These facts highlight a hallmark of IBS, which is a compromised brain-gut connection. IBS routinely presents as recurrent abdominal pain, described as cramping in nature, accompanied by diarrhea, constipation, or both.
These symptoms inform the different categories of IBS:. Consequently, addressing food sensitivities through the management of these triggers features as the mainstay nutritional intervention for treating IBS. FODMAPs, which stands for fermentable oligo-, di-, monosaccharides, and polyols, are small, sugar-containing food components that are fermented by certain bacterial species residing within the gut.
The chemical products of these fermentations, including different gases and water retention, are what precipitate the range of symptoms previously discussed e.
In addition to the low-FODMAPs diet, other evidence-based dietary strategies include supplementation with probiotics and consuming more fiber-containing foods. Gluten sensitivity, although frequently mentioned in the same sentence as IBS, has not benefited from the same degree of scientific support. Despite the broad scientific consensus on common food triggers for IBS, these food constituents will affect individuals differently. Collins, Stephen M. El-Salhy, Magdy, et al. Halmos, Emma P. Ikechi, Ronald, et al.
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, However, for others the disease relapses, is unacceptably resistant to treatment, or the medicines have severe side effects. The specific potential of stem cells for treating patients with MS is exciting and gives hope, but realistically there is tons of hype. I know a lot of people with MS and many more contact me with generally the same question: can stem cells treat or cure MS today?
The most commonly sold stem cell intervention for MS at present involves IV injection of mesenchymal stem cells MSCs from either fat or marrow. Many times the MSCs are propagated in a lab prior to the transplant. To grow or not to grow? One of the most important issues in the arena of using stem cells to treat MS is whether A to use straight, non-manipulated stem cells that are freshly harvested or B to grow the cells in culture first to greatly increase their numbers.
The advantage of A is that the less manipulation there is the fewer regulatory hurdles one is likely to face, although non-homologous use plays in here even if the cells are not grown. The disadvantage of A is that you may have only a few million true stem cells in the mix and that is thought, even by most experts in the for-profit clinic field that I have talked with, to simply be not enough to make any meaningful difference. Think drop in the bucket, or perhaps more like a drop in an ocean of the human body.
The advantage of B addresses this issue. If via growth you can give a patient a billion rather than a million stem cells, you might have a profoundly more powerful therapy. However, the big problem for clinics is that growth in culture makes stem cells a drug subject to more practically challenging and expensive FDA regulatory oversight due to safety concerns.
Getting stem cells into the CNS. One of the challenges of treating MS with stem cells is that it is a disease of the central nervous system CNS meaning the brain and spinal cord. The BBB is vitally important because our bodies need to keep many things out of the brain and spine so that we can remain healthy. Cells are huge compared to many of the small molecules that the BBB filters out. Update: it should be noted that in some disease states the BBB is somewhat compromised and some cells may more readily enter the CNS than usual.
Also, although the evidence that MSCs can cross the BBB is very limited, other types of cells such as human cord blood cells may have higher intrinsic potential to enter the human CNS from the bloodstream. However, even in this case, the published evidence is very limited at this time. Therefore, you can imagine relatively huge things such as stem cells just do not make it across the BBB. That is literally like trying to push an elephant through the tiny holes in your colander.
Some legit proposed stem cell therapies for CNS disorders interestingly invoke direct injection of the cells into the brain itself. I just saw a talk on this recently and it works to get cells into the CNS. A small hole is bored in the skull and a very fine needle is inserted via a device that can pinpoint the location of the injection of the cells. What this all means is that the clinics selling IV stem cell transplants for treatments of MS are either A selling a load of BS that the stem cells can get into the brain from the blood and do good stuff or B have to invoke a different theory that IV injections of stem cells do good things to the CNS indirectly.
Helping MS indirectly via immunomodulation? What good things could stem cells do for MS indirectly via that B option above and how would that work? The idea is generally based on the fact that MS is an immunological disorder.
The body attacks its own nerves in the CNS, damaging or destroying them. Stem cell clinics pitch the idea that injecting say a billion stem cells into the blood stream via a vein could help MS indirectly through immunomodulation, meaning calming down the immune system in general. Unfortunately, in fact, there are some big problems with this indirect idea.
First, stem cells from fat or bone marrow are not supposed to be floating around willy-nilly in the blood stream and your body knows this. As a result, your body filters all these stem cells out, mostly in the lungs where potentially life threatening pulmonary emboli can form , and kills nearly all of them within hours. I highly recommend reading it. Even if we assume for the moment that the transplanted stem cells do indeed have a clinically meaningful calming effect on the immune system in MS patients that still is not enough by itself.
That is impractical and would greatly increase the risks of side effects to patients. The bottom line is that today there is no compelling scientific or medical evidence that IV stem cell transplants of this kind can help MS patients. Show us all in the stem cell community real data. Designer stem cells. One area that has promise, but will take as much as a decade or more to realize, is the production and use of designer stem cells that might treat MS.
These laboratory-produced stem cells would be made to secrete either the same stuff that stem cells naturally make but to a greatly increased extent think , fold higher or to secrete man-made medicines that are helpful for MS. Another idea is to make stem cells that are sneaky and somehow do not get eliminated by the body so they can hang around and do good stuff long term or sneak past the BBB. In these kinds of ways, designer stem cells injected IV or directly into the brain might effectively help MS.
However, this comes with associated elevated risks. Designer stem cells would almost certainly have a much higher risk of causing side effects such as cancer. Bottom line. Stem cells have very important, real promise for MS in the long run as in the coming decades, but the science today does not support their use now in the ways that non-compliant or foreign stem cell clinics are selling them. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
We also thank all participants for sharing their experience with us.
Andorno, R. The right not to know: an autonomy-based approach. Ethics 30, — Archibald, A.
The BS of my MS: Making sense of a disease that doesn't make sense [Lauri L. Wolf] on thylpthandlifhelo.tk *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Multiple Sclerosis. The BS of my MS: Making Sense of a Disease that Doesn't Make Sense - Kindle edition by Lauri L. Wolf. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, .
Perceived relevance of genetic carrier screening: observations of the role of health-related life experiences and stage of life in decision making. Arribas-Ayllon, M.
The practical ethics of genetic responsibility: non-disclosure and the autonomy of affect. Theory Health 9, 3— Genetic Testing.
Accounts of Autonomy, Responsibility and Blame. New York, NY: Routledge. Bandura, A. Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Educ. Barbour, R.