You don't need years and years of following patients (see dirucotide failure) . You just gather a significant number of people and test for blood flow disturbances. Of course you need skilled technicians and this only proves - or not- that there is an association with MS. But proving association only, is a big step nevertheless.
Yes I so agree with you on this. Not only that but a few groups such as those treated by Dr Dake with some in depth MRI work would do it very quickly too.
1. check lesions obviously
2. but also check perfusion and mean transit time, both of which are reduced in MS and both of which are attributed currently to MS inflammation. Proving this is primary pathology, not secondary to AI, will go a long way.
3. showing treated persons have improved blood flow--while this can't show that it causes MS it would surely support the notion that treatment is worth doing for the singular sake of circulation and this can be done in days on any individual, a few months for numbers of them.
I'm not offering medical advice, I am just a patient too! Talk to your doctor about what is best for you...
http://www.thisisms.com/ftopic-7318-0.html This is my regimen thread
http://www.ccsvibook.com Read my book published by McFarland Health topics