Thoughts on this article showing some hope

[Andipw3]

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-
shots/2014/06/02/317355068/pregnancy-hormone-may-reduce-multiple-sclerosis-symptoms

I've heard pregnant women ( and read a study as well as my brother in law confirmed from being a rep for an ms drug ) .. Notice all ms symptoms disappear while pregnant. Really worth the read. This drug imitates estrogen. I believe in phase 3 trials. She ( dr) believed in it so much she raised $$ to start the process of studies. Pharm companies wont touch it because they can't paten it. Its worth looking into. I hope!

[HVAC]

I listened to a lecture by this doctor in 2009. This idea has been around awhile.

Alex

[jensequitur]

I felt great while pregnant - the best I've felt in several years. I wasn't symptom free, but pretty close.

The problem with estriol is that it encourages blood clots, and I'm a Factor V Leiden heterozygous carrier for blood clots. So all during my pregnancy I had to take heparin! No fun.

[Andipw3]

That's so great.. Your neurologist bring involved.  Well..I never looked at as miraculous.. But more of hopefulness as something to possibly take along with the med currently on. I believe that is how it would be taken anyway. There's snother article I posted following this one . I believe a pharm company has gotten on board. The FDA has finally approved a patten for it here in the us.  I think it's being used currently in Europe. I need to dive in the articles again to be precise.,
In any event.. I'm just glad it's being looked at.

[immisceo]

It does seem that pregnant women experience fewer relapses, however it would be a mischaracterisation to say that all MS symptoms disappear. Like everything in MS, it depends on the individual. Sadly, we all know that sometimes we have zero symptoms. This can be totally unrelated to the amount of damage going on in the background.

My neurologist actually conducted the large study mentioned and linked to in the article, also found here. (he's second in the author credits) http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199807303390501

The 47% relapse reduction they claim IS better than the older MS drugs, but it's pretty in line with newer gen drugs, like the monoclonal antibodies myself and Kyle are on. So, it's a great start and *could be* of great benefit if it would presumably be much less expensive, but it doesn't sound miraculous.

The reality of properly conducted trials and the approval process means this is likely years from being "on-label" approved for MS even in phase III. But as more and more data come out, it may well be something that doctors are willing to prescribe "off-label". The article you linked to is a year old though, so presumably they're that bit closer. Here's UCLAs press release from last year with a bit more detail. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/preliminary-clinical-trial-shows-great-promise-for-new-multiple-sclerosis-treatment

I'd rather characterise the doctor as "had a hypothesis and secured funding" rather than "believed in it so much and raised money". Semantics, perhaps, but the first is what scientists often do. The latter sounds too much like the lone-wolf maverick doctor narrative, and that rarely ends with anything of use. Good science results from asking a question, not going into it with a predetermined answer. And that's not a little distinction.

The article also highlights that there is funding outside of the pharmaceutical industry. The NIH, MS societies, and academia are chronically underfunded, but they do get money into the hands of researchers. Sadly, the NIH invariably finds its head on the budgetary chopping block. They're still running below 2012 levels thanks to the sequestration which took 5% from them. http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/2014/12/within-nih-s-flat-2015-budget-few-favorites Pharma isn't the only "baddie" in town. It's often Congress.