Conclusion Such As It Is
Are we making leaps in assumed knowledge about MS with only 1% more clarity of the entire MS picture? We currently have it in our head that MS is an autoimmune illness unlocked by EBV. Maybe. However, not everyone who is exposed to mono develops MS. What if EBV presents us with one part of a key which unlocks one of the locks on a Pandora’s box of MS? What if the second lock is environmental or physical? What if a third lock is genetics? Given the possibility of all of “MS” being a large collection of boxes from “D” to “123,” are we attempting to generalize too broadly, and is this leading only to disprovable assumptions about the nature of all we include under the MS umbrella?
From point 2, perhaps instead of looking for the origin of MS, we should be looking closer at what happens immediately prior to the first few exacerbations. Maybe we might then see a melting cube or figure to have a better idea what has driven the disease. Instead of trying to go all the way back to the origin, maybe there is an interrupt time period to minimize the impact of MS. I have read some researchers (http://multiple-sclerosis-research.blogspot.com/p/about-group.html) have been looking at the impact of treating patients with the more effective and risky drugs earlier to delay or halt the damage done by MS in the earlier years with the disease.
I have also taken part in research projects trying to map out the passing on of MS to others in our families. For the most part, we have some odds, but little knowledge about the methods. Point 3 makes me wonder if we are looking at the wrong intervals. We all look at our immediate family, and we are pretty confident we know if they have been “diagnosed with MS.” However, so many MS symptoms resemble old age. Our bodies all break down. It’s just those of with MS get those aches and pains along with a thousand other indications of a body’s systems shutting down a little more readily than the healthy population. Given the wide spread use of MRIs is recent, perhaps we simply don’t have enough data points to see the fire-hydrant and disabuse our minds of the idea that we are looking a condom covered penis.
What we see as a trend with our limited knowledge may be no more real than any of the possible answers to the task of identifying “the one correct rule for creating a series of three numbers to match the pattern given by 2,4,6…” We are more likely to guess 1,3,5 or 12,14,16 before stumbling on why those combinations follow the rule without identifying what the rule is. The rule in this case is “any three ascending numbers.” We didn’t have enough information, and with MS I propose we are too early in the patterns to accurately say what the pattern is or even if it is only one pattern.
So What Can We Do (any of which could be a book instead of a line)?
1) Keep testing assumptions.
2) Live the life we have.
3) Treat our disease with the medications we find giving us the best results or known odds.
For parts 1 through 3: