Propranolol came into migraine research by pure accident or simplistic chance or retrogressive serendipity in 1967, leaving science and the migraine research community to struggle for its pharmacological mode of action in migraine. Propranolol also made a major dent or detour in theoretical considerations and therapies for migraine, driving neurologists away from reason and logic in the understanding of migraine.

Science is not free of fashion. Propranolol is the old-fashioned lady left far behind in the vogue of research, but the secret of migraine is hidden carefully in the folds of her clutch handbag (it could well also be the almost-ancient gentleman clutching his wallet, carrying the prized possession with somewhat wanton malice) that generations of scientists / migraine researchers have sought with desperation laced with nihilism. However, when migraine researchers call themselves 'scientists', a high wall (and loud wail) of beliefs and myths immediately stands up to question the honour.

Since tertiary-care / Institutional researchers and august Headache Conferences around the world are not seized with the matter over 50 years later, busy as they are with CGRP and other neuropeptides, let us join together and explore our collective wisdom and insight or even speculation.

Or shall we leave this scientific resolution to the next millennium?

I assure the fraternity of migraine researchers that no meaningful progress will be made unless this conundrum, the Rubik Cube of migraine, is resolved

I set the ball rolling with 4 of my published articles.

Come, join me.

ORCID: hrttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-6770-5916

More Vinod Kumar Gupta's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions