Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

who said what, when?

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

    #31
    Great attitude Paolo, any SCI research acute or chronic is better then no SCI research. Research in one area is sure to have benefits in another, I mean for all we know somebody researching Spina Bifida could come up with a piece of the cure puzzle. My opinion is that this shouldn`t be looked at as a bunch of seperate puzzles, it`s not a acute sci puzzle that`s seperate from the chronic puzzle that`s seperate from the non traumatic sci puzzle. It`s one spinal cord puzzle with the hypothetical possibilty that certain pieces might fit together easier then other pieces, the more pieces that are connected rather then in isolation the easier it is to solve the puzzle.

    The SCI community can be its own worst enemy at times.
    Last edited by canuck; 15 Nov 2012, 2:30 AM.

    Comment


      #32
      Hi, Paolo, I like your "Gorgonzola" taste in our salad. Btw, have you checked my "grappa" approach? I should recommend it with prosciutto, green onions and cranberry or pomegranate juice. If you prefer hot snack, try this: http://eteacherhebrew.com/articles/hamin-cholent , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholent.
      Just be cautious, don't get fat, we'll need our slender figures soon.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by paolocipolla View Post
        Recently I managed to cut off founding to scientists who didn't want to do chronic SCI studies at all!
        I plan to do more actions like that in the future.

        Researchers reading here may keep that in mind.

        Paolo
        Unless you got it directed somewhere else?
        Roses are red. Tacos are enjoyable. Don't blame immigrants, because you're unemployable.

        T-11 Flaccid Paraplegic due to TM July 1985 @ age 12

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by lynnifer View Post
          Paolo don't let your anger make you crazy ... seriously.
          I appreciate that Lynnifer....

          ...Aristotle does not deny anger a place in the behavior of a good person..

          According to Aristotle, the virtue with regards to anger would not be led by the emotions (pathoi), but by reason (logos). So according to Aristotle, anger can be virtuous and rational in the right circumstances...


          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics

          I am still learning... but I have found already usefull to allow myself to get angry ang to make it visible in a strategic manner.

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

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by kivi66 View Post
            Hi, Paolo, I like your "Gorgonzola" taste in our salad. Btw, have you checked my "grappa" approach? I should recommend it with prosciutto, green onions and cranberry or pomegranate juice. If you prefer hot snack, try this: http://eteacherhebrew.com/articles/hamin-cholent , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholent.
            Just be cautious, don't get fat, we'll need our slender figures soon.
            You want to kill me! I already go to McDonald's few times a year!

            ... but I may get a bottle of good grappa for Xmas

            Paolo
            Last edited by paolocipolla; 15 Nov 2012, 9:03 AM.
            In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by lynnifer View Post
              Unless you got it directed somewhere else?
              Got it! Chronic!

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

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by paolocipolla View Post
                Got it! Chronic!

                Paolo
                You had it redirected somewhere else? May I ask what funding was denied and where it went to?
                Roses are red. Tacos are enjoyable. Don't blame immigrants, because you're unemployable.

                T-11 Flaccid Paraplegic due to TM July 1985 @ age 12

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by paolocipolla View Post
                  Recently I managed to cut off founding to scientists who didn't want to do chronic SCI studies at all!
                  I plan to do more actions like that in the future.

                  Researchers reading here may keep that in mind.

                  Paolo
                  Wow.

                  You are a narrow minded little person.

                  It would be an awesome day if ANY SCI got cured. If acutes are cured, then (eventualy) there will be no chronics..think about it.

                  Why when I read your posts, you remind me of a 5 year old who doesn't get his way?
                  ---------
                  C5-6 / '88

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by Reed-edm View Post
                    Wow.

                    You are a narrow minded little person.

                    It would be an awesome day if ANY SCI got cured. If acutes are cured, then (eventualy) there will be no chronics..think about it.

                    Why when I read your posts, you remind me of a 5 year old who doesn't get his way?
                    Yes, you're right. When the chronics die out, and they manage to cure acute SCI, there will be no chronics.

                    A 15 year old was injured recently in a local car accident. I don't know him or the extent of his injuries other than, 'he'll never walk again'. Now, given the amazing improvements we've seen in health care, this young man can expect to live to say, 75.

                    Is your approach, seriously, to let the chronics just die out over time? That could take over half a century.

                    Logic says chronic first......think about it.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by paolocipolla View Post
                      Got it! Chronic!

                      Paolo
                      Originally posted by Tayberry View Post
                      Yes, you're right. When the chronics die out, and they manage to cure acute SCI, there will be no chronics.
                      Agree with this totally.
                      Roses are red. Tacos are enjoyable. Don't blame immigrants, because you're unemployable.

                      T-11 Flaccid Paraplegic due to TM July 1985 @ age 12

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Reed-edm, please, refrain in a discussion from statements like "You are a narrow minded little person", they do not make you nor more important nor smarter. Actually, sorry, they indicate quite the opposite.

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Paolo,

                          Perhaps you are not reading what I said. In fact, I have publicly said that I was wrong about the 7-year prediction. This doesn't mean that I was not misquoted. I always made that prediction with caveats and I was uncomfortable with using the word cure at the time. I continue to believe that if we had the resources to do the clinical trials in 1995, we probably would have had a therapy by 2002 that would have restored some function in people with chronic spinal cord injury.

                          In 1997, we had several promising therapies that *have not yet* been adequately tested in clinical trials even now, 15 years later. For example, Nogo antibody has just been tested in phase I/II trials so far. Cethrin has only gone through Phase I/II trials to date and is having trouble finding money to go ahead to phase II and phase III trials. While fetal OEG's have been transplanted into many patients, we have only the beginnings of a trial of autologous nasal mucosa OEG cells being transplanted into the spinal cord. Fetal neural stem cells are still going through phase I/II trials.

                          We are testing HLA-matched umbilical cord blood mononuclear cells and lithium in China and they may be the first therapies to go to phase III trial for chronic spinal cord injury. Dozens of therapies have been reported to regenerate and restore function in animal spinal cord injury models. Only a tiny fraction have been tested in clinical trial and none beyond phase II and certainly none for chronic spinal cord injury.

                          By the way, it is not just lack of money. It is also because we didn't have the critical mass of scientists and clinicians working on chronic spinal cord injury. We had very few companies that were interested and committed to producing products for chronic spinal cord injury. Until recently, we did not have enough surgeons who had expose the chronically injured spinal cord and transplanted cells. In 1996, we did not even have a good spinal cord injury model of chronic spinal cord injury. For the last 15 years, I have spent almost every waking moment thinking about and trying to correct these deficits that so that field can move on.

                          Wise.



                          Originally posted by paolocipolla View Post
                          Ok Wise, but according to your recent post here below in 1997 you thought we were 7 years away...



                          You were just wrong, I don't see why you don't just admit that as we all make mistakes as human beens.

                          BTW clearly the problem is scienze, reserchers and politics. Scienze because no animals with chronic SCI have been cured yet, researchers because there is little work done on chronic SCI etc., finally politics as some money directed to chronic SCI cure would probably help.
                          Perhaps before starting ChinaSCI Net you should have convinced the scientific community to focus on chronic, so that now we could have had few more therapies for chronics ready for chlinical trials.

                          Recently I managed to cut off founding to scientists who didn't want to do chronic SCI studies at all!
                          I plan to do more actions like that in the future.

                          Researchers reading here may keep that in mind.

                          Paolo
                          Last edited by Wise Young; 15 Nov 2012, 1:51 PM.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by lynnifer View Post
                            You had it redirected somewhere else? May I ask what funding was denied and where it went to?
                            It was a stem cell research project and they refused to do it also on chronic SCI even after several polite discussions on the issue.

                            Money will go for a chronic SCI research project, few options are being considered, but the final decision hasn't been taken yet that I know.

                            I have just provided to people with decision power all the arguments in favor of chronic SCI research which have been cosidered valid aguments, so now just chronic SCI proposals are being accepted for evaluation while at first they didn't have a focus and the progect above was about to get the money.
                            Not much money actually and they will have to stay in Italy, but it's a victory of common sense IMO, also considering that the money come from the effort of few SCI people in the early 20s.

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

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Originally posted by Wise Young View Post
                              Paolo,

                              Perhaps you are not reading what I said. In fact, I have publicly said that I was wrong about the 7-year prediction. This doesn't mean that I was not misquoted. I always made that prediction with caveats and I was uncomfortable with using the word cure at the time. I continue to believe that if we had the resources to do the clinical trials in 1995, we probably would have had a therapy by 2002 that would have restored some function in people with chronic spinal cord injury.

                              In 1997, we had several promising therapies that *have not yet* been adequately tested in clinical trials even now, 15 years later. For example, Nogo antibody has just been tested in phase I/II trials so far. Cethrin has only gone through Phase I/II trials to date and is having trouble finding money to go ahead to phase II and phase III trials. While fetal OEG's have been transplanted into many patients, we have only the beginnings of a trial of autologous nasal mucosa OEG cells being transplanted into the spinal cord. Fetal neural stem cells are still going through phase I/II trials.

                              We are testing HLA-matched umbilical cord blood mononuclear cells and lithium in China and they may be the first therapies to go to phase III trial for chronic spinal cord injury. Dozens of therapies have been reported to regenerate and restore function in animal spinal cord injury models. Only a tiny fraction have been tested in clinical trial and none beyond phase II and certainly none for chronic spinal cord injury.

                              By the way, it is not just lack of money. It is also because we didn't have the critical mass of scientists and clinicians working on chronic spinal cord injury. We had very few companies that were interested and committed to producing products for chronic spinal cord injury. Until recently, we did not have enough surgeons who had expose the chronically injured spinal cord and transplanted cells. In 1996, we did not even have a good spinal cord injury model of chronic spinal cord injury. For the last 15 years, I have spent almost every waking moment thinking about and trying to correct these deficits that so that field can move on.

                              Wise.
                              I suspect you were not misquoted, but misquoted or not it doesn't make any difference today.

                              About the NOGO, it didn't work on chronic SCI animals (but it has been tested on chronic which has been unusual), so it went to trials just on acute. Novartis has provided all the money necessary to do the phase I/II as fast as posssible. They actually did two phase I/II changing the way of administration. They did 40 patients and it didn't work, that is why they are not doing the phase III.

                              About Cethrin, can you tell me why it wasn't tried on chronic immediatly after it had shown efficacy on acute animals?
                              So cethtrin went to trial on acute and they runned out of money, some indications of efficacy were seen, but it seems not good enough to attract investors to move it to phase III.
                              If the same indications of efficacy were shown on people with chronic SCI I bet investors would have had more interests, not to mention the SCI community.

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

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Originally posted by Wise Young View Post

                                By the way, it is not just lack of money. It is also because we didn't have the critical mass of scientists and clinicians working on chronic spinal cord injury. We had very few companies that were interested and committed to producing products for chronic spinal cord injury. Until recently, we did not have enough surgeons who had expose the chronically injured spinal cord and transplanted cells. In 1996, we did not even have a good spinal cord injury model of chronic spinal cord injury. For the last 15 years, I have spent almost every waking moment thinking about and trying to correct these deficits that so that field can move on.

                                Wise.
                                Wise,

                                I have seen many presentations of you at scientific meetings, but, thinking back, I have never heard you encouraging researchers to work on chronic SCI for all the good reasons that we know.

                                On the other hand recently I heard one researchrs doing that openly at the end of his presentation.

                                I hope to hear you saying something to convince scientists to focus on chronics in your next presenation at SCI scientific meetings.

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X