Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dr. Jan-Eric Ahlfors pushes forward with Regeneration Matrix

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Those are all valid points, and more than justifies speculation ( in regards to Dr. Young's trial) as I've said again and again. However it doesn't justify you mocking someone's brain or intelligence for being hopeful. If you want to do that to people do it to me, but there is no reason to do it to the other folks on here. And please have some self-respect and don't act as if it's only in this thread,or worse like you don't do that. I'm far from the only person to point that out I'm just the only loser with enough time on my hand to go on and on about it.

    I couldn't agree more the walking that they described would be of little use to us, but Dr. Young has taken to the stage said to the public that there has been improvement in bowel function,he even emphasize it to be the most important outcome for the patients. To my understanding ( could be mistaken as nothing very specific has been released) it's been said that some of them had enough return to handle it independently. Now I don't know your injury and how you handle that nonsense, but if it's done like mine and what you said was true and you actually Believe it we (as completes) still have intact pathways that can provide that kind of return and we didn't go for it that's something to be ashamed of, guess that's just me Id do anything not to have that done to me, Crosses so many lines. However I don't think that's the case, what I believe is that the stem cells played their part and where equally responsible for the outcome with the intensive rehab especially considering all of the injuries were complete and most were many years post injury. Having said that I'm the first one to say that umbiblical cord blood cells are obsolete, Mind you that's coming from an uneducated fifth grader I believe they're extremely safe; but then again Dr. Young Chose to work with them, I think they were the most available tho. Like you said, either way the China trial will prove very beneficial, and Id say is a major accomplishment.

    I don't think just because substantial spinal cord ( Long distance ) regeneration has not been achieved YET, is reason to just assume every clinical trial will fail. So in regards to New World laboratories trial I will absolutely say your doubts are based on nothing, definitely nothing to do with their work that's for sure! It's very far from bullshit... Also If a clinical trial where to return " independent/ natural" bowel function ( not in anyway talking about Dr. Young's trial) it would be a momentous achievement;far from a failure don't you agree? And we don't exactly know how little or how much regeneration would need to take place to achieve that outcome. So I don't think we are unaware of the magnitude of spinal cord injury and it's complexity. We are just excited about how much more is going on. Personally deep down I don't believe anyone with chronic spinal cord injury over 3 to 5 years will ever return to "normal" I'm sorry everyone I just don't see how that would be possible. Substantial function, Independence different story tho. As Dr. Fehlings said when stem cell Inc. announce it was shutting everything down, people don't realize that every little return is a major accomplishment. But obviously people just want to see patients jump out of their wheelchair and if that doesn't happen they're not interested!

    I think animal models are just good for safety evaluation, just a simple first step to see if the cells are rejected, turn cancerous etc. I don't think they are a reason for excitement or to determine efficiency for humans! and I'm pretty sure any efficiency shown in animal models isn't necessary to get approval for a phase 1 SAFTY trial. So Iam just not getting why you're so hopped up on animal trials, they are nothing like us especially rats. Labs are not going to be really spending the time, effort and more importantly resources to achieve substantial recovery in a ra! it's just a means to an end.

    OK so you're not saying the Russian trial will fail, BUT as of right now you are assuming the Russian trial will fail because substantial's spinal regeneration has never been achieved. Come to think of it I don't think reprogrammed autologous neural stem cell has ever been achieved tho, apparently until now that is. Let's just look at one thing that is different, that everyone knows about this clinical trial ( aside from the neural cells from our own body being used) you MUST have a little bit more encouragement, at least appreciation for the fact that the cells are going to be administered every three months for two years, rather than just one time like every other stem cell clinical trial to date!? That's a huge difference! like you said we know that regeneration doesn't happen quickly, so how can stem cells be expected to achieve regeneration in one shot without dying or spreading else where in the body, right? You know what else is awesome, they're looking into some state-of-the-art approaches to get each injection directly to the injury site as non- invasively as possible! Rather than the first plan which was to have the initial injection directly at the injury, and then the next injections all be administered to the spinal fluid and/ or intravenously. Is that not reason enough to be interested? You say the substantial regeneration has never been achieved which is true, but nothing like this trial has ever been achieved!!

    One last point, no stem cell trial has ever involved year long intensive functional rehabilitation designed to the best of our knowledge (our being specialist in the field) to help induce regeneration!! Dr. Young's is the closest thing with the six-month walking program. From what I've been told ( as I mentioned it to them, side note apparently Switzerland has something similar) they don't believe that kind of program to be an effective approach despite being very intense and consistent. All I can say is it's still early but what they're looking into, and who's getting involved is pretty interesting to say the least. And it's safe to say I don't know many details at this time.
    Last edited by JamesMcM; 8 Jun 2016, 6:48 PM.

    Comment


      Sorry but this will be completely off topic and irrelevant, but I want to echo something James said.

      F*** wheelchair warriors.

      "Guess what I can do!"
      "...what..."
      "just guess!"
      "f***ing what?!"
      "rock climbing!"

      Yes you can. In your wheelchair.

      Seriously - when I was in hospital, they gave out cute little mandatory leaflets, flyers and guides on life changing activities such as wheelchair rock climbing, wheelchair skiing, wheelchair fishing, wheelchair dogging and wheelchair anal probing.

      I want to clarify that I am thankful stuff like this is here for those that are interested. I have my own hobbies. But what I cannot tolerate is when paralympians say shit like "we can still do everything! It doesn't hold us back! We're happy!"

      1. No you cannot do everything.
      2. It does hold you back, my 4 year old runs faster, you're talking bollocks mate.
      3. Good for you. I'm also happy.

      What then destroys me is when my close family like mum and dad then say stuff like "the world is your-"

      "fuck off mum."

      I am thankful for the life I have, I could be far worse off, but I know there are people in my situation who are struggling. Those with no family, no money, higher level injuries etc. Just because Mr. Cripple is doing alright, doesnt mean we all are.

      I dare not speak on behalf of quads, as there is nothing I can do to know what it feels like to be in their position. And I'm not knocking doing down quads who may be doing well, they have my eternal respect. But the point I'm making is I don't speak for every SCI man and woman. A "healthy" paralympian speaking for me, is like me as a para (although with syringomyelia damaged arms) speaking for a quad.

      Love you all out there but there are some including people I've personally known who take to their local news paper as an SCI person to announce they are absolutely fine. The general public has no clue about the manifestation of neuropathic pain and say shit like " if you can't feel your legs then surely you can't be in pain! Also, if your legs aren't working, why can't you atleast sit up!"

      facepalm.

      A close friend always mentioned my slouching body in my chair, not knowing I don't have the use of my core muscles.

      I don't go around shoving my sob stories of neuropathic pain, a dick not working, jobless 23 year old, (these forums being an exception), so please don't penetrate my ass with your glory stories of wheelchair rock climbing, (which by the way involves no rock climbing! you just pump this crank and pulley mechanism alongside a mountain edge - depending on where you go for it.)

      BTW I'm not taking sides with anyone here, but certainly agree with one of James' points. Just saw the opportunity to rant and I did.
      Last edited by taymas; 8 Jun 2016, 10:24 AM.

      Comment


        On the serious side I totally agree, on the funny side I'm going to be laughing about this to myself all day.

        Originally posted by taymas View Post
        wheelchair dogging
        Any chance you still have the leaflets?

        Comment


          James,

          --I will mock someone for not using their brain if they're not using it & they're being annoying pr&^ks.

          --yes, but Dr. Young has not explained what the improvement in bowel function is. I think the improved bladder function turned out to be just tapping on the bladder. That has nothing to do with a treatment. I could do that right now. My guess is one patient taught the others to tap on their bladders. It has nothing to do with brain connection to bladder, it?s a spasm. My leg spasming does not mean I have a brain to leg connection. I assume their "improved bowel" is the same thing. Lets say, the patients regained sensation of their bowels, they knew when they had to go, and/or can excrete stool using their brain..then yes that is useful recovery! But I doubt that occurred bc no sensation/muscle control was returned in torso or legs.

          --W/ regards to Russian trial. The difficulty of a task at hand is an excellent reason to doubt one?s ability to succeed at it. For example, if I said I was going to bring back animals from the dead (dead for 24 hrs) by injecting them with NS cells. You'd say what? "Good luck, I'm eagerly awaiting your results"??. If you doubted me, would it be right to say your doubts are not based on logic and are based on nothing?

          --I'm not saying I assume every clinical trial in sci will fail. Just ones where there are no published & replicated animal studies.

          --Actually rats are a lot like us. We are both mammals and evolved from a common ancestor. Very similar genetically. Although, not perfect model, granted. The reason why mammals cannot regenerate their spinal cord, is probably via the same genetic pathway. I'd much prefer to see animal studies in larger mammals like pigs. Why don't you ask Dr. Ahlfors if he only did his testing in pigs for safety (aka no efficacy)? So your strategy for finding a cure, is to test any & all substances on this earth that could potentially treat SCI, straight in human trials. Human trials cost millions! SCI research gets peanuts in terms of $.
          Last edited by Nowhere Man; 8 Jun 2016, 10:17 PM.

          Comment


            Just based on the common sense I believe the Russian trial is genuine and with big chances of a substantial success.
            First of all, after all the achievements gathered in SCI research along decades, to compare the finding of a viable treatment for SCI, with the difficulty of finding a way to bring animals back to life is quite inappropriate.
            Secondly, I don't know if and what animal testing has Dr. Ahlfors done previously to these trials, but from his presentation at W2W last year we know that he got some positive unexpected results from what was supposed to be just a safety trial on humans, and if this works on humans I don't care if was tried or not on animals. Now of course there's room for skepticism because the lack of details, but is hard to believe that a person like Dr. Ahlfors with his credentials would risk his reputation by spreading bs to the world. Not to forget that there must be a strong reason why Russian government trusts his work and does all the funding.
            But there's really pointless to keep debating about it at this point...as myself I believe I have a good reason to put my hopes in this trial, and I need it. Now everyone is free to believe whatever they think is appropriate

            Comment


              Originally posted by niallel View Post
              On the serious side I totally agree, on the funny side I'm going to be laughing about this to myself all day.

              Any chance you still have the leaflets?
              I wonder what that is exactly...?
              http://spinalcordresearchandadvocacy.wordpress.com/

              Comment


                Originally posted by Silvio GS View Post
                Just based on the common sense I believe the Russian trial is genuine and with big chances of a substantial success.
                First of all, after all the achievements gathered in SCI research along decades, to compare the finding of a viable treatment for SCI, with the difficulty of finding a way to bring animals back to life is quite inappropriate.
                Secondly, I don't know if and what animal testing has Dr. Ahlfors done previously to these trials, but from his presentation at W2W last year we know that he got some positive unexpected results from what was supposed to be just a safety trial on humans, and if this works on humans I don't care if was tried or not on animals. Now of course there's room for skepticism because the lack of details, but is hard to believe that a person like Dr. Ahlfors with his credentials would risk his reputation by spreading bs to the world. Not to forget that there must be a strong reason why Russian government trusts his work and does all the funding.
                But there's really pointless to keep debating about it at this point...as myself I believe I have a good reason to put my hopes in this trial, and I need it. Now everyone is free to believe whatever they think is appropriate
                Exactly, and they're going at it much more logically than any other stem cell trial not to mention with far more superior cells.

                Nowhere man again you skipped over the part I put in bold, forget animal trials we all know spinal cord injury does not get good funding but again my last two paragraphs, nothing like that has ever been done, you must at least appreciate the fact that they are going to be administering the stem cells more than once as we all know spinal regeneration takes time a long time,which means the cells cannot be expected to just do it in one shot that is illogical in my eyes. I'm just a self-taught off the Internet, similar to you I'm not educated on cellular mechanics or whatever sure as hell not a spinal cord injury researcher so I'm not going to call anyone stupid if they don't agree with me because that would just be well stupid!

                Comment


                  Originally posted by JamesMcM View Post
                  Exactly, and they're going at it much more logically than any other stem cell trial not to mention with far more superior cells.

                  Nowhere man again you skipped over the part I put in bold, forget animal trials we all know spinal cord injury does not get good funding but again my last two paragraphs, nothing like that has ever been done, you must at least appreciate the fact that they are going to be administering the stem cells more than once as we all know spinal regeneration takes time a long time,which means the cells cannot be expected to just do it in one shot that is illogical in my eyes. I'm just a self-taught off the Internet, similar to you I'm not educated on cellular mechanics or whatever sure as hell not a spinal cord injury researcher so I'm not going to call anyone stupid if they don't agree with me because that would just be well stupid!
                  --You did not answer a few points of mine.

                  --can you explain to me why 3 administrations of neural stem cells is better than 1, or why you think it might be? What's the logic. Why is 1 shot illogical in your eyes? Can you explain to me how if all goes to plan, how neural stem cells are physically going to link the brain to the body and vice-versa? I'm not looking for an essay, just a paragraph or 2.

                  --I won't call anyone stupid if they have any scientific basis for disagreeing with me, or admit they don't know. But when they attack / respond with pure emotion, that's a different story. There are varying degrees of intelligence & varying degrees of knowledge in a subject area. It is not black and white. Don't lump me into the same level as Moe. One does not need to be educated in cellular mechanics to be able to read & comprehend SCI studies! Even Dr. Young has said that. When someone on this forum tries to argue science without having read any studies on the issue, then they're probably ignorant. When they attack dissenters via emotion, a closed mind, and logical fallacies, then they're morons. There's a difference.
                  Last edited by Nowhere Man; 9 Jun 2016, 10:40 PM.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Nowhere Man View Post
                    --You did not answer a few points of mine.

                    --can you explain to me why 3 administrations of neural stem cells is better than 1, or why you think it might be? What's the logic. Why is 1 shot illogical in your eyes? Can you explain to me how if all goes to plan, how neural stem cells are physically going to link the brain to the body and vice-versa? I'm not looking for an essay, just a paragraph or 2.

                    --I won't call anyone stupid if they have any scientific basis for disagreeing with me, or admit they don't know. But when they attack / respond with pure emotion, that's a different story. There are varying degrees of intelligence & varying degrees of knowledge in a subject area. It is not black and white. Don't lump me into the same level as Moe. One does not need to be educated in cellular mechanics to be able to read & comprehend SCI studies! Even Dr. Young has said that. When someone on this forum tries to argue science without having read any studies on the issue, then they're probably ignorant. When they attack dissenters via emotion, a closed mind, and logical fallacies, then they're morons. There's a difference.
                    Wonder what level that would be...

                    Hey James, better let it go, he's just going on and on with his boring verbal diarrhea until he feels that his point is understood. He says to ignore his posts if we don't like them but seems he can't do it himself. All this pollution makes it hard to follow what's really going on...

                    ver-bal di-ar-rhe-a
                    nounvulgar slang

                    noun: verbal diarrhoea; noun: verbal diarrhea; plural noun: verbal diarrheas; plural noun: verbal diarrhoeas
                    • the fact or habit of talking too much.
                      "was it necessary to have the narrator exhibit verbal diarrhea throughout the entire picture?"
                    Last edited by Moe; 10 Jun 2016, 12:00 AM.
                    "Talk without the support of action means nothing..."
                    ― DaShanne Stokes

                    ***Unite(D) to Fight Paralyses***

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Nowhere Man View Post
                      --You did not answer a few points of mine.

                      --can you explain to me why 3 administrations of neural stem cells is better than 1, or why you think it might be? What's the logic. Why is 1 shot illogical in your eyes? Can you explain to me how if all goes to plan, how neural stem cells are physically going to link the brain to the body and vice-versa? I'm not looking for an essay, just a paragraph or 2.

                      --I won't call anyone stupid if they have any scientific basis for disagreeing with me, or admit they don't know. But when they attack / respond with pure emotion, that's a different story. There are varying degrees of intelligence & varying degrees of knowledge in a subject area. It is not black and white. Don't lump me into the same level as Moe. One does not need to be educated in cellular mechanics to be able to read & comprehend SCI studies! Even Dr. Young has said that. When someone on this forum tries to argue science without having read any studies on the issue, then they're probably ignorant. When they attack dissenters via emotion, a closed mind, and logical fallacies, then they're morons. There's a difference.
                      Well it would be eight administrations ( every three months for two years is what he told me( eventually directly at the injury site. Well have a habit of dying through the injection, I have also read that the injury site is a hostile area for cells. The most important as time goes on stem cells have an annoying habit of migrating through the body. So what I'm thinking is by getting a new dose of cells to the injury site each time is like sending a new batch of soldiers to storm the beach of Normandy Little by little will make progress, potential he maybe even they will start where the other cells left off before dying or migrating. I think a great mind like Dr. Jan Alhfor has his reasons for doing such a thing.

                      And in between injections the patient will be engaged in very functional based rehabilitation to support neural plasticity and help induce her generation

                      I think you would fit in the latter of the two, tell me what scientific data have you read on this? Do you know that making neural cells from out own own body is A breakthrough in itselffrom what I've been told. It would help if you had any scientific basis yourself to disagree with, you don't provide anything you just say it's never been done before, it's extremely complex and daunting task likely will never happen! I think you copy and pasted an image off of someone's hard work one time, to show bundle growth in an animal model to emphasize this is what good regeneration look like. Between moe and I I don't think we have ever a motional he attacked scientific data, especially any that you provided...

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Nowhere Man View Post
                        James,

                        --I will mock someone for not using their brain if they're not using it & they're being annoying pr&^ks.

                        --yes, but Dr. Young has not explained what the improvement in bowel function is. I think the improved bladder function turned out to be just tapping on the bladder. That has nothing to do with a treatment. I could do that right now. My guess is one patient taught the others to tap on their bladders. It has nothing to do with brain connection to bladder, it?s a spasm. My leg spasming does not mean I have a brain to leg connection. I assume their "improved bowel" is the same thing. Lets say, the patients regained sensation of their bowels, they knew when they had to go, and/or can excrete stool using their brain..then yes that is useful recovery! But I doubt that occurred bc no sensation/muscle control was returned in torso or legs.

                        --W/ regards to Russian trial. The difficulty of a task at hand is an excellent reason to doubt one?s ability to succeed at it. For example, if I said I was going to bring back animals from the dead (dead for 24 hrs) by injecting them with NS cells. You'd say what? "Good luck, I'm eagerly awaiting your results"??. If you doubted me, would it be right to say your doubts are not based on logic and are based on nothing?

                        --I'm not saying I assume every clinical trial in sci will fail. Just ones where there are no published & replicated animal studies.

                        --Actually rats are a lot like us. We are both mammals and evolved from a common ancestor. Very similar genetically. Although, not perfect model, granted. The reason why mammals cannot regenerate their spinal cord, is probably via the same genetic pathway. I'd much prefer to see animal studies in larger mammals like pigs. Why don't you ask Dr. Ahlfors if he only did his testing in pigs for safety (aka no efficacy)? So your strategy for finding a cure, is to test any & all substances on this earth that could potentially treat SCI, straight in human trials. Human trials cost millions! SCI research gets peanuts in terms of $.
                        I did not Address most of this for obvious reasons, but I'll give you the run-through

                        - I already explained nothing specific about the bowel function return has been released we all know that. If to regained the ability to hold urine and drain my bladder by tapping on it that would be substantial recovery just because you're lucky enough to do that right now does not mean it wouldnt be useful for someone else. A lot of us don't hold urine at at all because our bladders just spasm constantly. So I don't think they all got in groups hey tap your bladder and suddenly that allows them to trigger a response all of a sudden that's manageable. But then again I didn't talk to the patients I haven't seen the exact data I don't open my mouth ignorantly and make assumptions. But if I were to get that kind of recovery would have to be involved, no way around that.

                        - retarded comparison.

                        -most clinical trials don't have published animal trials, only the ones that are starting now release a brief simple article about their outcomes with mice not the full on clinical data. It's out there just not to the public. Clinical data something difficult to get published it's not going to draw in many readers,In regards to this trial clearly their animal data had to have somewhat promising results at least to get the approval and funding that they did.

                        -I believe they tested the regeneration matrix in pigs to see if they could actually regenerates spinal tissue, which to my understanding it was successful. I don't know if they try the cells. You are right our DNA is pretty much the same, but there are mnot any rats living with paralysis for 5+ years right, their lifespan is a lot shorter, hard to keep them alive so all of that nonsense that happens to the body after paralysis including the nervous system hard to replicate, their diets/ nutritional requirements (including for nervous system) is completely different, rehabilitation for them is another thing entirely, self-awareness, motivation etc is not comparable. Yes it's probably very exciting if they inject a rat that has been injured at best for a few months and it starts moving around responding to touch ( never happened to my knowledge) , but that doesn't mean it would be replicated in humans! What pilchard garbage no that would not be my strategy, as I said it has to be in animals first for safety reactions. I'm assuming after that they do try various different doses and approaches to see if they get any kind of outcome, But they sure as hell don't wait for the rat to get back to normal rat life before moving onto a phase 1. The thing probably just gets thrown in the garbage after ,
                        Last edited by JamesMcM; 10 Jun 2016, 6:09 PM.

                        Comment


                          Hey guys, GRAMMY just posted a very nice article on Asterias trial. Long-Term Studies Reveal Positive Results for Initial Phase of SCI Clinical Trial of Regenerative Medicine-Based Treatment

                          https://spinalcordresearchandadvocacy.wordpress.com/

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by JamesMcM View Post
                            The thing probably just gets thrown in the garbage after ,

                            While the researcher is screaming: LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR ! LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR !...I can just picture it now
                            "That's not smog! It's SMUG!! " - randy marsh, southpark

                            "what???? , you don't 'all' wear a poop sac?.... DAMNIT BONNIE, YOU LIED TO ME ABOUT THE POOP SAC!!!! "


                            2010 SCINet Clinical Trial Support Squad Member
                            Please join me and donate a dollar a day at http://justadollarplease.org and copy and paste this message to the bottom of your signature

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by JamesMcM View Post
                              Well it would be eight administrations ( every three months for two years is what he told me( eventually directly at the injury site. Well have a habit of dying through the injection, I have also read that the injury site is a hostile area for cells. The most important as time goes on stem cells have an annoying habit of migrating through the body. So what I'm thinking is by getting a new dose of cells to the injury site each time is like sending a new batch of soldiers to storm the beach of Normandy Little by little will make progress, potential he maybe even they will start where the other cells left off before dying or migrating. I think a great mind like Dr. Jan Alhfor has his reasons for doing such a thing.

                              And in between injections the patient will be engaged in very functional based rehabilitation to support neural plasticity and help induce her generation
                              --That sounds like pure speculation. Which is ok for you to be encouraged/appreciative of. But that doesn't mean I "MUST" be. It doesn't mean a 1 shot dose is "illogical". It very well may help. But it might be non-ineffective or make things worse. I've already posted a link to this study by Dr. Steward.

                              "Our results extend the original study by showing that grafts made using Method 2 completely filled the lesion cavity and blended extensively with the host tissue, whereas grafts made using Method 1 often contained large cavities. Also, most grafts made with either method contained a transverse partition that formed a complete boundary between rostral and caudal ends of the transplants. Taken together, our findings support cautious continuation of development of NSC transplants as a potential therapy for severe SCI, but also reveal that reliable functional benefits remain to be demonstrated and that there are significant barriers to formation of a continuous bridge of neural tissue between rostral and caudal segments. The failure to replicate key aspects of the original report emphasizes the need for cautious interpretation of the impact of findings using this and similar approaches." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4123968/.

                              --So the NSC completely filled the lesion site with only 1 day of injections. The problem was that host axons were not making synaptic connections with graft axons. That doesn't seem to me to be a problem with # of injections.

                              Originally posted by JamesMcM View Post
                              I think you would fit in the latter of the two, tell me what scientific data have you read on this? Do you know that making neural cells from out own own body is A breakthrough in itselffrom what I've been told. It would help if you had any scientific basis yourself to disagree with, you don't provide anything you just say it's never been done before, it's extremely complex and daunting task likely will never happen! I think you copy and pasted an image off of someone's hard work one time, to show bundle growth in an animal model to emphasize this is what good regeneration look like. Between moe and I I don't think we have ever a motional he attacked scientific data, especially any that you provided...
                              --What specifically is it you want me to provide scientific data for? What claims am I making about the russian trial?
                              --please provide me with literature on these groundbreaking neural stem cells. I'd love to read about them.
                              --I refer you to post #294. Instead of responding to my arguments related to chinasci trial (which you since called them "valid points") &/or lack of concrete evidence of regeneration, he responds with that.
                              Last edited by Nowhere Man; 11 Jun 2016, 7:20 PM.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by JamesMcM View Post
                                I did not Address most of this for obvious reasons, but I'll give you the run-through

                                - I already explained nothing specific about the bowel function return has been released we all know that. If to regained the ability to hold urine and drain my bladder by tapping on it that would be substantial recovery just because you're lucky enough to do that right now does not mean it wouldnt be useful for someone else. A lot of us don't hold urine at at all because our bladders just spasm constantly. So I don't think they all got in groups hey tap your bladder and suddenly that allows them to trigger a response all of a sudden that's manageable. But then again I didn't talk to the patients I haven't seen the exact data I don't open my mouth ignorantly and make assumptions. But if I were to get that kind of recovery would have to be involved, no way around that.
                                --you said we should be ashamed for not being in Kunming right now, doing intense rehab b/c Dr Young said they have improved bowel care to "independent bowel program". So you and I agree nothing specific has been released by Dr. Young on bowel improvement. Therefore, there is nothing to be ashamed of for not going to Kunming yet.

                                --I'm saying I highly doubt the patients being able to tap on their bladder to drain has anything to do with the treatment they got. Example scenario: If the quad patients in the trial learned how to put their socks on independently, some nurse showed them a new technique, while in Kunming. Before the trial, they couldn't put their socks on because they didn't know the proper technique. After the trial, they can put their socks on. One could say, all of the quad patients in kunming regained ability to put socks on independently. Would that mean UCB causes patients to gain ability to put socks on and had substantial recovery? Replace the dressing with tapping on bladder. I need a link between treatment & gaining ability to tap bladder. Most SCI retain urine. Especially if they never had an indwelling catheter. The amount their bladder can hold varies. Usually a uti is when SCI can?t hold much urine.

                                http://www.apparelyzed.com/bladder-care.html
                                --Note, nothing here about needing a special ground-breaking treatment to be able to tap/crede your bladder.

                                Originally posted by JamesMcM View Post
                                - retarded comparison.
                                --why is it a dumb comparison? Is it because you don't want to answer? Forget comparing it to sci. Think of it as a stand-alone question. Now answer it.

                                Originally posted by JamesMcM View Post
                                -most clinical trials don't have published animal trials, only the ones that are starting now release a brief simple article about their outcomes with mice not the full on clinical data. It's out there just not to the public. Clinical data something difficult to get published it's not going to draw in many readers,In regards to this trial clearly their animal data had to have somewhat promising results at least to get the approval and funding that they did.
                                --I'm not blaming them for not releasing animal studies. I would if they were asking for donations from SCI. They have the right to suppress. But then I must assume that there are no successful animal studies. I can't just take someone's word for it. Science doesn't work that way, i'm sorry.

                                Originally posted by JamesMcM View Post
                                -I believe they tested the regeneration matrix in pigs to see if they could actually regenerates spinal tissue, which to my understanding it was successful. I don't know if they try the cells.
                                --They regenerated tissue w/o NSC?
                                --Why would Dr. Ahlfors waste $/time on animal studies looking for regeneration? You should lecture him on how pointless they were.
                                Last edited by Nowhere Man; 11 Jun 2016, 7:21 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X