The Cure Map

Current research methods work well for simple disorders that can be addressed by a single lab or research group. MS appears to be highly complex, with multiple causative agents. It is necessary to create an organization to plan out promising efforts and organize the results from multiple research teams to create a bigger picture of what the results mean and what directions those results indicate should be taken next.

The Cure Map is a framework that we will construct in conjunction with key researchers and scientists to clearly spell out a concrete approach to isolating the cause or causes of MS.

Known diseases are caused by one or more of only 5 root determinants:

1. Genetics (defects in, or bad combinations of, genetic information)
2. Pathogens (viruses, bacteria, prions)
3. Nutrition (imbalance in external substances the body requires)
4. Toxic Agents (chemical, electro-magnetic or nuclear radiation)
5. Trauma (physical damage)

For each of these root cause types we will answer the following questions and collect the following information:

• What sub-types are there for this cause?
• Who are the top people in this area and what other resources exist?
• Glossary and educational materials relating to this type

Additionally, for each sub-type of a given root cause we will investigate the following points:

• How does this sub-type lead to disease?
• What characteristics (always present or absent) are there that indicate this sub-type may be the cause?
• What are examples of disorders known to be of this sub-type?
• How were causes of these disorders discovered?
• What are the diagnostic procedures for these disorders?
• What is the prevalance of these disorders?
• What are the treatments for these disorders?
• What flaws in methodologies for discovery, diagnosis, and treatment might there be, and how have they happened in the past?
• What ideally could be done to prove/disprove this sub-type is the cause, assuming no significant obstacles?
• What can be/is done in a non-ideal situation?
• Why are these differences from the ideal necessary and what are the flaws with them?

We will take a phased approach to building the Cure Map. These phases can be done independently and in parallel for each root cause type - e.g. work on genetics and toxic agents could be done simultaneously and they might progress from phase to phase independently.

Phase 1: Clearly articulate what is known about each sub-type of the 5 root causes, organizing that knowledge in a logical way that is easily understood. This will give us an understanding of what all the possible areas of cause can be.

Phase 2: Review current and past MS research to overlay results on what we determined in Phase 1. This will help organize the vast information body on MS so that different works can be related to each other in the context of a bigger framework.

Phase 3: Analyze what are the most promising areas to rule in or out. Some research has clearly demonstrated that certain causes are not at work, while other research hints that still other areas may be involved. Also, there may be areas that haven't been investigated at all. Determine how each area might be addressed and estimate the payback from a success in that area.

Phase 4: Create programs to do the work that is most promising for determining a causal component or of eliminating one as a possibility. These programs may be conducted by existing research teams or companies, or may require the formation of new teams. That assessment will be made on a per-program basis.

You can see our progress to date here.

The Cure Map Overview Document

	Read PDF documents with a free copy of Adobe® Acrobat® Reader® by clicking on the icon on the left. If you are unable to read PDF files, you can request hardcopies from us and we will mail or fax them to you. Alternately you can download the free Foxit PDF Reader, which is smaller and quicker to install, from here.

	I thought the following four [rules] would be enough, provided that I made a firm and constant resolution not to fail even once in the observance of them. The first was never to accept anything as true if I had not evident knowledge of its being so; that is, carefully to avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and to embrace in my judgment only what presented itself to my mind so clearly and distinctly that I had no occasion to doubt it. The second, to divide each problem I examined into as many parts as was feasible, and as was requisite for its better solution. The third, to direct my thoughts in an orderly way; beginning with the simplest objects, those most apt to be known, and ascending little by little, in steps as it were, to the knowledge of the most complex; and establishing an order in thought even when the objects had no natural priority one to another. And the last, to make throughout such complete enumerations and such general surveys that I might be sure of leaving nothing out. These long chains of perfectly simple and easy reasonings by means of which geometers are accustomed to carry out their most difficult demonstrations had led me to fancy that everything that can fall under human knowledge forms a similar sequence; and that so long as we avoid accepting as true what is not so, and always preserve the right order of deduction of one thing from another, there can be nothing too remote to be reached in the end, or to well hidden to be discovered. - René Descartes, Discours de la Methode, 1637