Also the fact that if you read the study, it IS hype. (fromory, because I'm mobile) One study, of 24 people. The treatment is only for 5% of MS sufferers, and it's 70% effective at stopping the progress of the disease. Only 3 of the patients in the study had a reversal like the case they describe, so 12%. And the treatment is incredibly rough on the body. One person in this study died from treatment, but almost everyone else suffered at the high end of the scale.

The not hype version would be "Potential treatment for 3% of MS patients in extreme risk cases! It even reverses the disease for a lucky handful."

It is a bug advance, but... Well this is Vox, after all.

The 5% was for eligibility, because other treatment options had been exhausted for that group - but presumably it could be made available for a wider range as well. Due to the intensity of the treatment the other 95% may opt for a different path.

The treatment is definitely rough on the body as they appear to wipe out the entire immune system via chemo, but the person who died did not die from the treatment itself.

The number of patients experiencing some sort of reversal was 8 out of the 24, or 33%. There were also 7 (I believe) who had the progress of the disease halted. The last 8 did not see the progress reversed or halted, but I was unclear on whether it progressed at the same rate or not. Regardless, it would seem that at least 70% of the participants saw a benefit.

They did also mention that of the 8 that did not see a regression or halt they believed that the cause may have been the timing of the treatment and the prior progress of the disease in those patients. I wonder if the treatment could be started quickly enough if it would be possible to see a regression in a higher number of cases?

Anyways, I wouldn't say it's really hype in any way. There's clear results, and they can likely be improved on to increase the efficacy and availability for those who suffer from MS.

Well the title wasn't "MS universally cured". It's significant progress towards a cure. And curing 3% of a disease that afflicts millions of people is still tens of thousands of lives saved.

And, more interesting, I think, it confirms the theory of what cause the illness. That was not so clear the last time I read about it.

That in itself is a big advancement.

The Lancet article says that one patient died of complications with the transplant procedure, and this was Phase 2. I'm in pharma, not stem cells, but if a patient died due to treatment, the project would be killed. Perhaps the transplant procedure is well-understood along with its risks (I assume you have to transplant into the CNS?), but even oncology drugs aren't allowed to kill patients anymore.

No, not into CNS. It is a well established procedure, is more than a little rough. "Those stem cells were then purified, wiped of any memory of the disease, to later be transplanted into Molson through a blood transfusion."

> Only 3 patients in the study had a reversal

It was actually 8 of the 24 that saw recovery so that's 33%.

Thank you for your diligence.

At this point I'm surprised there aren't Science Researchers with Giant Gold Clocks around their necks to promote a new paper they're spinning.