Antibiotics can not work on ms other than their antiimflamatory affects but with lyme they can actually kill it stopping it from more damage. Their must be a small precentage of the 2.5 million people diagnosed with ms that actually have lyme or some other parasite that left unchallenged will do nervous system damage.
As you know, there are people who think a variety of things about MS. What you mentioned above is one way of looking at it but there are also people who feel that MS itself is driven by bacteria and that abx should/could control that. I don't have the proof to argue one way or the other.
So is it fair to say that if you notice extreme improvements from abx you don't have ms at all?
The only thing certain about MS is that NOTHING
is certain about MS. Taken exactly as you stated above, if one person takes abx and notices extreme improvements they should be very happy and not look the gift horse in the mouth. In the grand scheme, the experience of one person is interesting but proves nothing.
Evidently for a very long time the poultry industry has been giving ongoing antibiotics to their birds to fatten them up and a recent study showed that, for the little gain in weight it isn't cost effective.
Additionally, the practice has created antibacterial resistant strains of bacteria. Not to make a judgement about abx therapy but "IF" it proves to be a valid therapy, it's probably worth the risk but "IF" it's not valid, it's just adding to the already increasing problem of resistant bacteria. A valid trial of abx in a clinical setting needs to be done soon to either credit or discredit it so that question is answered one way or the other.