Friday, May 23, 2008

Why I Could Use Stem Cell Therapy

I have Multiple Sclerosis, and have another little blog (click here for link) specifically about MS, and about the treatment I'm taking, called low dose naltrexone, or "LDN". LDN doesn't repair or reverse the nerve damage already present, but it does seem to do a good job of preventing further damage. Stem cell therapy might actually repair the old damage, which would obviously be even more life-changing than halting the progress of the disease.

Here's an article from my other blog with basic information about the prognosis for patients with the commonest form of MS, Relapsing Remitting MS, with no holds barred- just the cold, hard facts, ma'am.

Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS) Prognosis~
(Warning: not-Candy-coated!)

It is a troubling fact that almost all newly diagnosed Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (RRMS) patients and their families, upon requesting and expecting an honest assessment of what to realistically expect in the future, are deliberately fed "candy-coated" or downright misleading statistics. Whether the BS comes from a physician or from the NMSS (National Multiple Sclerosis Society), as a true believer in accurate thinking and complete information, getting manipulated when I've asked for the truth really bothers me!

This widespread withholding of the more discouraging statistics re: the likely long-term prognosis for the average MS patient is no doubt done with good intentions; it's simply an attempt to avoid "unduly upsetting" the newly-diagnosed and their loved ones. In fact, my own doctor told me that not too long ago, many doctors never even told their MS patients that they had (or might have) MS, because conventional medicine had nothing to offer anyway, so they rationalized lying to the patient by saying that "the stress of learning about the diagnosis could bring on an exacerbation of the illness".

Yeah? Well, baloney I say; total baloney.

Knowledge is power! And keeping patients in the dark is at best misguided, and in fact outright insulting, patronizing, eventually pointless, and is a perfect example of an outdated, paternalistic approach to the doctor-patient relationship.

Keeping the patient in the dark will eventually destroy trust as surely as it utterly defies the concept of patient education and "informed consent", not to mention plain truth. Those of us actually living with the disease have to experience whatever exists and lies ahead for us regardless of what we're been told, and I for one find that being lied to is generally much less helpful than actually being fully prepared with accurate information.

Those incomplete or misleading statistics to which I refer typically stop deliberately at 15 years after onset of symptoms; they really don't like to mention what happens after 20 years, because by then statistics are noticeably bleaker.

So if you're sure you're ready...

MS Statistics at 20 years out, Harshly Unsweetened

1. 90% of RRMS patients will develop Secondary Progressive MS (SPMS)

2. 80% of MS patients will have at least some degree of bladder dysfunction

3. 80% will have cognitive problems (the ability to multi-task in particular tends to ebb)

4. 70% will have at least some degree of sexual dysfunction

5. 50% will not be able to walk unaided

6. 66% will have at least some degree of pain from MS

7. 40% will never be pain free

8. 33-50% will have at least some degree of dysphagia (difficulty swallowing)

9. 10% will be institutionalized due to severe cognitive dysfunction resembling dementia

10. Up to 15% of MS patients die by suicide*.
*In 1991, the death by suicide rate was found to be 7½ times greater for MS patients than for non-MS patients; recent, larger studies however, indicate the suicide completion rate among MS patients is much higher, closer to 15% overall.

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Is a Stem Cell a Baby?

...if an acorn is an oak tree. Maybe there's room for opinion, but if you've ever spent a hot summer day clearing Texas scrub oak, you can appreciate the difference.
Above, a blastocyst under scanning electron microscope. Obviously not a baby,. (Photo by Dr. Yorgos Nikas)

But stem cell research is an emotional issue for some people, and accurate thinking on the subject can be hard to find in some quarter, like in the White House.. Our current President, who can somehow send thousands of twenty-something-year olds to be killed in Iraq on his fool's errand, claims to have such a highly-evolved "conscience" that he knows that even a one-minute-old zygote is literally a baby, and that any interruption in the process of cellular division at any point would be nothing short of "murder". (Every sperm is sacred...) Unfortunately, this overactive imagination has forced him to veto all bills promoting stem cell research.

For reference, THIS is an actual baby, circa 2003.


The last such bill would have allowed research exclusively on embryos that are definitely going to be destroyed otherwise...but Bush he have power and Bush he say no.

What I don't get is, how can you call yourself Pro-Life if you're Pro-War?

Why does microscopic, potential life trump the needs of actual living, breathing human beings?

The question isn't just "when does human life begin", but "when does human life cease to deserve protecting?" At birth? At age 21?

As a 57-year-old MS patient, I have selfish as well as broader reasons to want stem cell research to continue unimpeded; it could eventually help me re-grow the damaged or missing "insulation" around the nerves in my brain, thus greatly restoring my life and hopefully allowing me to go back to work. Or at least to pee without using a damn catheter...

Another view of a sacred blastocyst. (Getty Photo)

And again, for reference, an actual human baby, above, circa 1950.