from the thread on: Pregnancy and Vitamin D may protect against MS - studies
Tasmanian researchers have found that delaying pregnancy may increase the likelihood of women getting multiple sclerosis.
A yet to be published study looking at MS over the last 60 years has found the frequency of the disease has risen dramatically and it's largely been driven by women.
The Menzies Research Institute's Associate Professor, Bruce Taylor, says delaying pregnancy could be having an impact.
"We think that having children is protective for having MS, He said.... Read More - http://www.msrc.co.uk/index.cfm/fuseact ... ageid/1936
Hallo America, wake up! Start to think wider, more conceptual, don't get lost or trapped in technical details of MS lesions, in biological processes in areas where things have already gone terribly wrong.
What is the common factor of pregnancy and Vitamin D: exactly, the micro-cellular feeding is improved. The whole pregnancy is about nothing else than micro-cellular feeding. The Vitamin D enhances the grips of the insulin on the cells and thereby improves the micro-cellular feeding. Both have anti-inflammatory properties? This may seem to be the case but what happens in reality is that the feeding of the cells is improved and the neuro signalling pathways calm down because of that.
In this same context, this is interesting:
In 1949, Dr. Hench first applied steriods for a purpose other than the substitution in people who have a deficiency of this hormone creation. She gave it to patients with polyarthritis, with good results. In fact they had seen that women who are pregnant and have rheumatism problems, during pregnancy usually have less or no rheumatism.
On the other hand it was known that during pregnancy the adrenal glands produce more cortisol. Dr. Hench found that the arthritis may have been suppressed by increased cortisol production and that proved right. Gradually it was discovered that cortisone has strong anti-inflammatory properties and the knowledge about steroids and their action was developed further...
From this time onwards, the anti-inflammatory aspects have been seen. I guess also by the neurologists who's discipline started to develop around more or less the same timeframe.
But is this true? Is this conceptually correct? Perhaps, it is the other way around. Perhaps this is not anti-inflammation by suppression but neuro-signalling pathways that calm down because of better nutrition of the cells. Most certainly, if seen in the context of a pregnancy which is all about feeding, or if seen from a more conceptual point of view, this much more likely to do with enhanced feeding of the cells.
I think the medical world must urgently rewrite the doctrine (and the underlying concept) from an inflammation suppression (anti-inflammation) to an enhanced nutrition (pro-nutrition).
With that, our understanding of what is MS will change to become a new paradigm closely aligned with the low glucose hypothesis described on this thread.