take the person that is diagnosed with ppms right from the start and now years later they are very disabled did this person get there without any inflamation that was noticable on an mri,and if it took allot of inflamaton to get to the point he's at (which i assume it did)why were there no drugs for him?
this person is someone i worked with who is now in a long term care facility.
- Family Elder
- Posts: 5359
- Joined: 11 years ago
- Location: southern California
- Been thanked: 1 time
Bob...The name of the blood test Jeff has is an ESR, Erythrocyte sedimentation rate. His GP ordered it because of all his weird petechiae and bruises....she was ruling out leukemia and vasculitis, which were negative, but this test keeps coming back high. It is a non-specific test, and all it does is show inflammation. I'll bet the bank that all MS patients have high Sed rates on this test.
I'm considering consulting a hematologist on this one.
I agree with the world according to Bob. RRMS is the stage when disability is low because of plasticity and lack of damage. As the inflammation and damage continue, you just run out of nerves to rewire.
Doesn't mean we're giving up the good fight, however!
dx dual jugular vein stenosis (CCSVI) 4/09
I'm curious and hope you're not offended, but whose theory is that besides yours Bob? I've never understood that to be the major question in the inflammation vs. neurodegeneration debate.That's the first nail in the "neurodegeneration in the absence of inflammation theory.
Thanks! All references welcome and appreciated.
Thanks Bob--I'm really not trying to pick on you. I just don't have a clue as to why you repeatedly focus on neurodegeneration without inflammation. I have the impression that's a major point you're trying to make and obviously refute, but WHY?big meanie who likes to pick on Bob wrote:
I've never understood that to be the major question in the inflammation vs. neurodegeneration debate.
You've never understood WHAT to be the big question in the inflammation vs neurodegeneration debate?
According to your theory, as I understand it, the question would be: Is there neurodegeneration in the absence of inflammation? My question to you is: Do you think that's the question they're trying to answer in the neurodegeneration vs inflammation debate?
Responding to your "afterthought"--sorry, didn't see it before.
there are those who question whether inflammation is responsible for neurodegeneration
Ok, I understand the second quote as one interpretation of the Campath trial. Inflammation was more or less eliminated but brain atrophy continued in people with SPMS.there are those who take the lack of "evident" inflammation on MRI and continuing neurodegeneration to mean that there is such a thing as "neurodegeneration in the absence of inflammation"
I've just thought the focus in the debate was primarily centered on which came first--the neurodegeneration or the inflammation?
There are definitely MS researchers who theorize that the neurodegeneration occurs before the inflammation and that the inflammation is secondary to the neurodegeneration. I don't know that they generally believe that inflammation doesn't ultimately contribute to neurodegeneration though.
I tend to think the neurodegeneration just might precede and result in the inflammation, but the inflammation (visible/invisible) could also certainly contribute to the neurodegeneration.
Hopefully that sorts it out....
- Similar Topics
- Last post