The current definitions of MS are inconsistent. As an example, two recent articles. In the first one, the researchers consider as healthy the relatives of MS patients with MRIs showing lesions in their brains. In the second paper, its authors consider as MS patients people with the same characteristics.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24321155
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24321147
I would say that given this inconsistency, which has been assumed as normal for several years, any research paper, any control group, and any personal diagnosis, should be taken carefully.
Inconsistencies between the current definitions of MS
Re: Inconsistencies between the current definitions of MS
Wow you're on a roll here lately, Frodo.
Thank you for the info...
Mark
Thank you for the info...
Mark
RRMS Dx'd 2007, first episode 2004. Bilateral stent placement, 3 on left, 1 stent on right, at Stanford August 2009. Watch my operation video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwc6QlLVtko, Virtually symptom free since, no relap
Re: Inconsistencies between the current definitions of MS
I finally got something interesting out of my Neurologist's mouth...
My Aunt, who is a Doctor in the U.S., told me of a woman who passed away many years ago. When they did the autopsy for the cause of death, they found the she had "plaques" all over her brain...but she didn't have M.S.
My neuro said that statistically, there is only a 30% correlation between plaques and M.S. symptoms!
Therefore, there is something else going on up there...and we don't know what it is!!
My Aunt, who is a Doctor in the U.S., told me of a woman who passed away many years ago. When they did the autopsy for the cause of death, they found the she had "plaques" all over her brain...but she didn't have M.S.
My neuro said that statistically, there is only a 30% correlation between plaques and M.S. symptoms!
Therefore, there is something else going on up there...and we don't know what it is!!
Re: Inconsistencies between the current definitions of MS
When jugular and azygous outflow obstructions are treated, some people have immediate improvements. So it is not always the lesions that caused the symptoms, if the symptoms go away and the lesions remain.hargarah wrote:Therefore, there is something else going on up there...and we don't know what it is!!
Re: Inconsistencies between the current definitions of MS
I would say that when a patient has MS + CCSVI gets its CCSVI fixed, the symptoms that dissapear are directly produced by CCSVI, while those that remain are produced by MS (and maybe, indirectly, by the previous CCSVI)Cece wrote:When jugular and azygous outflow obstructions are treated, some people have immediate improvements. So it is not always the lesions that caused the symptoms, if the symptoms go away and the lesions remain.hargarah wrote:Therefore, there is something else going on up there...and we don't know what it is!!
Re: Inconsistencies between the current definitions of MS
I like this except it also seems important to note that the symptoms that remain may also be due to incomplete resolution of the CCSVI.frodo wrote:I would say that when a patient has MS + CCSVI gets its CCSVI fixed, the symptoms that dissapear are directly produced by CCSVI, while those that remain are produced by MS (and maybe, indirectly, by the previous CCSVI)
For the original post, yeah, I would not want to be a relative of an MS patient with lesions in my own brain; the odds seem far higher than average that something bad is going on neurologically there. And I'd rather the researchers not use relatives of MS patients as any sort of healthy control group. That seems like a shortcut and with the amount of money and effort that research costs, it takes just a bit more money and effort to avoid things like this that could cast doubt on the findings.