HSCT sounds like the perfect, let's say logical, answer for many diseases. In essence, carpet bomb the immune system and start again. The problem, whether it's MS or something else, is efficacy. The biggest stem cell company is Mesoblast. https://www.mesoblast.com/ They do trials not offer 'cures'. Their focus is on mesenchymal stem cells and they are actively trying to do their work in a manner that meets global best laboratory practice. The FDA keep sending them back to the drawing board because they can't meet measurable end points. In terms of best practice, they would be the gold standard. You would think they would tackle MS but they haven't even tried.
In laboratory settings, there are a number of good research teams. Canada is a leader in that field and actively look at it.
The problem is, when stem cell treatment has been tried in living patients, the stem cells rarely do what they theoretically should do. My guess is that comes down to a lack of understanding about how cells signal each other.
The proponents of stem cells, who say their approach works, have failed to meet the basic research criteria. That means what they claim should be able to be reproduced by someone else. If they were right, then they would not only publish the technique but others could successfully reproduce it. This just hasn't happened. Hence, they are often called charlatans.
Sometimes, someone claims to be cured. It might be the chemo they undergo at the start has enhanced a remission, rather than the stem cell treatment. Even Terry Wahls had chemo and now focusses on diet. The chemo might have helped her but who knows.
Prof Michael Pender, who proposed the EBV model for MS, used a T cell treatment which showed some improvement in a range of MS patients https://msra.org.au/news/anti-ebv-trial ... el-pender/ .This research suppported the idea that the condition can be improved by changing how the T cells work. However, he was not using stem cells.
Cost is not the reason I haven't tried it. There is a clear lack of reproducible evidence despite the logic of the argument. What is missing is irrefutable proof.
I've been diagnosed now for 26 years. For the first 2 years, I took nothing as it was pre interferon days. For 10 years I took Avonex and hated it (but still took it).Until 2014 I was fine except for symptoms like some fatigue. If I had a stem cell treatment any time in that period I could have said I got a positive benefit. In late 2014 I had a whopper of an attack. I take Dantrium for spasticity but no DMDs and I'm quite well. If I had a stem cell treatment perhaps I would have said it helped. The truth is diet, exercise, a couple of supplements and prescriptions that do not even touch my immune system are all I take.
It is still a question of end points. How will they measure success? What will they measure?
HSCT is still pretty vague. Most people can see the opportunity but how do you measure a genuine impact?