The word "cure" was used recently in a thread. It's a word that can cause arguments and debate. Some of us use it to mean different things and I bet that some of us get stirred up by it. In my opinion this isn't a word we can just throw around casually. But, it intrigues me to wonder about it.

So, if you will excuse me, I'll ask a rhetorical question. I mean maybe not entirely rhetorical, but somewhat, or maybe mostly. I mean, I read Dr. Weiner's Book a while back which also shares this thought. Ken

What would it take to say that someone is cured or being cured of MS?

That the disease has been stopped. the lesions have been healed, and are no longer active or in evidence.


As for the removal of damage already caused by the MS, I am not sure where the words lay on that one, but its a great question.

When the disease is gone and the patient is living MS free. Oh Yes, and the damage done, by MS, can be repaired....in time.

That the disease is gone and is not coming back-- its not in remission, its gone.

What would it take to say that I have been cured of MS?

Cure - to restore to health
IF a substance “GIFT15 like” worked in humans, I would say that I was forever cured of the damaging effects of MS.
I would still have the underlying disease theoretically, but it’s damaging effects on my cns would have to be completely neutralized for me to use the words “cured” or “restored to health”.
Damage already done to my cns would still exist and would need to be addressed via some sort of stem cell therapy.
IF it were possible to repair the cns via stem cells (non-embryonic for me), I would then state that I was cured of the damage that MS has had on my cns.

The disease still exists, it has not been eradicated, rather it has been completely and forever neutralized and all previous cns damage repaired, this is my definition of “restore to health”. Under this definition, I would say that I have been “cured” of MS.

I find this perspective interesting. It doesn't sound like you're requiring that we have certainty about having addressed the cause. Instead it sounds like you want to simply experience a ceasation of the disease process and that a reversal of damage could be a separate issue, albeit an important one.

It is my understanding that some, such as Dr. Weiner, have stated that 3 progression-free years would be the minimum for a personal "cure". While I understand that this doesn't identify the cause, I find it interesting. Ken

I was first DX with MS at age 35. I then was in remission, symptom free and absolutewly no progression of the disease for 18 yrs, when, at 53, I had my second exacerbation.

Was I cured?? No!! Dr Weiner can call it what he want's, but remission is NOT a cure.

I wish your wife a long remission.

Thanks Sally,
Have you been symptom free since the second one? It would be a really great thing if we could all hold back the effects of MS like that. Do you attribute that to a particular intervention? I'm always interested to know what works for folks.

Kim had exaserbations with recurring frequency, about one every year or two, including while SPMS on Novantrone. She's had a lot of 5-day Solumedrol drips, so for her - going 27 months with no relapse is a significant change from a well established pattern.
Ken

From what I have read, any type of real cure or any med that really works to ameliorate symptoms is a long way off. I am sure I will be long dead and planted before this day arrives.

Just getting through the day, week, month or year takes up my energy now. Wondering about a cure is not on my "Bucket List" of things to do before I croak.

I do not intend to minimize your legitimate question, but the infamous "just around the corner" speech that most of us MS'ers have heard no longer means beans to me.

gmi

This question comes up every now and then. For me, a cure is not in the works until the body is repaired and no more lesions ever reappear.

Just stopping the disease is not good enough to be classified as a "cure".

gmi