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 the lesions have been healed, and are no longer active or in evidence.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.

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

I would add that there be a vaccine-like for polio etc-so it could NEVER show it's ugly face again.
Cure for me would be I have "my" life back; could walk (dance) hand in hand with my husband into old age...
Linda

Cure for us means the MS is stopped in it's tracks and will not come back. The damage done sucks, but preventing any further damage is higher on our priorities.

The damage is repaired and what did the damage is gone. In other words, people are leaping up from their beds, wheelchairs, walkers etc. and are able to sing and dance again (or whatever) and don't have to worry about a remission/repeat.

In that I don't believe that's gonna happen anytime in the near future, I'll settle for stopping - indefinitely - disease progression itself.

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