I'm highlighting this research because it's the first time that I see more details on the MS destructive process, including cellular level differences between RRMS and P(S)PMS. I had the simplified model that "our immune system attacks myelin, creating lesions." There are more steps to the process. I would provide a summary but I'm afraid of misrepresenting what's actually said in the paper:
RR vs Progressive: Research shows cell-l... - My MSAA Community
Really interesting anaishunter! Thanks for posting. People have brought up the Epstein-Barr virus connection before but this is the first time I've seen an article like this that states that 100% of MS patients carry the virus. I don't ever recall being diagnosed with it or even with one of the euphemisms like mono. I did, however, have illnesses on a regular basis from the time I was an infant until about my early 30's. I guess its possible that one of those was misdiagnosed. The info about the damaged mylein being akin to amyloid plaques is scary since there is no reliable treatment or cure for amyloid plaques. Just have to hope the researchers get this figured out soon!
I previously thought that, in MS, the immune system was the primary attacker. I had never heard before that the immune system attacks the myelin only because it's already damaged and recognized as a threat. More to be understood there...
I read the link to "plaques" as promising because so much investment is being poured into Alzheimer that they are bound to make progress there faster than with MS.
Great questions erash! I guess I assumed that since it was published in Biochemistry that it is peer reviewed and that I could take the info in the article on face value. I checked and Biochemistry is a peer reviewed publication. Maybe I give that too much credit???
Certainly peer review gives us more confidence in the publication but I still want to know how they drew the conclusions they did. If a study states 50% increase but the sample size is small, or not representative and cannot be generalized then 50% isn’t wrong but it’s not really meaningful and is just the beginning of a hypothesis that needs further research. I just need to know more 🤷♀️
I agree 100% erash! I was just explaining to a friend how stats can be subjective depending on how they are presented. Like when a chart is used, the scale of the chart can mislead the reader. He hadn't thought of it that way at all. And as you point out, sample size and quality can make a huge difference in the outcome. I was just relying on the peer review so I appreciate your insight.