Dr. Jan-Eric Ahlfors pushes forward with Regeneration Matrix

[JamesMcM]

--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.


--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.

It's not really speculations one of the problems wih stem cell treatments is the migration and death of stem cells, that's not me making that up that is an actual problem amongst stem cell researchers. Now saying that additional injections periodically would get the stem cells fresh batches to keep healing the injury site, proving to be more beneficial technically is speculation cause it's never been done yet But again Dr. Jan Alhfor has his reasons for choosing to do it this way! It's no different then how you mentioned paraplegics and quadriplegicswere able to recover involuntary walking function in the same time span ( so we think) yet the distance needed to regenerate to the CPG would be much different , It just makes sense right, no different then how fresh batches of stem cells are going to work better to reduce long-distance regeneration, especially if one dose can do a lot The next dose can take up where the last left off before dying or migrating. This is why I'm thinking the doctor chose to do it this way, he does specialize in the regeneration. And I personally think a new approach to stem cell treatments is greatly needed because nothing really substantial is coming from them.

-I have no paper, only knowledge that every other neural stem cell trial involve cells taking from foetuses and the patient had to be on a course of immune suppressant's, where as this lab reprogram them for our body which I believe has been hasn't been done before making it kind of groundbreaking.

-So regeneration had taken place, The lesion site was filled but the axons did not make the necessary connections this is where intensive continuous functional ( as we all know the perfect method for doing this has not been figured out ) comes in to play according to this lab,dr.Young,A few other researchers that Dr. Young wrote about during a symposium in China quite a while ago, and other rehabilitation specialist. i'm willing to bet the study you brought here didn't have anything like it, probably not even a solid attempt this is the problem I'm having with pretty much all clinical trialsbut the problem is it so expensive to have proper research done to find the perfect mechanism, exercises to help stimulate chronically paralysied bodies. This is me saying it, I have read many other researchers said as well but I don't think domino I'm pretty much positive tho no treatment genetic, cell-based, spinal stimulator what ever will ever bring substantial recovery on its own if the patient just goes back to paralyzed Life sitting in a wheelchair not using any of the functions we are trying to regain.

- I don't want you to provide anything specific, just unless you want to call someone stupid at least have the self respect of providing something of substance, slight proof other than just your own speculation; at the very least just say this is just my opinion, because with all your posts you just seem to think your mentality is the Alpha omega which is horseshit. We all know it

[JamesMcM]

--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.


--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.


--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.


--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.

No no , You stated that you think the recovery came from intact neural pathways that are still working even in complete injuries. You and I have discussed how there is no chance of recovering with just rehabilitation alone no matter how much money, and effort we put into it which is why we both aren't pursuing it at this time. However obviously making remarks regarding the China trials outcomes your opinion has sort of changed on that regard, so if you believe that and if you and I are sitting on her ass with intact neural pathways that we just aren't working hard enough to take advantage of well then that is something to be ashamed of. But I'm almost certain that is not the case!

-after spinal cord injuries everyone's bladder reacts differently, some people get lucky and their bladder will stretch and hold urine no problem to they can use a catheter,, Or some people can trigger a spasm response to drain it apparently. However many people like myself can have the unfortunate outcome of a high-pressure neurogenic bladder or where it is constantly spasming indwelling, or not it doesn't matter urine is coming out constantly because of the spasms. We are the ones that run into a lot more health problems because of this, sometimes medication helps other times it does nothing what I'm saying is if one of those people had an outcome where their spastic neurogenic bladder remain calm after the treatment that is substantial blotter return, forget the tapping that's just icing on the cake!

-OK I'll forget that it has literally nothing to do with spinal cord injury and really the spinal cord in general! In fact example the human head transplant, when I heard about that from a unknown to myself but seemingly reputable doctor/surgeon I was very interested I wanted to know more. Of course the thought of how are they going to connect the spinal cord, all of the blood vessels among other things but I did not just instantly assume there's not a hope in hell of that working that's far too complicated of a task. However if some random guy ( or a supposed doctor with no background or cadential's at all) were to say that yes I would definitely have A similar outlook to how do you do towards spinal cord injury research. In fact after I started to read more about it, and other reputable doctors express their doubtful opinions on his behaviour started to get more strange less confident I started to doubt it more, but that was after I did a little digging. So your comparison about reviving dead animals if a reputable lab/company with reputable doctors were to say they're on the verge of doing it I would believe it, in fact I've seen the Russian trial where they supposedly brought the dogs head back to life so to speak is it 100% real I have no idea, but I'm not na?ve enough to think that research like this doesn't go under the radar and may have been accomplished already.

-OK that makes sense, mind you they did get funding from the Russian government so pretty safe to say that the animal models did show something, and Dr. Jan A would most certainly not waste his time with something that wasn't showing potential great potential in fact. but you haven't seen it you haven't got to judge it so must be crap. nobody and I mean nobody said to just believe every article that is out there! However from what I read about the videos at working to walk, it seems like they've already achieved more recovery in humans then any stem cell trial I've heard of, I remember someone mentioning that they were able to voluntarily move their leg on their back, i've also been told thatis far from everything KeyPoint in a safety trial where nothing is perfected by any means. So believe what you will because no rat data has been shown.

- yes take a look at New World laboratories website, according to them the regeneration matrix issupposed to be able to regenerate tissue, even spinal tissue even towards its own original layout. So I believe they test on animals alone to see if I could accomplish that. Obviously nothings been released but I don't think a man like Alhfor would put his name/ work in something false. again you're completely miss representing what I said, what I said is first and foremost animal models are for safety data to get approval for a phase 1 safety trial. The regeneration matrix is something new entirely, it's a product we know nothing about so obviously they would test it out to see what it does, as well as if there's any bad reactions! I wouldn't say one word to a researcher like him, I have a high school education as an ex power lifter kick boxer Way out of my zone, where as he's right where he should be. He wants to buff up a little bit, then I might chime in...

[Nowhere Man]

It's not really speculations one of the problems wih stem cell treatments is the migration and death of stem cells, that's not me making that up that is an actual problem amongst stem cell researchers. Now saying that additional injections periodically would get the stem cells fresh batches to keep healing the injury site, proving to be more beneficial technically is speculation cause it's never been done yet But again Dr. Jan Alhfor has his reasons for choosing to do it this way! It's no different then how you mentioned paraplegics and quadriplegicswere able to recover involuntary walking function in the same time span ( so we think) yet the distance needed to regenerate to the CPG would be much different , It just makes sense right, no different then how fresh batches of stem cells are going to work better to reduce long-distance regeneration, especially if one dose can do a lot The next dose can take up where the last left off before dying or migrating. This is why I'm thinking the doctor chose to do it this way, he does specialize in the regeneration. And I personally think a new approach to stem cell treatments is greatly needed because nothing really substantial is coming from them.

--Ok, you admit it is speculation.
--Don't compare it to my chinasci argument. They are not similar. What part is speculation? The distance b/w injury site to cpg is further in quads than paras. That's a fact. Axons grow around 1mm/day. I got that from Dr. Young himself. The exact rate is unimportant, but it is slow. My argument about time span of regeneration b/w quads and paras is based on physics, not speculation. A car going 55 mph will take longer to drive 1000 miles vs only 400 miles.
--It is also speculation that the autologous neural stem cells will succeed where fetal NSC failed in terms of efficacy. Could they do better? Absolutely. They do sound safer. But without any evidence of efficacy, it's just guesswork.

-So regeneration had taken place, The lesion site was filled but the axons did not make the necessary connections this is where intensive continuous functional ( as we all know the perfect method for doing this has not been figured out ) comes in to play according to this lab,dr.Young,A few other researchers that Dr. Young wrote about during a symposium in China quite a while ago, and other rehabilitation specialist. i'm willing to bet the study you brought here didn't have anything like it, probably not even a solid attempt this is the problem I'm having with pretty much all clinical trialsbut the problem is it so expensive to have proper research done to find the perfect mechanism, exercises to help stimulate chronically paralysied bodies. This is me saying it, I have read many other researchers said as well but I don't think domino I'm pretty much positive tho no treatment genetic, cell-based, spinal stimulator what ever will ever bring substantial recovery on its own if the patient just goes back to paralyzed Life sitting in a wheelchair not using any of the functions we are trying to regain.

--Functional rehab shouldn't be an issue in the rat study I posted. Because according to you, animals don't need physical rehab, they have their minds:
Post 218: "Dr. Young has explained way back that animals are different than humans, in the sense that they will never stop trying to move even if their legs do not respond and don't move at all they will still continue to try. Whereas with us we just kind of shut off when we realize it won't happen."
--Also, the pigs in Dr. Ahlfor's study (allegedly) recovered function and they had no rehab. So you can't have it both ways James.

I don't want you to provide anything specific, just unless you want to call someone stupid at least have the self respect of providing something of substance, slight proof other than just your own speculation; at the very least just say this is just my opinion, because with all your posts you just seem to think your mentality is the Alpha omega which is horseshit. We all know it

--Its annoying that you criticize me for not posting any data, I ask for what, you say nothing.
--I posted what you have called since "valid points" (again & again) about chinasci trial. Post 316: "Those are all valid points, and more than justifies speculation ( in regards to Dr. Young's trial) as I've said again and again." I have made 0 claims about Russian trial! When I told Moe to use his brain (meaning I acknowledge he does have one), it was in reference to him responding to my "valid points" with mockery only. Getting to the truth of a human SCI trial is very important. People need to question authority.

[Nowhere Man]

No no , You stated that you think the recovery came from intact neural pathways that are still working even in complete injuries. You and I have discussed how there is no chance of recovering with just rehabilitation alone no matter how much money, and effort we put into it which is why we both aren't pursuing it at this time. However obviously making remarks regarding the China trials outcomes your opinion has sort of changed on that regard, so if you believe that and if you and I are sitting on her ass with intact neural pathways that we just aren't working hard enough to take advantage of well then that is something to be ashamed of. But I'm almost certain that is not the case!

--You keep going in circles James. The only recovery that appears to me to have occurred is the CPG. I'm not sure what caused it. It could be rehab, detethering, UCB, lithium, or any combo. Dr. Young says the same thing. From his paper: "Our trials left several critical questions unanswered. First, can intensive locomotor training ALONE improve locomotor function in people with chronic complete SCI?". So, I said "EVEN IF" intense rehab alone caused CPG return, I would not go to Kunming. It is not useful. Bladder & bowel have no evidence of return. You said it yourself, Post 326: "already explained nothing specific about the bowel function return has been released we all know that." So there is no evidence that intense rehab can recover any function besides CPG (remember i am assuming in this argument that rehab alone was responsible). It alone is useless to me. So no point in putting my life on hold and doing 6-6-6 therapy.

-after spinal cord injuries everyone's bladder reacts differently, some people get lucky and their bladder will stretch and hold urine no problem to they can use a catheter,, Or some people can trigger a spasm response to drain it apparently. However many people like myself can have the unfortunate outcome of a high-pressure neurogenic bladder or where it is constantly spasming indwelling, or not it doesn't matter urine is coming out constantly because of the spasms. We are the ones that run into a lot more health problems because of this, sometimes medication helps other times it does nothing what I'm saying is if one of those people had an outcome where their spastic neurogenic bladder remain calm after the treatment that is substantial blotter return, forget the tapping that's just icing on the cake!

--Most SCI can retain some urine (aka not a constant leak). I understand some people's bladders are smaller than others & act differently. Tapping on bladder is not a link in spinal cord from brain to bladder. So I would not call that bladder return, you might. Different standards I guess. But again, via experimental design, you'd need to show that the treatment caused patients to gain ability to use crede method of voiding. This trial did not do this. Nor do I think it would. Read up on crede method, complete SCI do it all the time, without any treatment! But I hear it is dangerous and not recommended.

-OK I'll forget that it has literally nothing to do with spinal cord injury and really the spinal cord in general! In fact example the human head transplant, when I heard about that from a unknown to myself but seemingly reputable doctor/surgeon I was very interested I wanted to know more. Of course the thought of how are they going to connect the spinal cord, all of the blood vessels among other things but I did not just instantly assume there's not a hope in hell of that working that's far too complicated of a task. However if some random guy ( or a supposed doctor with no background or cadential's at all) were to say that yes I would definitely have A similar outlook to how do you do towards spinal cord injury research. In fact after I started to read more about it, and other reputable doctors express their doubtful opinions on his behaviour started to get more strange less confident I started to doubt it more, but that was after I did a little digging. So your comparison about reviving dead animals if a reputable lab/company with reputable doctors were to say they're on the verge of doing it I would believe it, in fact I've seen the Russian trial where they supposedly brought the dogs head back to life so to speak is it 100% real I have no idea, but I'm not na?ve enough to think that research like this doesn't go under the radar and may have been accomplished already.

--I am glad that you would listen to other doctors. That is an important critical thinking skill. One often void on this site. Reminds me of 2 doctors doubtful about Dr. Young achieving regeneration. Dr. Mary Bunge & Dr. Silver. When Dr. Silver posted here, no one really listened.
--I can't believe that you would believe a reputable scientist claiming he can bring animals back to life with just NSC. No doubts? That's just absurd.
--You're far too trusting. People on this board have been burned in the past (ex: Dr. Davies). There is a reason science needs to be replicated. Yes, even the work of reputable scientists. Reputable scientists are human. Humans can lie, be wrong, make mistakes, etc. Especially in scientific arena where they're pressured by needing to produce for funding via grants/donors/shareholders. There is a reason that they do not update science textbooks after a scientist claims a new breakthrough. It needs to stand public & scientific scrutiny. It's tough to scrutinize when information is not public.

-OK that makes sense, mind you they did get funding from the Russian government so pretty safe to say that the animal models did show something, and Dr. Jan A would most certainly not waste his time with something that wasn't showing potential great potential in fact. but you haven't seen it you haven't got to judge it so must be crap. nobody and I mean nobody said to just believe every article that is out there! However from what I read about the videos at working to walk, it seems like they've already achieved more recovery in humans then any stem cell trial I've heard of, I remember someone mentioning that they were able to voluntarily move their leg on their back, i've also been told thatis far from everything KeyPoint in a safety trial where nothing is perfected by any means. So believe what you will because no rat data has been shown.

--When did I say it was crap or that it was not going to work? You are misrepresenting what I've said! (again). Here's what I've said:
Post 315: "I'm not saying the Russian trial is going to fail." Post 329: "It very well may help".
--Dr. Young got funding, he had no animal studies showing UCB + lithium works on chronic complete SCI.
--I believe nothing has been proven yet. Unless there are studies out there that you and I don't know about. If the time comes when evidence has been released and survives scientific scrutiny, then I will say the treatment works and congratulate Dr. Ahlfors. But that time may never come.

- yes take a look at New World laboratories website, according to them the regeneration matrix issupposed to be able to regenerate tissue, even spinal tissue even towards its own original layout. So I believe they test on animals alone to see if I could accomplish that. Obviously nothings been released but I don't think a man like Alhfor would put his name/ work in something false. again you're completely miss representing what I said, what I said is first and foremost animal models are for safety data to get approval for a phase 1 safety trial. The regeneration matrix is something new entirely, it's a product we know nothing about so obviously they would test it out to see what it does, as well as if there's any bad reactions! I wouldn't say one word to a researcher like him, I have a high school education as an ex power lifter kick boxer Way out of my zone, where as he's right where he should be. He wants to buff up a little bit, then I might chime in...

--The regeneration matrix is not new. It is over 10 years old. Odd that no other lab, or Invivo, could develop a scaffold and get similar results in 10 years.
--I didn't misrepresent what you said. You said animal studies are useless for efficacy.
Post 316: "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."


--I've said all I can, I'm just repeating myself. So I'm out. We agree on the validity of my points on chinasci. I wish they can be responded to. We can agree to disagree on how much trust to put into Russian trial. Its just important for those on the site to know nothing has been released yet (to my knowledge). But honestly, most here don't give a sh*t.
--I'll give you the last word if you wish.

[JamesMcM]

--Ok, you admit it is speculation.
--Don't compare it to my chinasci argument. They are not similar. What part is speculation? The distance b/w injury site to cpg is further in quads than paras. That's a fact. Axons grow around 1mm/day. I got that from Dr. Young himself. The exact rate is unimportant, but it is slow. My argument about time span of regeneration b/w quads and paras is based on physics, not speculation. A car going 55 mph will take longer to drive 1000 miles vs only 400 miles.
--It is also speculation that the autologous neural stem cells will succeed where fetal NSC failed in terms of efficacy. Could they do better? Absolutely. They do sound safer. But without any evidence of efficacy, it's just guesswork.


--Functional rehab shouldn't be an issue in the rat study I posted. Because according to you, animals don't need physical rehab, they have their minds:
Post 218: "Dr. Young has explained way back that animals are different than humans, in the sense that they will never stop trying to move even if their legs do not respond and don't move at all they will still continue to try. Whereas with us we just kind of shut off when we realize it won't happen."
--Also, the pigs in Dr. Ahlfor's study (allegedly) recovered function and they had no rehab. So you can't have it both ways James.


--Its annoying that you criticize me for not posting any data, I ask for what, you say nothing.
--I posted what you have called since "valid points" (again & again) about chinasci trial. Post 316: "Those are all valid points, and more than justifies speculation ( in regards to Dr. Young's trial) as I've said again and again." I have made 0 claims about Russian trial! When I told Moe to use his brain (meaning I acknowledge he does have one), it was in reference to him responding to my "valid points" with mockery only. Getting to the truth of a human SCI trial is very important. People need to question authority.

-- no that's not what I meant was just speculation, that obviously is a fact. What is speculation is you and I coming to the conclusion that the quads and paraplegics in the clinical trial recovered the in voluntary walking in the same time span that's all. This trial has been going on forever, I haven't seen anything specific on who recovered what first, we could just assumed that they all recovered a right at the end of the six monthprogram, but again that's just speculation maybe para's did recover much faster Point is I haven't seen any information on it.

-I agree it is speculation, but I've reached out to them and they showed videos at working to walk even in a phase 1 they've already shown more improvements then stem cell Inc. or neuralstem

--I love how you keep quoting that, I want to make this explicitly clear I didn't say anything, what I did do was just chimed in aboat something I read Dr. Young mentioning quite sometime ago, that sort of made sense to me. Fact is animals will most likely consistently put in more effort, and try harder but humans are more intelligent therefore will obviously follow instructions for specific exercises. Again this is all a relevant because either animal models or humans there is no effective rehabilitation protocol to induce signals through the body helping it rewire , That's obviously a difficult task and may not be possible, what's troubling is there really isn't any soild attempt. At best you get a stem cell injection, go to the gym maybe for five days a week for Max two hours to just do basic physiotherapy mostly likely only utilizing the function you already have, then return to your wheelchair!

Technically I didn't say nothing, I only said when you're calling someone for being mindless or na?ve. This is not the life fourm as you pointed out, it's not all subjective. I'm not getting the post number, but you said something along the lines of "I'm not saying it's not going to work, but I haven't seen any animal data so I'm assuming it won't work" The frustrating thing about this is nothing like this trial has ever been tried, it's still early but if they follow through with everything stem cells like this have never been used, multiple periodic injections have never been done,intensive functional base rehab long-term has never been done it's a completely different approach, nothing comparable to the stem cell trials that have failed or shown little noticeable improvements.

[JamesMcM]

--You keep going in circles James. The only recovery that appears to me to have occurred is the CPG. I'm not sure what caused it. It could be rehab, detethering, UCB, lithium, or any combo. Dr. Young says the same thing. From his paper: "Our trials left several critical questions unanswered. First, can intensive locomotor training ALONE improve locomotor function in people with chronic complete SCI?". So, I said "EVEN IF" intense rehab alone caused CPG return, I would not go to Kunming. It is not useful. Bladder & bowel have no evidence of return. You said it yourself, Post 326: "already explained nothing specific about the bowel function return has been released we all know that." So there is no evidence that intense rehab can recover any function besides CPG (remember i am assuming in this argument that rehab alone was responsible). It alone is useless to me. So no point in putting my life on hold and doing 6-6-6 therapy.




--Most SCI can retain some urine (aka not a constant leak). I understand some people's bladders are smaller than others & act differently. Tapping on bladder is not a link in spinal cord from brain to bladder. So I would not call that bladder return, you might. Different standards I guess. But again, via experimental design, you'd need to show that the treatment caused patients to gain ability to use crede method of voiding. This trial did not do this. Nor do I think it would. Read up on crede method, complete SCI do it all the time, without any treatment! But I hear it is dangerous and not recommended.




--I am glad that you would listen to other doctors. That is an important critical thinking skill. One often void on this site. Reminds me of 2 doctors doubtful about Dr. Young achieving regeneration. Dr. Mary Bunge & Dr. Silver. When Dr. Silver posted here, no one really listened.
--I can't believe that you would believe a reputable scientist claiming he can bring animals back to life with just NSC. No doubts? That's just absurd.
--You're far too trusting. People on this board have been burned in the past (ex: Dr. Davies). There is a reason science needs to be replicated. Yes, even the work of reputable scientists. Reputable scientists are human. Humans can lie, be wrong, make mistakes, etc. Especially in scientific arena where they're pressured by needing to produce for funding via grants/donors/shareholders. There is a reason that they do not update science textbooks after a scientist claims a new breakthrough. It needs to stand public & scientific scrutiny. It's tough to scrutinize when information is not public.




--When did I say it was crap or that it was not going to work? You are misrepresenting what I've said! (again). Here's what I've said:
Post 315: "I'm not saying the Russian trial is going to fail." Post 329: "It very well may help".
--Dr. Young got funding, he had no animal studies showing UCB + lithium works on chronic complete SCI.
--I believe nothing has been proven yet. Unless there are studies out there that you and I don't know about. If the time comes when evidence has been released and survives scientific scrutiny, then I will say the treatment works and congratulate Dr. Ahlfors. But that time may never come.




--The regeneration matrix is not new. It is over 10 years old. Odd that no other lab, or Invivo, could develop a scaffold and get similar results in 10 years.
--I didn't misrepresent what you said. You said animal studies are useless for efficacy.
Post 316: "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."


--I've said all I can, I'm just repeating myself. So I'm out. We agree on the validity of my points on chinasci. I wish they can be responded to. We can agree to disagree on how much trust to put into Russian trial. Its just important for those on the site to know nothing has been released yet (to my knowledge). But honestly, most here don't give a sh*t.
--I'll give you the last word if you wish.

- OK you consider the only recovery to be the involuntary walking, Dr. Young has stated that that wasn't the case. Yes nothing specific about bowel function, but still enough improvements were noticed for him to mention it. Hopefully this next phase 3 will answer all the questions that were all talking about.


-yes most SCI are lucky in that sense, but the problem is when you have a very spastic bladder it's not the size of the bladder that's the problem, it's the fact that the bladder is constantly spasming pressing urine out when you don't want it to and places it shouldn't go, neurogenic bladder. This is the problem I have, I have an extremely high pressured bladder it doesn't have to be full to spasm causing me to urinate. Although now four years post with an indwelling catheter bladder shrinkage is a problem but that's not what I'm talking about stem cells gene therapy won't ever fix permanent bladder shrinkage completely different topic. All I'm saying is if some of those patients had a very high-pressure spastic bladder, and dr.youngs clinical trial managedto calm the bladderbasically cure a neurogenic bladder for the most part, that is bladder function recovery not fully but it still is ( most spinal cord injuries evidently are just ignorant to the harsh reality of a very high-pressure spastic bladder)7and would have a huge impact on the unfortunate few that have it. But again we don't know The exact details of the recovery or the patients involved and what they were like before hand.

- I never said I wouldn't have doubts, I obviously had doubts about the head transplant,before everything went to shit. But who am I to conclude that neural stem cells can't bring a brain back to life, restarting all the vital organs I don't know if they can be engineered to do that, I can have all the doubts I want but there just uneducated doubtsno different than yourself doesn't matter if you or I end up being right or wrong i'm not a cellular researcher, I don't understand them fully so therefore I don't know their Full potential. In fact I've read articles were more qualified educated men state that nobody knows their true potential at this point! Btwof course I would listen to other doctors this is new and very early despite anyone's expensive credentials nobody's going in this with a full understanding anything can happen we got to take it all in, all of us as best we can! I don't follow Dr. Silver that much, just have the basic understanding of what he's trying to do with his peptide.

-I understand that the regeneration matrix has been development for over a decade, so has their autologous neural stem cells!I never said it was brand-new, however from everything I've seen if it is actually capable of everything that claims to be, it's far superior to in vivo's scaffolding or hydrogels those are more so vehicles then it's own potential regenerative treatment. You just did misrepresent what I said, which is evident through what you quoted I never said it was useless for efficiency, I said the priority number one for animal models is to proof safety! Once that is done, as I said I have no doubt they continue with the animal models and follow their progress to get an idea on efficiency or at least where they're heading. But again in my eyes animal models are not comparable for the reasons I stated earlier, 100% necessary not even taking into account the expenses issue, but I still don't think they're comparable I think they're a means to an end, which it seems like they are to get to phase 1! Fact I rarely heard about chronic animal models, and is three months of paralysis for a rat comparable to 5+ years on a human.

- I understand, I agree, I think part of the disagreement is I actually reached out to learn as much as I can, I actually want to become a patient of this clinical trial.( don't assume that I'm just looking at or four delusional hope, I know that I most likely facing the Grim Reaper but from what I've seen and read I'm more worried about getting into the clinical trial then not having any functional recovery ) I think people fail to realize that you can't sit in a chair for 10 years and expect to get substantial recovery with such early research, or any kind of shape below your injury bones become riddled with disease, muscles lose the ability to contract, spinal cord athrophies, many terrible things happened to the injury site, joints/organs become damaged or altered etc. etc. either way 10 years is way too long to live dependent , With the disgusting procedures I can't delude myself to justify it so I'm trying to make a shot now! At this point I believe this to be the best by far

[Stormycoon]

@Grammy..figure ud be best 1 in the know 2 ask.. since its nearing July,, when/where can we expect to see the data release from the patients in Germany being treated??

[Silvio GS]

[IMG]/forum/webkit-fake-url://a9e4aa81-29de-4d09-ba8b-2a21e9327697/imagejpeg[/IMG]

[Fly_Pelican_Fly]

@Grammy..figure ud be best 1 in the know 2 ask.. since its nearing July,, when/where can we expect to see the data release from the patients in Germany being treated??

Russia.

[Stormycoon]

@Grammy... so Summer was supposed to be release of trial data...Nearly September now... where do we look for this...this most exciting venture happening IMO..
Know anything??

[GRAMMY]

@Grammy... so Summer was supposed to be release of trial data...Nearly September now... where do we look for this...this most exciting venture happening IMO..
Know anything??

I'll post a fresh thread later on when I can make information available. This thread went WAY OFF TRACK and should be locked.