Autoimmune uncertainty?

If it's on your mind and it has to do with multiple sclerosis in any way, post it here.

Postby jay123 » Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:32 am

I didn't want to start any arguments, but this is one that one can't have a definite true answer for.
If there was a cure for MS, then there's an answer - but as of right now there isn't.
My personal opinion is CCSVI is the first step of a cure, then we need other drugs to stop the existing immune system responses.

But this is definitely not something that there will ONE answer for, until the cure is found.
User avatar
jay123
Family Elder
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:00 pm

Advertisement

Postby patientx » Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:01 pm

jay123 wrote:I didn't want to start any arguments, but this is one that one can't have a definite true answer for.
If there was a cure for MS, then there's an answer - but as of right now there isn't.
My personal opinion is CCSVI is the first step of a cure, then we need other drugs to stop the existing immune system responses.

But this is definitely not something that there will ONE answer for, until the cure is found.


I realized I didn't word my post very well; I didn't mean for it to sound argumentative. I was just trying to say that maybe a person could still have low vitamin D, even if he or she spent much time out in the sun.
User avatar
patientx
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1068
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:00 pm

Postby Lyon » Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:32 pm

.
Last edited by Lyon on Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby Sharon » Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:03 pm

Lyon
The point is that I'm 100% convinced that, in hindsight, we're going to be kicking ourselves in the ass over the simplicity of MS etiology.


Hmm, how about a blocked vein? :)
(I had to do it - you left yourself wide open ---no hard feelings - okay?)

Sharon
User avatar
Sharon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1235
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Colorado

Postby Lyon » Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:13 pm

.
Last edited by Lyon on Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby mose » Wed Oct 28, 2009 4:15 pm

Lyon wrote:
The point is that I'm 100% convinced that, in hindsight, we're going to be kicking ourselves in the ass over the simplicity of MS etiology.

Literally, nothing is or has ever been as complicated as MS seems right now.


Yes.
User avatar
mose
Family Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:00 pm

Postby notasperfectasyou » Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:44 pm

Lyon wrote:The point is that I'm 100% convinced that, in hindsight, we're going to be kicking ourselves in the ass over the simplicity of MS etiology.


...... or an infected neuron.....
User avatar
notasperfectasyou
Family Elder
 
Posts: 774
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby Lyon » Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:49 pm

.
Last edited by Lyon on Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lyon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 6063
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:00 pm

Postby Thomas » Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:29 pm

At least if MS treatment is based more on suspicion than science it won´t be the first time this happens. Here´s from a recent article on swine flu in the Atlantic:

The annals of medicine are littered with treatments and tests that became medical doctrine on the slimmest of evidence, and were then declared sacrosanct and beyond scientific investigation. In the 1980s and ’90s, for example, cancer specialists were convinced that high-dose chemotherapy followed by a bone-marrow transplant was the best hope for women with advanced breast cancer, and many refused to enroll their patients in randomized clinical trials that were designed to test transplants against the standard—and far less toxic—therapy. The trials, they said, were unethical, because they knew transplants worked. When the studies were concluded, in 1999 and 2000, it turned out that bone-marrow transplants were killing patients. Another recent example involves drugs related to the analgesic lidocaine. In the 1970s, doctors noticed that the drugs seemed to make the heart beat rhythmically, and they began prescribing them to patients suffering from irregular heartbeats, assuming that restoring a proper rhythm would reduce the patient’s risk of dying. Prominent cardiologists for years opposed clinical trials of the drugs, saying it would be medical malpractice to withhold them from patients in a control group. The drugs were widely used for two decades, until a government-sponsored study showed in 1989 that patients who were prescribed the medicine were three and a half times as likely to die as those given a placebo.

http://bit.ly/Tb8h8

But it´s a small comfort.......
Thomas
Family Elder
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:00 pm
Location: Europe

Postby notasperfectasyou » Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:25 am

Lyon wrote:Who's to say?? 8O


From what I have read from Kurtzke, he's writting about big picture stuff and not microbiology. Maybe he's written about microbiology, but I haven't seen it. But wouldn't it be interesting to find out that a bacteria that's known for sustained long term cryptic infection had the ability to do so in neurons?
User avatar
notasperfectasyou
Family Elder
 
Posts: 774
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby Anecdote » Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:42 am

But wouldn't it be interesting to find out that a bacteria that's known for sustained long term cryptic infection had the ability to do so in neurons?


It would indeed. It would be even more interesting if that bacteria was known to cause soft tissue swelling which could pinch veins.

Sarah 8)
An Itinerary in Light and Shadow Completed Dr Charles Stratton / Dr David Wheldon abx regime for aggressive secondary progressive MS in June 2007, after four years. Still improving with no relapses since starting. Can't run but can paint all day.
Anecdote
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Bedfordshire UK

Postby Thomas » Sun Nov 15, 2009 5:39 pm

A possible explanation why wrong/unproven theories are used in medicine:
Although the classical ideal is that scientific theories are evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, and checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations; the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice.

In the real world it looks more like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status.

The classic account has it that bogus theories should readily be demolished by sceptical (or jealous) competitor scientists. However, in practice even the most conclusive ‘hatchet jobs’ may fail to kill, or even weaken, phoney hypotheses when they are backed-up with sufficient economic muscle in the form of lavish and sustained funding. And when a branch of science based on phoney theories serves a useful but non-scientific purpose, it may be kept-going indefinitely by continuous transfusions of cash from those whose interests it serves. If this happens, real science expires and a ‘zombie science’ evolves.


From: http://tr.im/F23P (highly recommended)
Thomas
Family Elder
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:00 pm
Location: Europe

Postby cheerleader » Sun Nov 15, 2009 8:45 pm

thanks for posting, Thomas....that's a terrific article.

"Zombie science" - what a great phrase...the "undead" bogus theory (not fact) that is kept alive because too many reputations and careers are at stake and the status quo is just too ponderous to be upended.
Sounds familiar- I'm posting the pdf down under in CCSVI land.
Thanks,
cheer
Husband dx RRMS 3/07
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
http://ccsviinms.blogspot.com
User avatar
cheerleader
Family Elder
 
Posts: 4941
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: southern California

Postby Sharon » Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:25 am

Thomas - thank you for sharing - this article is very timely, especially in the research of MS.
However, in practice even the most conclusive ‘hatchet jobs’ may fail to kill, or even weaken, phoney hypotheses when they are backed-up with sufficient economic muscle in the form of lavish and sustained funding.


Auto-immunity and MS -- a theory which has been around for years -- has been researched, tested and retested AND, still when you read an article about MS it will state "thought to be auto-immune".
The author, Bruce Charlton, has stepped "out on a limb" --- he is questioning the process of science -- .

Good read, thanks again
Sharon
User avatar
Sharon
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1235
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Colorado

Postby Thomas » Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:48 am

Update:

Wikipedia is no longer in doubt that MS is autoimmune. The wording has been changed to:
In MS, the body's own immune system attacks and damages the myelin. When myelin is lost, the axons can no longer effectively conduct signals.

http://bit.ly/oAhV

Their reference is this 2002 Lancet study by Compston and Coles: http://bit.ly/91EFmx

I think this also explains why many pwms are agitated. :D
Thomas
Family Elder
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:00 pm
Location: Europe

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users