Problems With Our Approach to Knowledge of MS Origins (part 1)

 

Beware mind at workSo often our problem solving approach follows the path of 1) have problem to 2) define problem to 3) find origin to 4) prevent origin to finally 5) the problem is solved.  I think our current approach is stuck at point 2 and then again at 3 when we attempt to skip point 2.

As I continue listening to The Black Swan, The Impact of the Highly Improbable  by Nassim Nicholas Talebin my car, I am struck by three implications of his logic to the question of researching the origins of MS.  I think some of his logic could help explain our difficulty in defining MS’s origins.

1. My starting point prior to hearing the book is questioning why we define MS as one disease.  It is a diagnosis of exclusion.  I was diagnosed after cancer, various sexually transmitted diseases, Lymes disease and a host of other possible diagnosis were ruled out.  It was not A, B or C.  Therefor it must be D.  It could not be any other letter, number, symbol, or yet to be discovered combination of the above.  It is “D.”

“MS” progresses at different rates, impacts different parts of our nervous systems,  and responds differently to different drugs.  Yet despite all of these differences, we assume it is option “D” which in this case is MS.

This insistence of lumping a potential host of possible diseases and conditions under one flag may be part of the problem when it comes to looking for a single cause or origin of MS.

Thought 2: http://thelifewelllived.net/2013/11/26/problems-with-our-approach-to-knowledge-of-ms-origins-part-2/

Thought 3: http://thelifewelllived.net/2013/11/26/problems-with-our-approach-to-knowledge-of-ms-origins-part-3/

Conclusion: http://thelifewelllived.net/2013/11/26/problems-with-our-approach-to-knowledge-of-ms-origins-conclusion/

—————————————————————————————————–

 

Share

2 thoughts on “Problems With Our Approach to Knowledge of MS Origins (part 1)”

Comments are closed.