I feel for your brother -in - law, we can only hope that the current info is correct.

I watched that programme, John Swinney's wife is a brave woman too. She has no idea what the future will bring.

I am conscious that if a particular disease affects our own we are more interested, it is not that we have less sympathy for others but our personal knowledge encourages the passion we feel for a cure for that particular disease or condition.

I feel the way you do about cancer.

If a drug could make a lot of money then drug companies will fund research but someone must show reasonable proof that that this may work.

The NHS does not have the money now to fund research in a big way, to be fair our abilities as a country to find cures has outstripped our ability to pay. We pay so much for drugs from abroad which are so expensive.

LYDIA REID wrote:
I feel for your brother -in - law, we can only hope that the current info is correct.

I watched that programme, John Swinney's wife is a brave woman too. She has no idea what the future will bring.

I am conscious that if a particular disease affects our own we are more interested, it is not that we have less sympathy for others but our personal knowledge encourages the passion we feel for a cure for that particular disease or condition.

I feel the way you do about cancer.

If a drug could make a lot of money then drug companies will fund research but someone must show reasonable proof that that this may work.

The NHS does not have the money now to fund research in a big way, to be fair our abilities as a country to find cures has outstripped our ability to pay. We pay so much for drugs from abroad which are so expensive.

Lydia, if you find an article Elizabeth Quigley wrote for the Sunday Herald or the Herald (I found it on Google) you will also see comments attached to it questioning some of the things she said. One issue was about how easily she got access to beta-interferon something many MS sufferers find difficult if not downright impossible. That drug can reduce and even wipe out relapses for the sufferer. It is denied usually on the basis of cost. Elizabeth is eight years into her illness and admitted herself the drug appeared to have slowed her relapses considerably.

I am not "conscious" of this disease simply because I have someone in my family who suffers from it. I am simply passionate in my belief that we are all equal and I am equally passionate about the NHS treating patients and giving them the best chance possible when fighting a condition such as this. Beta-interferon had been researched and tested yet the basis for not prescribing it was cost. The same goes for cancer. How many times do we see particular drugs being rationed when people are living under a death sentence? Yet suddenly AIDS appeared and they couldn't stop throwing money at it. Look at the advances they have made on AIDS alone since it first came into the spotlight. All because the money was poured in for that trendy disease from day one. There was no "reasonable proof" on anything, the money initially went into raw research to find the answer to AIDS. But they got the money to begin it and the investment continues.

NHS patients pay their way through their working lives and the NHS is not a charity. Governments are responsible for the NHS and goodness knows they take enough in taxes and NI from us. It's our money, not theirs.

What's the opinion of posters on the taking of cannabis relating to MS?

The government should have by now put the money into the much needed research to take the parts of cannabis that help MS and make it into a drug that will relieve pain. Enough research exists to show this is possible. Why should people be made criminals to ease their pain. I have real problems with pain relief because of stomach problems and it may be that this would help. I am very sure some worse than me are buying this and it is helping. I am also sure their are many like me who would not take it as it exists at the moment , one because it may not be safe, I would not know whether it is or not. In its present form it can cause mental health problems. Two because it is illegal.

dws wrote:
What's the opinion of posters on the taking of cannabis relating to MS?

I understand it can provide relief for some symptoms of MS although I'm not sure cannabis helps for more general pain relief. I think if MS sufferers find it helps them then they should be able to use it. Ultimately real research into real solutions is what is needed for MS. This country has the numbers (in terms of sufferers) to justify extensive research long before now. I don't see cannabis as a real solution. Beta-interferon should be available to MS patients when its benefits are already known.

I have personal experience of both MS, and HIV - I have two close friends with MS, my first lover died of AIDS and I have a couple of other friends who are HIV+. I wouldn't say one ill person was less deserving of treatment than another because I personally happen to find how they acquired their illness to be a bit distasteful. In fact it's pretty distasteful (and goes against medical ethics) to make such a suggestion.

Some posters above are confusing two quite different types of health funding. Firstly there is money spent on public health promotion and health awareness campaigns. This is most usually government money. These campaigns are directed at conditions where a change in behaviour can produce a significant reduction in the incidence of the illness.

A public health campaign promoting safer sex greatly reduces the incidence of HIV infection in the community, which in turn means fewer people develop AIDS and less overall cost to the NHS. Public awareness programmes have prevented Scotland from having a rate of HIV infection like Swaziland's, where 38.8% of the population is HIV+. I think that's money well spent.

The amount of money spent on a campaign is based on the potential risk of the illness or disease concerned. The potential risk to the public health of HIV infection is vastly greater than the threat of MS. There is no threat of an MS epidemic affecting almost 40% of the population. That is a simple medical fact.

From the point of view of public health, it is not cost effective to mount an MS awareness campaign. MS is not infectious, can't be prevented by making simple changes to behaviour, and greater public awareness isn't going to stop anyone developing it.

Money spent researching a cure or a preventative vaccine is quite different. Most of this money comes from the private sector, from pharmeceutical companies. The big drug companies base their investment on what they see as the likely financial return. More money is going to be spent on conditions which have a known cause because then there's more chance of success. The potential market for a vaccine against HIV is enormous (everyone who is sexually active, medical staff, anyone requiring a blood transfusion, etc.), and there is a known cause. The potential market for a vaccine or cure for MS is tiny by comparison, and the cause remains unknown (but is highly unlikely to be something as simple as infection with a virus). Relatively little research money comes from the public purse, but just like in the private sector, spending decisions are made according to cost/benefit and risk analyses based on medical advice.

But back to the topic of this thread. Are Scots responsible for the world we live in?

No. Bad boys done it and ran away.

www.dfid.gov.uk/aboutdfid/performance/fi...p18-%20HIV-study.pdf

www.mssociety.org.uk/research/research_grants/index.html

The above posts detail money spent on both diseases I would say that is quite definitely against medical ethics. The disparity is obvious. Research into Aids attracts a great deal more government money than MS would.

I could find no article stating that the British or Scottish Government has put any money into any research for MS, obviously, because I cannot find it does not mean that it does not exist.

The figures given in the programme so many of us watched, I think, gave the figure of one in four or one in five people in Scotland will in varying degrees get MS. The figure stated by the BBC is one in every 500.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7519850.stm

The point we made about the difference is, MS strikes without any deliberate contributing factors from the person who contracts it. Aids is different. It is a sexually transmitted disease. It comes under the same heading as me smoking. I am intelligent enough to know the dangers. Many years ago when I started smoking less was known, I cannot make that excuse now. Smoking kills through heart disease, lung cancer, asthma and many other illnesses. I am a strong enough person to stop if I want to and I don't I have made that choice.

Should research into smoking related diseases take precedence over research into MS my answer would be no. Hard as it sounds, it is true and fair.

Before you jump to any conclusions about my post of course, I am not stating that once a person has contracted Aids they should not be treated. The ethos of our NHS is one I agree with that if a person is ill they should be treated.

If we look though at the £millions spent on abortion, if some of that had been directed at MS research or cancer research then we may have found the cures by now. Abortion is also a life choice in many cases. Men and women decide to have sex then decide they do not want to live with the consequences of that choice. Obviously there are a few exceptions but they are exceptions to the general rule.

Hi Lydia - Thanks for replying. I did point out in my previous post why it is that HIV / AIDS research gets more funding than MS research. It's because HIV / AIDS presents a potential threat to public health in a way that MS doesn't. That's the reason for the funding disparity you point out. Most of the funding detailed in the link you posted about HIV relates to public awareness and disease prevention programmes. That particular document was published by the Dept for International Development and details funding on HIV / AIDS prevention and control strategies abroad, the funding is part of the UK's foreign aid budget and doesn't come from the NHS.

I explained above why MS isn't responsive to health awareness or disease prevention programmes and so similar strategies for MS would be a waste of money. It's entirely to do with the clinical differences between MS and HIV.

MS isn't the only medical condition to lose out this way. There is very little public funding a whole range of diseases, such as Motor Neurone Disease, Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy, Spina Bifida, Cystic Fibrosis and many others. What all these illnesses have in common is that they appear in the population at a fairly constant and predictable rate which is low in comparison to many other diseases, and none will show a reduced rate of incidence because of a public awareness or disease prevention programme.

Equally, if no action is taken none of these conditions are likely to show a sudden huge increase in the number of people diagnosed. We're not faced with a possible major epidemic of MS or Motor Neurone Disease. The health service can predict in advance approximately how many people will be diagnosed with each of these conditions every year and budget accordingly.

Government funding into cures depends upon the number of people the cure is likely to benefit, and the impact on cost to the health service. The bottom line is that it may well cost vastly more to fund a serious attempt to find a cure for MS or Cystic Fibrosis than it does to provide care for those people who already have the illness, so the public health service is unwilling to pay for the research. It's not cost effective when the total research budget is so limited. And while the research is going on, the health service still has to find the funds to pay for the treatment of those diagnosed with the condition.

On the other hand it's much harder to predict how many people will be diagnosed HIV positive or diagnosed with some types of cancer or heart disease. It's therefore more of a priority to find ways of curing or controlling these conditions because costs could potentially go through the roof if no action is taken. Even more importantly, if no action is taken costs related to these conditions WILL rise, due to the clinical nature of the conditions.

The entire government budget for health research in the UK is £500 million a year. That's for all health research, not just research into cures or vaccines for cancer or AIDS or anything else. It also includes things like pilot studies, information gathering exercises, patient surveys and the like.

All this means conditions like MS and Motor Neurone Disease are lower down the priority scale when it comes to public funding. I'm not saying this is fair, I'm just explaining how it works when health funding is a finite resource.

Hi IA

First I would be interested where you get your figures from.

I can understand the point you are making but I just don't agree with spending so much on what amounts to advertising campaigns. Do you really believe that there are many people “on earth� who do not know what Aids is and how you get it. If they exist, I think they must be very few. Money down the drain.

Money that could be spent on finding a cure for all the above diseases that you mentioned. The diseases that people can do nothing about. As far as we know, it makes no difference to MS, Motor Neurone Disease, Duchene’s Muscular Dystrophy, Spina Bifida, and Cystic Fibrosis if people do not smoke or have sex. So your point does have merit from this angle, this money is spent on advertising campaigns and that this type of advertising would not make a difference to all those other diseases you mention., but it is still money spent on Aids that could be spent on finding a cure for diseases that are not self-inflicted. It is my view that the potential health threat from aids will not be averted by advertising.

We live in this selfish and self-centred world. A world that includes many who think it is ok to abuse their body and expect the government and NHS to pick up the tab. I include myself in that description. If I developed lung cancer, tomorrow I would expect treatment. So back to the original point for me it is not fair to spend so much on Aids and so little on the diseases that are not self-inflicted.

If the Government did not spend this money on the foreign aid budget, it could spend it on our own country in research. The reason the budget is so large is that they wanted to put money into advertising to tell people that having unprotected sex could lead to aids. Total waste of money.

To make another point, why, should our country put so much money into telling people in other countries not to have unprotected sex, particularly when this has not worked in our own country?

I have often wondered what the reaction from the general public would be if the government spent money on advertising, which simply said in so many years from this date any person, contracting Aids from unprotected sex would not be treated. No woman can have an abortion other than for rape or a real medical emergency unless you pay for the abortion. Smokers do not get treatment for lung cancer, unless you stop smoking from today. Drinkers do not get liver transplants unless you stop drinking from today, do you get the idea.

The money saved will be put into research for all the above diseases that are contracted by people who have no control over whether they get them or not.

InfrequentAllele wrote:
Hi Lydia - Thanks for replying. I did point out in my previous post why it is that HIV / AIDS research gets more funding than MS research. It's because HIV / AIDS presents a potential threat to public health in a way that MS doesn't. That's the reason for the funding disparity you point out. Most of the funding detailed in the link you posted about HIV relates to public awareness and disease prevention programmes. That particular document was published by the Dept for International Development and details funding on HIV / AIDS prevention and control strategies abroad, the funding is part of the UK's foreign aid budget and doesn't come from the NHS.

I explained above why MS isn't responsive to health awareness or disease prevention programmes and so similar strategies for MS would be a waste of money. It's entirely to do with the clinical differences between MS and HIV.

MS isn't the only medical condition to lose out this way. There is very little public funding a whole range of diseases, such as Motor Neurone Disease, Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy, Spina Bifida, Cystic Fibrosis and many others. What all these illnesses have in common is that they appear in the population at a fairly constant and predictable rate which is low in comparison to many other diseases, and none will show a reduced rate of incidence because of a public awareness or disease prevention programme.

Equally, if no action is taken none of these conditions are likely to show a sudden huge increase in the number of people diagnosed. We're not faced with a possible major epidemic of MS or Motor Neurone Disease. The health service can predict in advance approximately how many people will be diagnosed with each of these conditions every year and budget accordingly.

Government funding into cures depends upon the number of people the cure is likely to benefit, and the impact on cost to the health service. The bottom line is that it may well cost vastly more to fund a serious attempt to find a cure for MS or Cystic Fibrosis than it does to provide care for those people who already have the illness, so the public health service is unwilling to pay for the research. It's not cost effective when the total research budget is so limited. And while the research is going on, the health service still has to find the funds to pay for the treatment of those diagnosed with the condition.

On the other hand it's much harder to predict how many people will be diagnosed HIV positive or diagnosed with some types of cancer or heart disease. It's therefore more of a priority to find ways of curing or controlling these conditions because costs could potentially go through the roof if no action is taken. Even more importantly, if no action is taken costs related to these conditions WILL rise, due to the clinical nature of the conditions.

The entire government budget for health research in the UK is £500 million a year. That's for all health research, not just research into cures or vaccines for cancer or AIDS or anything else. It also includes things like pilot studies, information gathering exercises, patient surveys and the like.

All this means conditions like MS and Motor Neurone Disease are lower down the priority scale when it comes to public funding. I'm not saying this is fair, I'm just explaining how it works when health funding is a finite resource.

Can I just say this is complete CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Clare wrote:
InfrequentAllele wrote:
Hi Lydia - Thanks for replying. I did point out in my previous post why it is that HIV / AIDS research gets more funding than MS research. It's because HIV / AIDS presents a potential threat to public health in a way that MS doesn't. That's the reason for the funding disparity you point out. Most of the funding detailed in the link you posted about HIV relates to public awareness and disease prevention programmes. That particular document was published by the Dept for International Development and details funding on HIV / AIDS prevention and control strategies abroad, the funding is part of the UK's foreign aid budget and doesn't come from the NHS.

I explained above why MS isn't responsive to health awareness or disease prevention programmes and so similar strategies for MS would be a waste of money. It's entirely to do with the clinical differences between MS and HIV.

MS isn't the only medical condition to lose out this way. There is very little public funding a whole range of diseases, such as Motor Neurone Disease, Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy, Spina Bifida, Cystic Fibrosis and many others. What all these illnesses have in common is that they appear in the population at a fairly constant and predictable rate which is low in comparison to many other diseases, and none will show a reduced rate of incidence because of a public awareness or disease prevention programme.

Equally, if no action is taken none of these conditions are likely to show a sudden huge increase in the number of people diagnosed. We're not faced with a possible major epidemic of MS or Motor Neurone Disease. The health service can predict in advance approximately how many people will be diagnosed with each of these conditions every year and budget accordingly.

Government funding into cures depends upon the number of people the cure is likely to benefit, and the impact on cost to the health service. The bottom line is that it may well cost vastly more to fund a serious attempt to find a cure for MS or Cystic Fibrosis than it does to provide care for those people who already have the illness, so the public health service is unwilling to pay for the research. It's not cost effective when the total research budget is so limited. And while the research is going on, the health service still has to find the funds to pay for the treatment of those diagnosed with the condition.

On the other hand it's much harder to predict how many people will be diagnosed HIV positive or diagnosed with some types of cancer or heart disease. It's therefore more of a priority to find ways of curing or controlling these conditions because costs could potentially go through the roof if no action is taken. Even more importantly, if no action is taken costs related to these conditions WILL rise, due to the clinical nature of the conditions.

The entire government budget for health research in the UK is £500 million a year. That's for all health research, not just research into cures or vaccines for cancer or AIDS or anything else. It also includes things like pilot studies, information gathering exercises, patient surveys and the like.

All this means conditions like MS and Motor Neurone Disease are lower down the priority scale when it comes to public funding. I'm not saying this is fair, I'm just explaining how it works when health funding is a finite resource.

Can I just say this is complete CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Infrequent whoever, can you explain in what capacity you DARE to dismiss MS as being less important than AIDS? I would like that clarifeid at once if you don't mind.

The fact is that you are talking complete crap. AIDS had money thrown at it because of bodies compaigning for it because of the groups affected. IE Homosexuals. IE Not the poor of Africa, just homosexuals. Groups like Stonewall or whatever they are called.

FACT MS has been around a lot longer and got no funding. Your post made me so bloody angry. How dare you dismiss people with illnesses such as MS with such indifference. I feel for the poor in African who have AIDS because it is not their fault. I do not feel for those who have this illness because of their lifestyle and I deeply resent your inference that YOU are more important than those who have an illness like MS through no fault of their own. I think your arrogance is astonishing and breathtaking but more importantly I find your casual explanation downright offensive. Call me homophobic if you want. I am not. I will call you self-centred and downright selfish. Your post is appalling in its blatant disregard for those who have suffered far longer than AIDS sufferers have and yet you abandon them because they are not a "priority". You people? You make me sick! You are all about you and your little group and you do not give a toss for anyone else!

GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT TO ALL TAXPAYERS. YOU MAY WORK AND PAY YOUR TAXES BUT HEY, IF YOU DON'T HAVE A "TRENDY" ILLNESS, SOD YA! RESEARCH IS OUT THE WINDOW. GET OVER IT!

Clare, you're letting your prejudice totally blind you .

What A I said is perfectly true - an issue with a public health aspect will always be given priority and, in my view, quite rightly so.

A I appreciates the unfairness of it and I also recognise that that is so.. Nevertheless, it is fact.

Moreover, in your tirades, do remember that HIV / AIDS is not sexuality specific and nor does its contraction necessarily imply any abuse of the body of a sufferer.

TLJ wrote:
Clare, you're letting your prejudice totally blind you .

What A I said is perfectly true - an issue with a public health aspect will always be given priority and, in my view, quite rightly so.

A I appreciates the unfairness of it and I also recognise that that is so.. Nevertheless, it is fact.

Moreover, in your tirades, do remember that HIV / AIDS is not sexuality specific and nor does its contraction necessarily imply any abuse of the body of a sufferer.
Could I just associate myself with your comments TLJ. The prejudice in some of the comments posted here have left me speechless.

dws wrote:
What's the opinion of posters on the taking of cannabis relating to MS?I often wonder if cannabis or some of its constituents would benefit me in my daily contest with my spinal trauma.
However, I would only accept proven medication that is legal.