literature that discusses the efficacy of RCH4. My own searches have drawn a blank thus far.

    Many thanks!

    Dave

  10. #320
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Epworth
    Posts
    88
    Tried - but no luck. However - I did find this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31035235

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •