It appears that there may be conflicting theories being published about how minocycline DOES help MS....via the "viral" pathway (which doesn't sound correct to me, because of the fact that antibiotics don't affect viruses), the "allergy" or bacterial pathway, or via its inhibition of caspase-3 (an enzyme that is part of the cascade that mediates programmed cell death). My personal thoughts are that minocycline accidentally exhibits it effectiveness for MS as something totally unrelated to its original intended use.
A month is early days - Sarah saw improvements at this stage but the course takes a year (followed by regular top-ups). David Wheldon's paper sets out his theory on cpn and ms (which I, as a non-scientist, find convincing).
In Sarah's case it now seems implausible that she improved simply due to "neuroprotection" or "anti-inflammatory" action, and it is important to note that she was seronegative via ELISA (Many doctors will refrain from prescribing antibiotics once they see the test was negative).
As far as the well-kept secret, I would agree, but I hope we are doing our best to bring it out into the open. It is difficult, though, which brings me to Daunted's last question about the paper co-authored by my husband and Dr. Stratton. Turned down outright by one of the referees at the second attempt.
Anecdote wrote:Many of the most innovative papers never get published, but eventually end up being read by everyone interested on the samizdat press.
So it's a shame, but "clinical" medicine or the possibility of empirical treatment seem to be a rarity nowadays, even though medicine is supposedly more advanced than it ever has been...?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users