This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Community: Knowledge & Support

Although I have yet to find any research data indicating possible stem cell treatment efficacy for Alzheimer's, the following is at least encouraging for not only Parkinson's, but seems like it could perhaps have some translation to AD and MS. Encourgaing to hear Dr. Oz' treatment availability timeline estimate of less than ten years:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... EPUtU&NR=1

Related info along the same lines as previously posted by Squiffy:

http://www.msrc.co.uk/index.cfm/fuseact ... ageid/1826

There are many other centers other centers available on the internet.Why don't people go for others?

Excellent question regarding this whole broad topic. I don't know the answer for people seeking unproven stem cell therapies in which most stem cell "treatment" facilities around the world are just selling snake oil and profiting from people's ignorance. But for those people that do seek this unproven stem cell treatment I would bet a human behavior study of this would be very revealing. I think it likely it has a lot to do with people's desperation in seeking a solution of their health malady, even if the treatment sought has absolutely zero evidence that it provides any curative benefit.

Not necessarily directly transferrable, but. . . . . I now realize the biggest roadblock for people seeking the "valid" theraputic approach of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) as the only medical treatment of the stem-cell-type having been shown to definitely provide curative benefit for MS, is the cost of the treatment as the main hurdle for most people. As a "real" treatment performed at a "real" medical (hospital) facility, HSCT is quite an expensive procedure. So its understandable most would have to jump a big hurdle to recieve it. However, I personally don't completely understand why people seek, or not the other un-proven stem cell therapies.

I think George, you got it right, the biggest hurdle for most people is the cost of the treatment. As for the survival rate, is it the same for MS patients as for leukemia? How much different are the procedures?

Personally, my biggest concern is my ppms status. It seems to me that neurologists and scientists do not know what is driving ppms. It seems that they only do research in those fields where they expect extra profits. Neurologists told me that currently they believe that in spms and ppms autoimmunity is not the primary culprit, eventhogh if it is there. Probably, this is the reason why they do not give any immunmodulatory drugs for ppms patients. On the other hand, it made me hopeful when I read George's post that 2/3 of ppms patients seemed to benefit from the HSCT treatment. Is there any explanation why the HSCT treatment helps some people and why not others (even with RRMS)? Is there any experience with secondary autoimmunity? Has it occured? Is tthere any long-term risk with chemotherapy applied during HSCT?

I am also wondering if there is any screening to see who has a susceptibility to infection. How about if someone has a track record of repeated urinary infections, etc.?

As for the other stem cell treatments, I agree that most of them are unscrupulously profit driven and not more than snakes oil. On the other hand, it seems to me that the US and the EU lags behind some other countries in the stem cell field as moral and political debates unnecessary stalled these kind of researches. Just as an example, autologous colony expanded MSC trials just recently started in the US and in the EU, while in other countries like in Israel or China they already accomplised many of these treatments. Iran was 3 years ahead of the US with the initiation of colony expanded MSC clinical trials.

It seems to me that some of the treatments that might be approved in 5-7 years are already available today for money (e.g. adipose derived colony expanded MSC treatment is available in Texas, Korea, etc.). Of course, it is a wild guess to choose the proper treatment without an FDA approval, but doing nothing is also risky for a pwms. It is also true that something can be beneficial, eventhough it is not FDA approved, e.g. Omega-3, vitamine D.

A European professor, who spent some time at a Chinese state sponsored hospital, was telling a journalist that Chinese think differently than we do. They do not pretend that they understand how stem cells work exactly, but they do treatments if they see it helps even only some people but do not harm anyone. ...I think we do not understand why MSC treatments might help some people and do not others.

So, maybe it is a wishful thinking, but if Dr Oz is right and a possible treatment option is there in less than ten years, then shouldn't the clinical trials of that "possible treatment" start in a few years? If that is the case then I would assume that in some countries the same procedure would be done while we are still testing them in the US or in the EU. I also do not know how the treatment of Parkinson disease can translate into the treatment of MS.

I often hear this a lot on this site. But lets look at a Nueron:



So in RRMS the main target is the Myelen sheath (white matter) while there may be some secondary damage to the axons. The white matter damage is what shows up on MRI's as lesions.

In SPMS and PPMS the main damage is to axons (grey matter).

So, my question is that if either type of MS is not autoimune why are not the other structures of the neuron such as the cell body (soma) effected. Why is it that only specific areas of the neuron are targets?

For clarification...




NHE

Hi CV Factor,
Here's one more clarification. Your diagram appears to be of the peripheral nerves and not nerves of the central nervous system. I post about this all the time, because I've been diagnosed with both MS and HNPP, a hereditary peripheral neuropathy. Schwann cells are for the PNS and not the CNS (those are oligodendrocytes).

I'll post a bit of info from other threads, but if it's not clear, I can add more, because I write about PNS vs CNS all the time.

Glial cells thread from Squiffy:
general-discussion-f1/topic9065.html?hilit=schwann
And the MSRC article link in that thread:
http://www.msrc.co.uk/index.cfm?fuseact ... ageid=1398
Explanation about glial cells from that article:



And for the sake of explaining why I pay so much attention to these cells, here's a quote from one of the threads where I explained the difference in my case.

The thread:
general-discussion-f1/topic7757.html?hilit=schwann
A quote from me on that thread:


Now, wasn't it nice to have a short break from discussing only stem cells? Carry on.

_________________
Dx'd with MS & HNPP (hereditary peripheral neuropathy) 7/03 but must have had MS for 30 yrs before that. I've never taken meds for MS or MS symptoms except 1 yr experiment on LDN. (I found diet, exercise, sleep, humor, music help me the most.)

I guess my point is that if one were to pursue MSC cell transplantation (which I don't believe is a valid treatment at this point in time) to repair existing damage caused by MS, you must be certain that the disease progression is stopped first.

Otherwise any benefit you would hope to see from the MSC cell transplantation would be damaged again by future disease progression.

I think there is clearly a misunderstanding of what HSCT cell transplantation is (stopping of disease progression) and MSC cell transplantation (damage repair).

As far as I know MSC treatment is both for the suppression or modification of autoimmunity and for damage repair. As I previously posted clinical trials have been already done for MSC abroad (e.g. Iran) and the treatment is done in different countries. The problem is that the results are not convincing. Without HSCT the MSC therapy should be repeated to sustain results, that is true.

To be clearer, from John Hopkins Advanced Studies in Medicine:
http://www.jhasin.com/files/articlefiles/pdf/ASM_9_2_p37_41.pdf

I have recently been to this clinic for treatment for my heart. Also for other problems such as bad hip and knee. They were very attentive to my concerns and my comfort. The treatment took about 5 hours or so and I am very happy with the way it was done. I cannot tell you about results yet because it has only been a week. I will stay on the diet and the vitamin cocktail they made for me. They were very adamant that to go back to what I was doing before would be just wasting my time there. Also, for those who say this is not a vialble treatment, maybe they are right. I will not know until I wait and see for awhile. As for the cost, it did play a role in my decision but they never promised anything and they were willing to return my money if I decided not to have the treatment after the consultation. I do not know about ms other than I have a friend with it. Nasty, nasty disease. willy