Welcome to This is MS, the leading forum for Multiple Sclerosis research and support. Join our friendly community of patients, caregivers, and researchers celebrating over 20 years of delivering hope through knowledge.
https://www.thisisms.com/forum/
Maggie....you don't sound stupid. This is a terrific question, maybe one to ask your family doctors. Hughes Syndrome is a diagnosis differential for MS. It is a disease of coagulation, created by antiphosipholid antibodies. The immune system attacks certain proteins in the blood, and the blood thickens, or hypercoagulates. Clots can form, circulation is hampered, stokes can happen. Some people are in danger of DVT or deep vein thrombosis. If you search the name "misdiagnosed" on the forums, you'll find the story of a gal who went many years with an MS diagnosis before she learned she had Hughes Syndrome.MaggieMae wrote:You are all out of my league here. I don't want to sound "too stupid" but tell me your opinions. In readng about Dr. Z and this vascular issue, two people in our family have MS, but another has Hughes Syndrome (of the veins not arteries). I think Hughes Syndrome is listed as an autoimmune disease. Could there be some connection?
Ever?I don't know if they will ever find a "cure" for MS but I certainly think they will find ways of stopping its progression and maybe even be able to reverse some of the damage done.
I was there when I started looking at this too, it COULD be secondary, but it does not seem to me likely now. But it matters not at all what I think; science will out the answer as long as people look in that area. I'm just glad they hae a new place to look.I am completely on the fence as to whether it is a cause or result of the MS, but I am very excited to see what comes of your endeavors.
Right. I would not make treatment decisions based on the Zamboni work, it is too new and unproven yet, so I agree that pursuing what seems right to you, what is available, knowing what you know now, with input from your doc and family is the right thing to do based on where you are in your disease and what is generally standard of practice for MS treatment. No doubt if this is proven it will be offered to you no matter what you did before.But it's nice to dream that it is the cause and so easy to fix for a little while don't you think?
I am still pursuing chemo/SCT.
Do you ever think that doctors might realize this if it is so obvious weather it’s this approach or one of the many others and change their way of thinking?they have been looking up the wrong tree for 150 years.
My urge is to agree with you but in the interest of total open mindedness, medicine still can't explain or control MS and I'm convinced that researchers missed or didn't check some things well enough the first time around.......I'm afraid to consider ANYTHING "ruled out"despite evidence which seems to show otherwise.Petakitty wrote:I believe it's already been ruled out as the cause of MS. thats the impression got from my neuro. But then he is Tysabri crazy.
BMJ 2002;325:1128 ( 16 November )
Editorials
Infection as a cause of multiple sclerosis
Theories abound because no one knows the answers yet
It is difficult to think of an aetiological theory that has not been suggested to explain multiple sclerosis. Disconcertingly, however, many of the aetiological questions asked over 150 years ago are still unanswered.1 Is the disease due to a vascular defect as initially suggested by Rindfleisch in 1863, who noted a blood vessel in the centre of each plaque, or is it a defect in the glial tissue as argued by Charcot in 1868 after he viewed and drew the glial and nerve changes under his microscope? Oppenheim was certain that multiple sclerosis was caused by environmental toxins. In the middle of the 20th century interest centred around the possibility that it was an immunological disease and, more recently, a genetic disease.
Perhaps the most enduring questions concern a potential infectious agent. In 1894 Pierre Marie, a former student of Charcot, argued strongly that infection was the cause of multiple sclerosis and that those who disagreed had not read his papers. He did not know the specific infective agent but was certain that a treatment would soon be available in the form of a "vaccine of Pasteur or lymph of Koch."1 William Gowers and other writers believed that an infection could aggravate multiple sclerosis but was not the cause. There was a flurry of reports of virus and spirochete isolations and transmissions in the early decades of the 20th century, but none stood the tests of time and reproducibility. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, however, and the infection theory remained strong because it seemed to best fit the developing scenario. Every new antibiotic and antiviral agent is given a trial in multiple sclerosis. Viral infections have been suspected in clusters of cases, including the "epidemic"-like appearance and disappearance of a cluster of cases on the Faroe Islands.2
Intriguing epidemiological but weak virological and immunological evidence has resulted in a bewildering list of usual suspects including measles, rabies, scrapie-like agent, Carp agent, paramyxovirus, coronavirus, Epstein-Barr virus, herpes zoster, herpes simplex virus, human herpesvirus 6, rubella, mumps, canine distemper, Marek's Semliki forest virus, animal and human retroviruses, and human T cell lymphoma virus type I.3 Although multiple sclerosis was on the top of the list of "most likely" when the concept of slow virus infection was being formulated in the 1960s, the transmission experiments were all negative. Interestingly, Stanley Pruziner, recent Nobel laureate for his work on prions, does not have multiple sclerosis on his personal list of possible prion diseases.4
Current scientific interest is focused on chlamydia pneumonia and the Epstein-Barr virus. Epstein-Barr virus has been under suspicion for over two decades, and recently it was noted that patients with multiple sclerosis had an increase in respiratory infections before the onset of multiple sclerosis and a fivefold increase over controls in infectious mononucleosis.5 Is this an indication of a specific role for Epstein-Barr virus or just an indication of a non-specific response of the immune system in patients with multiple sclerosis?
A vascular theory for multiple sclerosis resurfaced with the development of anticoagulants, replaced in the 1960s by an interest in dietary therapies, which had a vascular defect as part of the rationale. Recent work is again focused on the vascular changes as a basis of the breakdown of the blood-brain barrier that precedes the inflammation and demyelination in a multiple sclerosis plaque. Proponents of the infection theory would add that an infection could be the initial event that precipitates this process.
Over the past century and a half, bolstered by a body of observations and anecdotes, proponents of aetiological theories have focused on environmental toxins, "neuropathic constitution," physical and emotional stresses, circulating myelinotoxins and lipolytic enzymes, dietary factors, and vascular thrombosis. Early writers all noted occasional cases in a family but dismissed these as coincidental. Recent research is convincing in showing the risk in siblings and fraternal twins to be about 2-5%, much higher than in the normal population, but about 30% in identical twins, a clear indication of a genetic factor.6 But why don't the two thirds of genetically predisposed identical twins get the disease? The conclusion is that multiple sclerosis is a complex trait, determined by multiple genes and an environmental factor. Is the other factor an infection?
There has been a reluctance to dispense with any theory when the answer is still unknown. So a current popular overarching theory postulates a genetically predisposed individual who develops a viral infection that disrupts the vascular relations in the blood-brain barrier and initiates an immune reaction that continues as a waxing and waning destructive process that damages myelin, and perhaps more importantly in the long term, the axons. But just as a workable and testable theory has evolved, important work by an international group implies potentially four pathological patterns of multiple sclerosis.7 So we must add to the quandary the possibility that we may be dealing with different disorders with different causes. No one ever said medicine was simple.
Jock Murray, professor.
Dalhousie University, Sir Charles Tupper Medical Building, 5849 University Avenue, Halifax NS, Canada B3H 4H7
It's not me. It's the facts. Objective and cruel.Thanks for putting a positive spin on the whole thread!
same hereI would be more than happy if I slept and didn't wake up tomorrow.
CURE? I'm not familiar with everyone's definition of the word "CURE"chrishasms wrote:I think the HiCy, or the other immune rebooting that is out there will soon be the norm.
