This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

I would just like to say that I only started my posts because of the results of my MRI scan 6 months after starting antibiotic treatment. No misdiagnosis possible here, having seen the original scans. Nobody on that thread seemed inclined to raise a debate: was I supposed to start one myself? I am too busy working to spend all day arguing with myself. I was talking solely from my own experience, which I thought some people might like to share. Merely anecdotal perhaps, but I can't help that.

Once one has been diagnosed with progressive MS in the UK, none of the ABCRs are available. The only possible treatment as and when needed is intravenous steroids. Other than that, it is an appointment with the MS nurse, then go away and get on with whatever the disease throws at you. When my husband started me on antibiotics it was not with any expectation of success. However, we became more hopeful when I started a Herxheimer reaction very soon afterwards, showing that there was a chronic infection somewhere.

No-one has ever claimed that Cpn was responsible for all MS; MS could well be polymicrobial. Cpn makes holes in small blood vessels (you can see this in retinal vasculitis where a fluorescein dye test is used) and makes holes in the BB barrier (that is what causes the white spots in a Gd enhanced MRI scan) and other blood-borne organisms could get into the brain through these holes. Even dormant viruses, which are very much smaller.

Sarah

There's not much to debate because I actually agree completely with you. Our reason for the Minocycline was essentially because our experience was the same as Wilson's - we found my girlfriend's neurologist's office to be dismissive, condescending and unknowledgeable, all at the same time.

I was hoping for a slow, gradual improvement for her when starting on Minocycline because I was hoping that it would have some neuroprotective properties that would help in the long term. Instead, I was stunned by the response: from an immense MS flareup to a complete cure, all in one week. It was after this that I dug around on the web and found David's page at http://www.davidwheldon.co.uk/ms_treatment.html - and now I have changed my mind completely.

After observing the results, there is no doubt in my mind that MS is caused by a bacterial infection, the hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone into research and many immensely brilliant minds who believe that it is an autoimmune condition notwithstanding. I don't think it is wasted, because this research has allowed us to understand somewhat better the human immune system. This is very important for all of us because no one is susceptible to just MS - everyone can get a host of different diseases. But as far as finding a cure for MS, it is aimed in exactly the wrong direction. The bottom line is, you cannot argue with results.

Byron,

A word of caution: you can't really call it 'a complete cure in one week' because the pathogens will only at this stage be being held in non-reproductive mode. I have received much criticism in other places by using the word 'cure'. Time will surely tell, though, because how long does one have to wait with no symptoms and worsenings but just improvements before one can use that word?

The evidence seems to be mounting almost by the day, though, that MS is caused by a bacterial infection, but you are right that the money spent on research by people who firmly believe in the auto-immune theory has not been wasted, because we certainly better understand the human immune system now. And as you say, there are so many other diseases out there, from acne to alzheimers! (see the 'infection' thread)

Sarah