Remember that in England "approved" treatments or medication comes free, but costs the client if not approved.
http://multiple-sclerosis-research.blog ... g-too.html
They intend to use the patients own stem cells to avoid graft vs host disease but if that works then aren't they a few steps away from looking at what went wrong as the original cells matured? There are alternative paths they could choose. e.g EBV requires B cells to survive. If you ablate the B cells with Rituxumab the EBV will not persist. Of course - no B cells you soon die! Hence you probably need stem cell replacement or to pull back the treatment before you go too far. Will that work?There's probably a range of other things they look at. If it doesn't work what then? Do they have a plan?
How do they measure success or failure? Is Rituxumab a targeted treatment that needs to be finished with stem cells? Can you do that? How do you measure the outcome? How does long term damage from demyelination or brain shrinkage be allowed for? If it's only for recently diagnosed people how do they choose the cut off point?
I really like the topic but they tend to debate it like it's "mines bigger than yours" rather than saying what they are targeting. Weeds still grow at Chernobyl so I'd like to hear what they think they are targeting by trying either approach.
- Similar Topics
- Last post