Kyle wrote:Still, PPMS there is no inflammation, SPMS there is no inflammation. I think if I went through this treatment, I would stil slip into SPMS. Then what? This treatment wouldnt help me.
I understand this fear and have thought it myself: this treats inflammation - inflammation is a side effect and not the cause of disability - we are still screwed.
What you need to factor in is that inflammation gets pointed to as a positive result in a lot of research b/c it is measurable on an MRI like counting lesions. The "we think" part of "we think this helps b/c it decreases inflammation" is very gray. If we are going to believe that inflammation is a side effect of a more intractable disease, then why not believe that reducing inflammation is just a positive benefit to the treatment and that it's real punch is not understood? Why not believe that dramatically slowing the RRMS stage will push out or slow or even eliminate the SPMS phase? Or that this treatment will prove effective in slowing/stopping SPMS?
It is good to be realistic and even cynical, but I think you are filling in a lot of blanks with negatives and then worrying about the negative conclusion it produces. One of these unknowns is gonna swing our way sooner or later
Also I understand why people with so much invested into this treatment are defensive but discouraging debate is not the way to go.