When is MS - MS?
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 9:30 am
Dear all,
A couple of questions:
When I was dx'd in May my neuro said that I had ms, he's reasoning - the MRI showed scarring in two areas of the CNS (brain and spinal cord). When I went back to see him four months later (as he had asked me to) he saw that I was distressed at the thought of having such a vile disease for the rest of my life, and said quote 'you've only had one attack - hardly multiple is it?'.
I have seen a couple of recent articles (for example the article on this site - 'IV Immunoglobulin After First MS Event Is A Preventative') that have claimed that certain treatments after the first ms 'event' can prevent the onset of ms / delay the onset of ms. If I suffered a heart attack, the medical profession wouldn't require me to have a second attack, before confirming that I had heart problems, and they would provide treatment at the time of the first attack. Why is ms treated differently? If some treatment after the first ms event is preventing or delaying the onset of definite ms - why isn't this treatment being given now? Is there any cases of individuals having an ms 'event' (I assume they mean an attack) and never having another?
As bad as this disease appears at first, it seems to get worse and worse the more I research it. The latest articles I have seen refer to brain 'atrophy'. I assume atrophy means 'death'. One article suggested that brain loss from ms could be in the region of 1-1.5% per year. Does this mean that in 20 years (if I live this long), that I will have lost c.25% of my brain? Will I need smaller hats?
I'm more and more convinced that the devil himself was given a free hand in the creation of this disease.
Bromley
A couple of questions:
When I was dx'd in May my neuro said that I had ms, he's reasoning - the MRI showed scarring in two areas of the CNS (brain and spinal cord). When I went back to see him four months later (as he had asked me to) he saw that I was distressed at the thought of having such a vile disease for the rest of my life, and said quote 'you've only had one attack - hardly multiple is it?'.
I have seen a couple of recent articles (for example the article on this site - 'IV Immunoglobulin After First MS Event Is A Preventative') that have claimed that certain treatments after the first ms 'event' can prevent the onset of ms / delay the onset of ms. If I suffered a heart attack, the medical profession wouldn't require me to have a second attack, before confirming that I had heart problems, and they would provide treatment at the time of the first attack. Why is ms treated differently? If some treatment after the first ms event is preventing or delaying the onset of definite ms - why isn't this treatment being given now? Is there any cases of individuals having an ms 'event' (I assume they mean an attack) and never having another?
As bad as this disease appears at first, it seems to get worse and worse the more I research it. The latest articles I have seen refer to brain 'atrophy'. I assume atrophy means 'death'. One article suggested that brain loss from ms could be in the region of 1-1.5% per year. Does this mean that in 20 years (if I live this long), that I will have lost c.25% of my brain? Will I need smaller hats?
I'm more and more convinced that the devil himself was given a free hand in the creation of this disease.
Bromley