I guess I have to get my two cents worth in. I'm not going to insert or paste all the Quotes finn posted in this thread, read those first please.
They all make sense to me!
My simplistic opinion, if it is worth anything is this:
Consider this simple analogy: If you get hit in the head with a hammer, the swelling/lump isn't there immediately. If you twist your ankle the swelling (inflammation) takes even longer to appear. If someone suffers a heart attack caused by an emboli, there is a window of 4-6 hours (don't remember exactly) in which clot busting drugs may be administered to open the vessel and restore critical nourishment thereby limiting permanent damage to surrounding tissue(collateral damage).
Seems to me researchers are too focused, and concentrating on the response, not the actual problem here!
Aren't the available meds focused on a bodies response, not a cause?
Why can't inflammation be a normal reactive response/result rather than a cause? So what is the cause....back up on the timeline of a legion. We're too late, we're all looking at results on causes
secondly, axonal damage, once again, is a result, not the cause.
Inflammation and axonal death are results. Many meds/treatments I'm aware of are limiting "collateral damage"
Back to my hammer analogy: Ice and meds will limit swelling and pain (inflammation if you will). The underlying cause is still there - the damn hammer. You were to late to prevent the cause.....
This fits into a theory I've been hashing around. I've shared some with OddDuck in PM's over the last week or so.
I welcome anyones thoughts regarding this, try to "shoot it down"
I need constructive criticism!!