Do any of you experts know why Dr Wheldon and the Vanderbilt group focused on a bacterial rather than a viral explanation for MS, and why particularly CPn rather than any other kind of bacterial infection?
Well, antibiotic treatments have been much more successful than antiviral treatments in MS. This doesn't mean that viruses can't be a part of the MS disease. It's just that it is usually enough to eradicate Cpn, and you'll get rid of possible chronic viral infections too.
I don't know how they got the idea that it was Cpn that we should go after, but the idea has just turned out to be very successful.
The problem with other intracellular bacteria is that they tend to be more destructive than Cpn, not creepy enough. If you have rickettsia, you can get things like Rocky Mountain Spotty Fever, and typhus, you sure notice if you have these. Same with tuberculosis, Legionella, and borrelia too has quite characteristic symptoms. In all of these infections, Cpn is still likely a big part of them, since nearly everyone has it anyway, and it weakens the immune system, so that other bacteria and viruses can easier get a foothold.
On the other hand, some co-infections appear to disable the immune system in a way that you need to treat them specially, before you can get your hands at Cpn. For example the Marshall protocol assumes that some bacteria target the VDR (vitamin D receptor), which is a part of the innate immunity, and you have to take a special drug called Olmesartan to activate the immune system in addition to antibiotics to clear away this co-infection and eventually the Cpn that goes with it. Antibiotics are still often enough alone to lead to a cure in most cases, but not in all cases. If antibiotics alone aren't leading to a cure, you'll just have to work harder, the bacteria are still there to be killed.