The thing with chronic pain is that often it is garbage data being sent by pain receptors. Or more accurately our muddled processing of the nerve impulses leads to poorly established thresholds that lead to a constant presence of perceived pain. So preventing this pathology based on my experience is a cure. Physical regeneration is a separate target in my opinion.
A cure for much arthritis is possibly a Nutritarian Diet promoted by Dr. Joel Fuhrman which reduces inflammation and helps the body rebuild:
https://www.drfuhrman.com/blog/119/a-progressive-approach-to...
"The traditional treatment of rheumatoid arthritis revolves around medications which typically include steroids and chemotherapeutic agents such as methotrexate, Imuran®, Gold®, Plaquenil®, Arava® and Remicade®. These medications are considerably toxic and can result in serious disability.
My approach to treating rheumatoid arthritis differs in that it incorporates dietary modifications and nutritional supplements, avoiding the use of toxic drugs in the vast majority of cases. The recommendations are customized to the needs and response of each patient to treatment and involve more than just putting them on a special diet. However, in most cases, dramatic improvements and even complete recoveries occur.
In spite of well-conducted scientific investigations and the clinical experience of many physicians, this effective nutritional treatment of autoimmune disease is generally ignored. I have seen scores of patients with rheumatoid arthritis as well as lupus, fibromyalgia and connective tissue disease obtain complete recoveries through these natural interventions. Also, I have many patients who have made complete recoveries from allergies and asthma. Not every patient obtains a complete remission, but the majority is able to avoid the use of medication."
The big problem in our current society is that there is no substantial money to be made by big companies in promoting these sorts of cures.
Methotrexate is the most vile substance (made one day per week about as useful as a full day hangover) It did help but honestly only as much as the effort I put into a diet change. I completely agree with parent comment.
Anyone with an autoimmune disorder or chronic inflammation who has not experienced an elimination diet is doing themselves a huge disservice.
> It sounds like, even in the best case scenario, the drug doesn't really cure arthritis but just blunts the pain.
> I was thinking it would be something that helps the worn ligament grow back. That I would consider a real cure.
As far as I can tell, that is what it does:
> The drug is based on a molecule he discovered while working at Pfizer, and can be delivered via a once-a-month EpiPen-style injection, where it restores protective processes to diseased joints and enables the regeneration of affected tissues. It works by blocking a compound that supports the nerve cells involved in transmitting pain signals to the brain.
This doesn't say it just blocks the pain, it says it directly affects the nerve cells involved in transmitting pain. Those nerve cells could also be responsible for other unpleasant things, like generally complaining and always being inflamed and inhibiting proper healing.
It is hoped the drug — which is not a cure but will make the condition much less painful for sufferers — could also be used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and chemotherapy-induced pain in the future.
As a writer myself who has watched journalism dying, crap articles being written by underpaid freelancers, the enshitification of the internet while everyone objects to any means used to monetize content creation, etc ad nauseum, I don't really feel like trying to figure out just how much this "really does" for patients.
The medical industry in the US tends to be about profit and I think people should, in fact, profit for their work but in medicine sometimes profit motive tosses the baby out with the bathwater. And I'm super burned out on trying to have any kind of meaningful discussion of that issue online.
"not a cure" means that if you stop taking the drug, the condition comes back, at least as far as I can tell. Which checks out given the other information given by the article.
I thought tissue degeneration was part of the issue here? Having regenerated tissue doesn't necessarily help if you stop taking the drug and the tissue just goes away again.
(It sounds weird to me that tissue can just disappear from that area so I think this might be wrong?)
If tissue gets regenerated, it shouldn't "just go away again" once you stop the drug unless perhaps there is an unidentified pathological process involved.