Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Am I misinterpreting the latest geron newsletter?

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

    #16
    Originally posted by c473s View Post
    From what I have observed in over 30 years the "natural return" is statistically tiny when the AIS test is repeated by well trained professionals. Of course one can always try to convince the researchers that their best shot is in is chronics. They apppear to believe it is not. I support looking at both as well as trying adult stem cells and cord blood. Nobody knows what is going to work today so we are in for an even longer ride than many ever imagined.
    That statistically tiny return can be enough to make a company hundreds of millions. The only real proof will be a medical intervention on a chronic patient who has been undergoing rigorous therapy with no return. Then gets the procedure and has notable return with the same therapy regime as before. Of course this can also be skewed by a patient who gets return of function due to the medical procedure instead of the cell therapy. In any case GO DR. YOUNG!!! I hope you are having great success with your trials.

    Comment


      #17
      My real hope was always Dr Wise

      Comment


        #18
        My name is John Monahan. I'm a freelance writer, and I have been very frustrated by the media coverage of the Geron decision. Everyone seems to be quoting researchers, economists, even stock analysts, but no one seems to be talking to the people most directly affected by the decision, the patients. I am currently working on a story about this and would love to talk to someone who feels strongly about the issue. Thanks.

        Comment


          #19
          : What A Good Idea!

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by John Monahan View Post
            My name is John Monahan. I'm a freelance writer, and I have been very frustrated by the media coverage of the Geron decision. Everyone seems to be quoting researchers, economists, even stock analysts, but no one seems to be talking to the people most directly affected by the decision, the patients. I am currently working on a story about this and would love to talk to someone who feels strongly about the issue. Thanks.
            So far only Mr. Atchison had commented in the past yet has not surfaced on this news. There are 3 others and none of them have even self identified. Most in these forums have strong opinions even as non subjects and a rare few are constrained by the non-disclosure agreements because they are affiliated with the institutions that performed the trials. For me the biggest let down is Geron not seeming to have known more about what the costs could be going in. That number is better defined but having the trial enrollment halted still stings.
            Last edited by c473s; 17 Nov 2011, 7:19 PM. Reason: spelling

            Comment


              #21
              Publicly owned corporations are about making money. They decided for now sci was a black hole and they pooled resources to develop their cancer drug.
              Han: "We are all ready to win, just as we are born knowing only life. It is defeat that you must learn to prepare for"

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by paolocipolla View Post
                I am not surprised at all.
                At W2W I told the guy from Geron that I had the impression Geron it is not interested in curing SCI, they have just used SCI as it was the fastest way to prove hESC are safe. He didn't say no.. his face was telling me I was right... Here we go..

                Keep in mind that Geron therapy at best was going to provide "some" functional return just in people with moderate contusion in acute SCI. They were not working on other complementary therapy to address the other kind of SCI.
                The company didn't have a chance to make money out of the OPCs therapy.

                I still feel we have to thank them for what they did.

                Paolo
                Paolo: Genron is keeping its agreement with those individuals who entered the study before it ended. Part of the trial included a set rehabilitation protocol. They were not "just moderate contusion injuries" as I know one of the patients and spoke with him as recently as yesterday. I believe that the patients are required to remain quiet for an agreed upon timeframe--thus only one patient has come forward.

                I believe that initial safety has been demonstrated but the question of tumor growth remains over time. Besides thanking Genron, we should be thanking the individuals who enrolled in the study. Like all phase 1 participants, they took a leap of faith.
                Every day I wake up is a good one

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by cheesecake View Post
                  Paolo: Genron is keeping its agreement with those individuals who entered the study before it ended. Part of the trial included a set rehabilitation protocol. They were not "just moderate contusion injuries" as I know one of the patients and spoke with him as recently as yesterday. I believe that the patients are required to remain quiet for an agreed upon timeframe--thus only one patient has come forward.

                  I believe that initial safety has been demonstrated but the question of tumor growth remains over time. Besides thanking Genron, we should be thanking the individuals who enrolled in the study. Like all phase 1 participants, they took a leap of faith.
                  I agree with what you say especially that we have thank also all the individuals that enrolled in the study.

                  About the therapy I think that the animal studies have shown that the improvment was due mainly to a better remyelinations of axons who had not been "cut" by the injury. That is why I say the chances of improvment are "restricted" to patient with a moderate contusion.
                  So if they enrolled a patient with an almost severed spinal cord it can be ok to prove safety, but, as I understand, it is unlikely to see any efficacy if the therapy works the way it worked in animals.

                  Paolo
                  In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by c473s View Post
                    Geron was not looking for function in phase I they were looking for safety data. That I believe will be born out. Had the trtial gone to phase II I believe the numbers of cells injected would have been increased in an effort to gain function.

                    I guess one can guess if any surgery after injury hurt "natural return". There are far too many variables for me to even hazard a guess on that one.
                    That is why I say (some researchers told me that a few years ago BTW) we should focus more on chronic SCI to hopefully figure out also how to cure acute.

                    Acute SCI has too many variables and also they are constantly changing minute after minute.
                    It's like a 4 dimentions moving target.

                    Paolo
                    In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by c473s View Post

                      ..... Of course one can always try to convince the researchers that their best shot is in is chronics. They apppear to believe it is not....
                      We should not try to convince researchers to work on chronic, we have just to restrict founding to chronic SCI research.
                      If they don't want to take the challenge they are not the people we need.

                      First thing to do is stop donating to labs and SCI foundation that do not have a research progarm looking at chronic SCI.

                      Paolo
                      In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by paolocipolla View Post
                        We should not try to convince researchers to work on chronic, we have just to restrict founding to chronic SCI research.
                        If they don't want to take the challenge they are not the people we need.

                        First thing to do is stop donating to labs and SCI foundation that do not have a research progarm looking at chronic SCI.

                        Paolo





                        I agree, Paolo!
                        Daniel

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X