He was one of the first neurologists and his work helped define conditions including MS, ALS, and CMT.

Yes, you are right dear Fred Romano, really sometimes it is very difficult to understand the scientific world. We can appreciate Charcot' studies according to his era, this is different issue. But uterus issue is comic. Because some circles come to their jobs, they see and show some as the father of matters. The unknowns are a source of livelihood for them. My studies are in front of the eye of scientific world. Was there any study on etiology of MS that showed the origin of the disease in 14 different ways like my studies that I made their proofs. Of course, science is questioned with suspicion. If we want to reach the truth, we must follow scientifically the laws of nature that is, the god way. I have not met a scientist who criticized my studies scientifically yet. In my recent work, in addition to my first studies, I have explained Dawson fingers, Kurtzke studies, and why MS is more common in women. I think, I was able to give an exact physiologic definition of what is a "nervous lesion"?.

Dear Cahit Canbay please tell me what is exactly a nervous lesion and if possible, how it can be spotted on an IRM.

Patrick Corbin Mullen of course, but as far Charcot totally wicked the disease called hysteria (in greek, uterus), why do we consider as a main reference his other works? Does this mean no major research/findings in neurology were done since Charcot? Personally, as a woman, I feel insulted by Charcot's theories on hysteria, so I'm a bit doubtful as a MS patient when I consider his nowadays followers about MS. Do you think if Einstein had committed and persisted, modifying the results of his experiences so they fit his theory, he would be as famous and celebrated as he is nowadays? Don't you think there's a reason for the relative anonymity of Charcot?

My own ephemeral opinion, since I begun recollecting data, because not getting the answers to my questions, is MS is a multi-factorial disease and different specialists should work together for getting close to understand it. I find the notion of "MS as a psychosomatic disease" very interesting Article Relationship between combat related posttraumatic stress dis...

And finally, the genetic track should be completed.

Dear Fred Romano, most of my study on MS is in the researchgate. I have already written to you, the dielectrophoretic force is the main cause of this disease. This is the reason why Myelin Basic Protein is separated from the nerve cell and collected in certain places. This force is sourced due to the effects of such as MRI, power lines in houses..... which artificial e.m. f sources, natural e.m.f sources and internal (dielectrophoretic field due to psychosomatic effects and stresses). When you write "canbay cytokine", this effect is visible in the article . Again I argue, there is no concept of RIS. This dielectrphoretic effect is the reason why syndromes similar to MS disease which seen when a patient is scanned with MRI scanner frequently. MS is not genetic and immunologic origin.

Please take a look at this interesting PDF.

Jean-Martin Charcot is known as father of modern neurology.

Fred Romano I would argue that most of our definitions of neurological disease are flawed in some aspects, in part because we often define 'singular' diseases based on clinical characteristics, even though the underlying neurobiological mechanisms are heterogeneous... and conditions like MS, ALS, and CMT probably represent a collection of distinct but related disorders. Add on top of that the fact that he was one of the first to characterize these phenotypes, of course there will some aspects of his definitions that are imprecise or downright erroneous. this does not change the fact that his work helped define the conditions of MS, ALS, and CMT.

Patrick Corbin Mullen I do agree, he was the first, but that doesn't make him a father. I think his terrible erroneous way to consider the patient have nowadays terrible consequences on lazy egotistic neurologists that may be worsting the patient's insecurity and thus favoring the disease. They give you the feeling: " oh no, you're to sick with your brain to correctly understand what's happening to you, but I do but have no time to spent teaching you". frightening, and most of the people are too frighten to even ask any question. They believe in their neuros. I don't.

Dear Fred Romano, I am sending you the views of a faculty member who has written a book about MS. It might be interesting.

I have hundreds of patients with MS, some of whom I know better than the life of my own family. Add to this the experience I have gained from my colleagues and other colleagues who are interested in MS as well as the information I have written, and I will say now: MS is very strange; You can guess up to three down five in what body when it will behave but mostly it will fool you.

In the context of this article, I am listening to some patients, but what I mean to this day is something I cannot fully understand.MS said they were better when they went to their hometown. For example, a man with a walking stick in Istanbul asphalt, the slope of the plateau can walk without support, he says. When I listened to similar stories, I thought the reason was just like you.When I was more materialistic, the only explanation I could produce was limited to ete fresh air. I had no idea how the fresh air could heal. Then one day I met a French lady with MS. She fell in love with a Turk, abandoned his homeland and migrated to Istanbul. She's been living here for 16 years. She said that after she settled here, MS had not relapsed once. Investigations, which gave the picture of the brain, proved that his illness had a deep sleep. If you know that the MS will never sleep, that it will be more or less active during this time, you will not find this discourse convincing. I'm a skeptic. Since I haven't seen the disease progress for so long, I thought maybe MS was not itself. I've re-examined the previous investigations. This lady was definitely MS. She experienced an average of two MS attacks each year in a city in France. She had never experienced an attack in this city. His illness may have been disarmed, but he might have been stealthy, but she wasn't. She had stopped.

Try to explain this situation to your psychological background by saying the power of the emotions, such as the power of the emotions, as you have done it, as well as the unknownness of what the divine power will say when you want, and try to find the common denominator between making it like me and coming from Istanbul to come to Istanbul: ers Changing the space Bu anchor the "e.magnetic field" to one of the possible factors.

MS can be disrupted in many functions such as vision, speech, walking, balance, memory. The main reason for this is the deterioration of the anı electrical current n tasks of the nerves that are the communication elements of the brain. So far, well-known scientific facts. What I have just learned is that it is something that can be discovered, even with a simple reasoning: the electrical internal current that provides the normal functioning of the brain itself can be affected by the electricity itself, that is to say the magnetic fields. If he learns that this means that change of space (electrical field change) can change all functions of MS patients to good or bad, C. Canbay. His essay was written in a journal called “Progress in electromagnetics research d which he wrote by collecting scientific information. You can read this technical and scientific article. I would like to mention a little bit.

Patrick Corbin Mullen, your "most of our definitions of neurological disease are flawed" underlines Fred Romano's concerns.

But why aren't these flaws ironed out?

Abderrahim Benkhaled's link shows why:

Neurology is still fettered by this idea of Charcot's:

Brain of cord lesions identified at post mortem can be recognized by "neurological lesions", i.e. by nervous dysfunctions with which they clinically manifest ... provided they do.

In perpetuating this dream, Kumar's Charcot biography misses the point that "the first drawings illustrating the expansions of lesion from the ventricles into the cerebral hemispheres" were done in 1866, published in 1867, but never described as for their specific and unique appearance - this neither in 1868 nor in any neurological work done on MS which has been presented since.

The specific anatomical MS pathology of MS was thus replaced by a neurological pseudo-dentity.

This unfortunately happened not just with MS or also with the myatrophic ALS and 'non-myatrophic' PLS.

In the pages of ISBN 978-613-9-92056-3 more on this can be read.

Fred Romano, if neurologists would and could believe in themselves: Were they obliged to make so much adoo of their clinical trials as they do?

Or at least one of them could dismiss or at least take his stance on the 'eye-opener' spoken about in the added file.