That's the first nail in the "neurodegeneration in the absence of inflammation theory.
big meanie who likes to pick on Bob wrote:
I've never understood that to be the major question in the inflammation vs. neurodegeneration debate.
You've never understood WHAT to be the big question in the inflammation vs neurodegeneration debate?
there are those who question whether inflammation is responsible for neurodegeneration
there are those who take the lack of "evident" inflammation on MRI and continuing neurodegeneration to mean that there is such a thing as "neurodegeneration in the absence of inflammation"
i guess what i am thinking is how they (the trial people) can say no you don't qualify because you don't have an active mri. is rrms a different disease or ?? i just don't understand this
Users browsing this forum: No registered users