Further to the last posting, I would agree with Prof. Mazmanian that targeting the source of the auto-immune response (gut microbes) rather than the end result (elevated levels of IL-17) is probably the valid approach to treating MS.
Where I would disagree with him is when he says, “this research opens the door for examining these concepts in patients, but potential therapies for MS stemming from this research would require many additional studies ..."
If you take the information collected and analysed on this thread, there is no denying that MS is a two-stage disease with an important role for CCSVI and a significant influence of the intestinal bacteria... And there is no denying that certain diets can change the course of MS... Therefore, it would be a shame for all if this matter would need many years of further study. In fact, things to improve the gut microbiota could be implemented tomorrow: a good diet could be the start of a recovery programme. And perhaps -and this may indeed need a bit of experimentation - a gut flora transplant ..
I can see two possible scenarios from here. That is 1. either the neurology embraces the new insights and pro-actively helps to move things forward; or 2. the neurology remains at its base, deserters are earmarked as 'also ran' and meanwhile the world moves on in parallel tracks exploring the new insights...
The Internet causes revolutions all around us (re: the book of Brafman and Beckstrom titled the Starfish and the Spider). I've seen it happen in several sectors and it is currently happening in others. And unfortunately, in most cases, the latter scenario is followed. Ultimately, the own world just dries up, the pedestal on which they had placed themselves falls apart, tenured lecture spots shift elsewhere etc. At that point, the old constituancy discovers that the dynamics has gone elsewhere and they retire...
But in the other disciplines that I have seen, it was all about business. Here is about people.
Therefore, I would hope that this time it will be different ... But the weight of the status quo is enormous, and change will be very difficult because they all have to climb down the ladder and that hurts. Therefore I am afraid that the second scenario is likely to happen here too.. Where there is risk of paralysis by analysis, leading to a new situation of indecision.. And that things get deferred, deterred, delayed, and possibly destroyed (don't worry, that is not possible anymore...)
We have seen in an earlier posting that the arguments for further study so often used by the medical sector are way oversold. It is symptomatic; they will use that again.
This article under the link below would seem appropriate as well: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbergl ... ecision/2/
One particular lesson I would like to stress from here: Accept The Limits Of Analysis
The road to hell, we’re told, is paved with good intentions, judicious decisions and exhaustively analyzed strategies. Wars have been lost owing to unexpected weather conditions; data-wielding sports scouts draft college players who fail in the pros.
Bottom line: Avoid paralysis by analysis. Act, examine your results, make adjustments, and move on.
To which I would add: Don't analyse this thing to hell, there are millions of people waiting for you every day..