Cherie,

You really hit on a lot in a little bit of words, I need to learn to do that.

I boil down many of the thoughts -
1) Does a cure require having the ability to prevent/vaccinate others not yet diagnosed?
2) Does a cure mean you must have a ready antidote for someone after the diagnosis?
3) Does a cure mean you are returned to your pre-illness state or is it acceptable if there is irreparable damage left behind?
4) What if the damage is significant?
5) Is the cessation of progression enough to call a treatment a cure?



Too bad you can't set up a poll on this website. Thank you Cherie for your thoughts. I wonder how each of us has a different experience that effects the degree of change we would require of something called a care. Ken

Yeah, but look how many questions those few words generated for you?

I would love (and prefer ) if they could come out with a vaccine, like we have for measles ... but I'm not going to be holding my breath for that ...

If not that, maybe an anicdote ... but not one that just takes care of the immediate problem (attack/flare). A cure to me would be that it stops the disease in it's tracks, whenever MS is discovered. So, it would NOT be like insulin for diabetes (which means the underlying disease still exists, but it is hopefully "managed" to some degree). The reason I don't like that option is because we all know that it is next to impossible to assess whether these treatments are working to any degree for sometimes many, many years ... I want it to STOP, no if's, and's or but's!!

I wish there would be no damage to contend with after the first event, and if they were able to stop MS in it's tracks immediately after dx, in most cases there wouldn't be. However, for those of us who have had it for years, I think it is unrealistic to think that our nerves could regenerate to pre-MS standards.

For me, the ceasation of progression is a cure. For those who are just starting out with MS, that would mean they didn't accumulate any/much anyway, so that would also be a cure.

We can do poll's on here, Ken. I am going on memory, but I think the option is at the bottom of the screen when you start a new thread.

Cherie

Polio is supposed to be cured. They have a vaccination to prevent it. There has not been many new cases I believe, at least in this part of the world.

But I have friends from my childhood, who are still damaged from the disease, that they got as a child or teenager. Some in iron lung machines died.

Then we have the Post-Polio Syndrome. So when is a cure really considered a cure?

They never did find a definite cause for the Polio in these people, and they never really took away their past damage or treated it.

So there is really no answer to be found in the words, "What would it take?"

To me it would mean:
When MS is wiped off the map of the world, a disease of the past 21 centuries, that no longer exists in the world of the 22nd century perhaps?

MS has been around so long now, probably since time began, people died young back then, before they got any full disease, or a name for it. Until Charcot.

There is not enough research, not enough treatments with a safety factor, the cause and cure are yet to be found. We are only covering a huge wound with a Band-Aid, IMO.

Cherie - Key word - managed. I am not "cured" but at the present time I am "managed," just as you described for those on insulin. The underlying disease is still there and, as I mentioned, can rear its ugly head at any moment. But for the time being I am managed.