I've been proposed by a neurolog to get suppressed the B cells from my immune system. I really dislike the idea, not having any crisis since 2002. I think this medicine may fit cases more severe than mine. And the worst of the worst is nobody knows how it works, but it can provoke breast cancer and/or herpes. I'm unsure of the kind of benefits it may bring me, apart from reducing hypothetical risks. What are your philosophical opinions at the respect: reducing hypothetical risks is worth when that mean you must face new risks?
That medicine was definitely designed for cases more severe than the one you report. The mechanism of that particular drug are known, to some extent, however. It can have very serious consequences, some which you have described and as such you need to ponder very carefully if you want to try it.
Ultimately it's your decision and only you have the ability to balance out the pros and cons, because only you know how you feel.
The way I interpret your question, I would tell you that the risks from taking ocrelizumab are higher than potential benefits it would do in this particular context, especially considering that they are much more dangerous than the regular beta interferon treatments.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine