Multiple Sclerosis

[Rajjpuut]

MS is NOT the closed book AMA says . . . 15 Key Questions
________________________________________


Hi All,

If I could do it I would remove my earlier post . . . and replace it with this: I have added two more key questions and sought to address some of the comments and questions I've received -- this blog represents my up-to-the-moment best info. Still haven't got a single doctor to talk to me about it -- frightening how closed their minds are now that MS is considered "auto-immune."

My name is Bob, I'm a health educator from Centennial, Colorado, a Denver suburb, that’s important as you’ll see soon. Seven years ago my now ex-wife was diagnosed with MS. About 3-4 months back another friend also was told she had the disease. I found myself, once again, reading everything I could find on the internet and in libraries, etc. about Multiple Sclerosis

My first reaction after even the slightest bit of reading was that American medicine’s lumping of MS into the auto-immune category was mighty convenient for the drug manufacturers: patients become lifetime subscribers of risky, expensive medicine that will not cure them (since it’s their own body’s immune system that’s attacking them) and have no recourse but to take them till they die.

Sidebar: I also found that there are now 60+ diseases among the auto-immune listings: not quite the same as in Europe where I’m told they treat and sometimes cure MS This seems a very nihilistic and unscientific approach. This also struck me as odd since the AMA had attacked Max Gerson** for research that indicated moderately-quick success in 97% of the lupus cases he’d treated with diet modifications alone . . . and now lupus like MS, is considered an auto-immune disease.

The AMA is only reluctantly admitting that something other than pills, potions and powders prescribed by physicians can cure or heal. None of this auto-immune notion, seemed scientific to me. The very essence of science is asking the right questions, but MS had been conveniently lumped into a category by the authority of the AMA where no further questioning was permitted. This, to me, seemed like church leaders requiring the world to believe that the earth orbited the sun.

I determined to do exactly what science would require: ask lots of questions. To date the doctors and medical journals won’t listen to them, but here they are, my . . . .

15 Key questions regarding MS:


1. Why is Colorado the highest U.S. state for MS per capita?
2. What factors make Colorado Springs the highest incident large city in the highest incident state?
3. Why do women suffer from MS at a rate roughly 2-4 times as great as men?
4. Why is MS less prevalent on the coasts?
5. Why is MS far more prevalent in urban settings than in rural areas?
6. Stickiness of blood platelets has been repeatedly confirmed in MS patients; aberrations in bone marrow has been confirmed for MS victims; why?

7. The percentage of lineoleic acid found in the blood of MS patients is far lower than that in unaffected persons, furthermore patients suffering the most recent deterioration in their condition show the greatest drop in lineolic acid levels which was also true, to a lesser extent of those in the most advanced stages of the disease. Why?
8. Central Nervous System Dilators pioneered as an MS treatment during the 1950’s by Bayard Horton of the Mayo Clinic were apparently quite successful with few or no side effects in relieving acute attacks promptly and often prevented progression? Why?
9. MRI examinations today frequently depict a lack of correlation between symptoms and lesions in MS (often called the “clinico-radiological paradox). What’s going on? If demyelination is the fundamental essential lesion in multiple sclerosis, why is there often no correlation?
10. Trials of sex hormones show they improve lesions as well as symptoms and L-arginine, zinc and magnesium supplements also seem to lesson symptoms. Why?

11. What role do deficiencies of endothelial and neuronal nitric oxide and elevated levels of inducible nitric oxide play in MS? Is this symptomatic or causal?
12. Is better detection the only reason MS incidence has risen so dramatically in the last 40 years, or is some environmental factor exacerbating the situation?
13. What about the “brain leak” theory of MS? That theory says free hemoglobin scavenges nitric oxide avidly, which may create deficiencies especially in the central nervous system, with its greater vasodilator tone. Could depletion of endothelial nitric oxide shift blood from the arterial circulation to the venous circulation in MS sufferers as in diabetics? Could multiple sclerosis result from too little blood in arteries and arterioles leading to vasospastic symptoms? Meanwhile could too much blood in veins and venules lead to blood-brain barrier leakage and lesions?
14. Is there any logical reason for continued loyalty by many to the idea that MS is an anti-immune condition?
15. Is there one over-arching theory that might explain all these factors?

The more I read, the more certain I become that these questions needed to be explained and understood.

An obvious main or, at least, exacerbating factor seems to jump out from the first eight questions: OXYGEN!

Yes, oxygen seemed very important, perhaps even key: either the lack of oxygen to cells; or inefficient processing of oxygen within the cells might hold the answer.

The clearest correlation for Question #1 is that higher altitudes = lower oxygen levels. Colorado is the state with the highest average altitude among the 50 states. As far as Question #2, Colorado Springs, the 49th largest city in the country, is easily the highest large metropolitan area in the country roughly 750 ft. (14%) higher than “Mile-High” Denver.

The correlation continues with Question #3, Women’s bodies and their unique chemistry may make them far more vulnerable than men to MS for any number of reasons, but exploring the OXYGEN HYPOTHESIS among women more deeply . . . women tend to be smaller and society until recently encouraged female physical fitness far less than it did male activity so generally speaking females are less efficient VO max processors than men. Additionally, hemoglobin and iron are more problematical in females during their menses which makes females more likely sufferers of anemia again potentially lessening oxygen-use efficiency.

A factor which I've also noticed and which may not have any bearing on the issue is that females are about eight or nine times more likely than man at any given moment to be engaged in dieting, skipping breakfast and sometimes fad dieting that is just plain nonsensical health-wise . . . which could spark nutrient deficiencies. I've seen nothing about dieting, eating 3-5 regular meals daily, good nutrition, or having a good breakfast in the MS literature, but common sense says, good habits are important and could play a role.
Question #4, the coasts, are by definition, found at sea level hence, lower than 99.9999% of the inland areas of the country with more oxygen available. Additionally, coastal diet is far more likely to include fish with its attendant fish oil (deficiencies implicated in Alzheimer’s, high blood pressure and heart attacks) which aids in oxygen processing.

Question #5, people in rural areas are less likely to face high levels of air pollution (smog) than city dwellers. In particular: diesel fumes, ground level ozone contamination and INHALED nitric oxide contamination are brutal every day facts of life in our largest cities. (By the way: INHALED nitric oxide is confusing in many respects to the layman. A. it is NOT nitrous oxide (laughing gas) once used as anesthetic. B. Our bodies naturally create nitric oxide and it is one of the most important gases found in our blood stream (as reflected in the Nobel Prize for Medicine awarded to Dr. Louis Ignarro) which we will discuss later as it relates to MS. C. Many people realize that nitric oxide is also an important negative component of tobacco smoke. In any case, the obvious effect of air pollution is less oxygen allowed to reach the lungs, heart, brain and every cell of the human body than one would expect from clear, pure country air.

Questions #6 and #7 It’s the blood cells that carry oxygen throughout the body and brain and specifically the red blood cells. It is the bone marrow where blood is made. Any problems with the blood including abnormal lipid and other levels could affect the body’s ability to process oxygen.

Question #8 Peter Good’s thought-provoking website on nitric oxide and MS seems to indicate that there was great success with the CNS vasodilator histamine diphosphate during the late 40's, the 50's and 60's. Today’s “fashion” calls for different meds with greater potential for dangerous side effects. CNS vasodilation with histamine not only consistently relieved a disease now thought to be incurable, it thereby demonstrated that its fundamental lesion may be something entirely different from demyelination???

Having looked at Questions #1-8, that let's examine Question #14, Is there any logical reason for continued loyalty by many to the idea that MS is an anti-immune condition? As a result we regard MS today as incurable because its primary lesion is thought to be relatively irreversible disintegration of myelin sheaths in the brain and spinal cord. That thought pattern has been in place for roughly 50 years. Neurologists who successfully treated MS with vasodilators thought the lesion was REVERSIBLE because the underlying cause – a diminished blood supply in the brain and cord (leading to oxygen lack there) was treatable. Because of the auto-immune assumption, workable theories and workable treatments (and cures?) have been relegated to the trash heap. Certainly some MS cases have reversed, documented cases with lightning strikes, for example, bringing temporary or in rarer cases, permanent reversal of MS. How lightning could ever "re-myelinize" the nervous system is a mystery even beyond the question of how lightning can reverse the symptoms. Unless MS is a psychosomatic disorder, neither the auto-immune nor the demyelination ideas appear to make sense.

Question #9, since MRI results seem NOT to show continued and progressive demyelination as the fundamental and unvarying effect of MS and they don’t rule out oxygen as a key factor, we can continue to keep an open mind toward blood and oxygen as the fundamental truth of the disease. Lest anyone decide that I’m seeking oversimplification of a complex problem . . . Siblerud and Kienholz (1994) compared red blood cell concentrations and hemoglobin levels of MS patients who had their mercury amalgam dental fillings removed against blood values of MS patients who retained their amalgam fillings:

MS subjects with amalgams were found to have significantly lower levels of red blood cells, hemoglobin and hematocrit compared to MS subjects with amalgam removal.... The MS amalgam group had significantly higher blood urea nitrogen and lower serum IgG.... A health questionnaire found that MS subjects with amalgams had significantly more (33.7%) exacerbations during the past 12 months compared to the MS volunteers with amalgam removal. Obviously, while we’re still talking about the blood’s ability to deliver oxygen . . . every indication is that a wide variety of toxins and negative effects might stimulate that same over-arching undesirable effect. The specific trigger may vary from case to case, but the indications are that oxygen and blood might well hold the key to understanding MS.

Just as in AIDS, the possibility that the immune system is responding to an agent like a virus is countered by the reality that no such agent has ever been identified. We know that once identified, if transmitted to any animal or human in clinical experiments that theory could be proved. Retrovirus, where art thou????? In truth, endogenous retroviruses have not yet been proven to play any causal role in this disease. According to PO Behan and A Chaudhuri of Glasgow University, together with BO Roep of Leiden University (2002) contend there is little support for contemporary views that multiple sclerosis is an immunological disease. And not surprisingly, according to them, there is little benefit from treatments based on this misconception. In any case, since no "smoking gun" for MS has ever been found, isn't it a little short-sighted to UNCRITICALLY say that it MUST BE an autoimmunity problem?

Question #10 Some success has been had treating with either or both male and female hormones. Additionally, L-arginine creates nitric oxide in the blood which dilates blood vessels (like the bee venom employed by the Mayo Clinic). Zinc and magnesium are under-appreciated nutrients which play vital roles in human health and are vital for sexual health. In the Nobel Prize winning work of Dr. Louis Ignarro, nitric oxide has been found (as a “trigger gas” operating within the blood stream) to play a vital role in cardio-vascular and sexual health. Certainly the cardio-vascular system is the system where the rubber of oxygen meets the road of blood. Again, the specific trigger for MS may vary from case to case, but there are no indications here that oxygen and blood do not hold the key to understanding MS and certainly there is no outright refutation for that idea to be found in this question . . . .

Question #11 and 13 are best answered and best understood together
through the insights of Peter Good: “Two signs that endothelial nitric oxide may be chronically depleted in multiple sclerosis are that patients tend to be very heat-sensitive, and their platelets are sticky. Sensitivity to stress may reveal depletion of the parasympathetic transmitter neuronal nitric oxide. Other reasons to suspect endothelial nitric oxide depletion in multiple sclerosis are apparent deficiencies of sex hormones, magnesium, and zinc. Estrogen, testosterone via estrogen, and magnesium all utilize endothelial nitric oxide, the primary endogenous vasodilator, to relax vascular smooth muscle. The (most simple and straightforward explanation) of multiple sclerosis might be that too little blood in arteries and arterioles leads to vasospastic symptoms, while too much blood in veins and venules leads to blood-brain barrier leakage and lesions.”

The recent Nobel Prize based upon L-arnithine and nitric oxide gas in the blood being a "trigger" for the body seems to offer a promising area for further study. In any case, Oxygen's potentially primary role would be in harmony with this data since every indication is that the blood’s inability to efficiently process oxygen plays a key role in MS.

Question #12, is easily dealt with, in principle the last 40 years have seen a precipitous rise in all manner of environmental toxins. Polluted foods (steroids in meats, for example), side effects of certain pharmaceuticals, residential toxins (such as arising from carpet liners, asbestos, etc., etc., ad nauseum), the preponderance of intimate electronic devices such as cell phones, and just plain stress all could easily be regarded as potential triggers somehow setting in motion the conditions leading to diminished blood and oxygen to the brain and spinal cord. Obviously, we live in toxic times, but is this really where MS comes from, or perhaps what exacerbates MS? In any case, no refutation of the oxygen hypothesis is found here . . . most likely there are an infinite variety of toxic triggers that may either initiate MS itself, or initiate MS flare-ups.

Question #15 (Is there one over-arching theory that might explain all these factors?) In answering the previous 12 questions we have laid the groundwork for open mindedly considering that “Yes, there could be . . . in particular an overarching theory that holds the key to understanding MS seems to be: a theory of diminished blood or oxygen supply. Multiple Sclerosis should be considered a disease caused by either a lack of cellular oxygen or an INability to efficiently process oxygen at the cellular level . . . and NOT an auto-immune disease.

Live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut

**http://www.robertringer.com/status-quo.html

[sublyme9]

There's another thing I thought of, but forgot to mention before. MS is more prevalent in locations that are geographically further from the equator, such as Scandinavia, Australia and New Zealand, and Canada and Northern USA. Is there a difference in the oxygen levels of the air we breathe as we move further from or closer to the equator? Perhaps there is less CO2 closer to the equator because there are more types of plant life, and countries around there tend to be less technologically advanced so the air could be less polluted... Or could it have something to do with the sunlight? The intensity of the sun's rays is stronger in Australia, and at the poles, where there is less ozone in the atmosphere to filter it. Colorado is similar because of the high altitude, the sun's rays are much stronger and people are exposed to more daily UV radiation. Could this have something to do with MS? Does anyone here know of any research that supports this? Perhaps there is something to do with the consistency of daily sunlight as opposed to the intensity of UV radiation. People near the equator experience much less fluctuation in the amount of sunlight they get from day to day over the course of a year, which is easier for our bodies to adapt to.

Another thing with the oxygen...have any studies been done on SCUBA divers and the incidences of MS among divers? Or other occupations where people regularly breathe different kinds of gases and different oxygen levels? What about people that live in the Himalayas? Or people who have regularly been under general anaesthesia? I'm still curious about studies with athletes too... Maybe I should have gone into epidemiology...