Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jerry Silver and Other Discussion from ChinaSCINet Update

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

    Originally posted by c473s View Post
    She should be here soon to add meat to my limited comment and add accuracy to what was said. I tend to be way too short with my words.
    Hummm...adding "meat" to the comment?
    I would have to say Dr. Silver is right on the pork and primate issue. His area of expertise for 30 some years is in-vivo and in-vitro work on mice and rats. That's a far cry from capabilities needed to handle hogs and primates in a research facility. There is no such facility in Cleveland like the one that Mark has in California. Dr. Silver is not a man of large stature and working pigs first of all is not as easy as folks seem to think it is. Take my word for it, it's best that Dr. Silver not get into a pen full of pork. It is best that he turns his research over to the next team up or someone who is well versed and capable of handling these larger animals in the right facility when the research gets to this final stage. His lab on the second floor of the medical science building is not big enough for pigs or primates, nor is this his area of expertise. Whomever takes on this later stage project should indeed need to have their own project funding. He would have no expertise in the animals there, the care, human labor or research costs connected at someone else's facility in another state and academic institution, nor would he be familiar with the laws of that state. He would do the same as all the other scientists do...they hand it off to the next best team to translate. It's highly unlikely he would attempt to reinvent the wheel. A lot of what happens during these various stages of development are designed by the biotech companies that plan to go to the FDA with the data of the CRO. It is much faster and streamlined as compared to someone with no experience in it trying to run the show. That would be a recipe for disaster. Dr. Silver would help with anything needed within his area of expertise and has stated such many, many times. He's made no pretense however about trying to act as a CRO when that is not in his area of expertise. Anyway, that's been my understanding so far. We somehow have this odd notion in the sci community that this is the norm when in fact the opposite is true. In fact, 99.99% of research scientists in any field do not take their own discovery to the bedside by themselves.
    http://spinalcordresearchandadvocacy.wordpress.com/

    Comment


      "We somehow have this odd notion in the sci community that this is the norm when in fact the opposite is true. In fact, 99.99% of research scientists in any field do not take their own discovery to the bedside by themselves."
      Well, I thought he is a rare exception.

      Comment


        Geoffrey Raisman once told me "a cure has to be a collaborative effort." I remember on a documentary he said that although he had found what he thought was an important piece of the puzzle it was no more all of it than if they were trying to build a brick cathedral and here he was standing with one brick in his hand. It may be made of bricks, if it were a brick cathedral, but you can't build the whole thing in one go and it will take the collaborative effort of many people.

        Geoffrey Raisman was the first person to use an electron microscope and observe that the brain constantly made new connections - he was laughed at by the scientific community but it is now an accepted fact that the brain is plastic.

        Anyway, all I'm saying is that someone like Jerry can work on his area(s) of expertize and, as Grammy says, collaborate with whomever it is necessary to continue the work forward.

        The idea of one gallant researcher independently concocting a cure from start to finish is overly simplistic.

        Comment


          Originally posted by kivi66 View Post
          "We somehow have this odd notion in the sci community that this is the norm when in fact the opposite is true. In fact, 99.99% of research scientists in any field do not take their own discovery to the bedside by themselves."
          Well, I thought he is a rare exception.
          My primary mission in doing SCI research is to help bring whatever good we do in our lab to people. I do not have the capacity to do this myself because I spend so much time in the day-to day activities in my lab, helping my students, writing grants (endlessly), reviewing manuscripts, editorship duties, teaching, outside seminars etc. However, I am quite serious about my clinical commitment so I have and will continue to invest a strong effort in transferring our technology with the help of others who are far more capable of translational endeavors. In the mid 1990’s, I was the founding scientist of Gliatech, one of the first start-up biotech’s in the mid-west who pioneered the very first FDA approved anti-fibrotic gel called Adcon. This is a proteoglycan-like barrier that has been used in over 100,000 people worldwide to prevent painful adhesion formation (but simultaneously allowing for healing) within a number of regions of the body, such as in peripheral nerve entrapments, failed back syndrome, gut adhesions, tendon adhesions, heart adhesions, implant adhesions etc. Unfortunately, the management of the company totally screwed things up, got into trouble with the FDA, went bankrupt and the licenses and royalties of the invention have gone somewhere in Europe. An absolutely wonderful product that I invented that is unavailable to people in the US. Next, I helped found Acorda Therapeutics in hopes of bringing chondroitinase to people. I am no longer on their board and I am totally frustrated by their lack of progress. I am helping the ISRT in anyway possible to bring chondroitinase to SCI people. Lastly, our new peptide that we have so much hope for has composition of matter IP and is now being shopped by the university to big pharma to bring this exciting technology to the people ASAP. So you are utterly wrong that I don’t wish to bring my science to the people. In terms of funding, you may be referring to a statement that I made at my first W2W symposium. The point I was trying to make (but this didn’t come out quite right) was that I had not come to W2W to solicit money like some others (who I will not name) did. I also believe that there are substantial funds available for SCI research out there (especially from the NIH and certain private foundations) but I am sickened that so much money is being funneled into fundamentally flawed science and is being overly hyped to create a sense of false hope in an effort to bankroll certain labs. Typically these labs have no NIH funding and depend on philanthropy for their survival. Of course, there is a need for more funding, but I think we can make substantial progress with the money that is available now in the field of SCI if we keenly focus our efforts worldwide on CHRONIC SCI models

          Comment


            "Of course, there is a need for more funding, but I think we can make substantial progress with the money that is available now in the field of SCI if we keenly focus our efforts worldwide on CHRONIC SCI models."
            Thanks, Jerry, the clouds have dispersed.

            Comment


              Jerry, I sincerely hope that the right people get to develop the chase and peptide technologies so that they end up benefitting sci people as intended.

              Surely the European owner of Adcon could make it available in the US - what a ridiculous situation it is when business gets in the way of the true purpose of medicine. I am not a big fan of the big drug companies although I know I am probably at their mercy like most of us - the dollar is way more important to them than saving lives.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Christopher Paddon View Post
                Geoffrey Raisman once told me "a cure has to be a collaborative effort." I remember on a documentary he said that although he had found what he thought was an important piece of the puzzle it was no more all of it than if they were trying to build a brick cathedral and here he was standing with one brick in his hand. It may be made of bricks, if it were a brick cathedral, but you can't build the whole thing in one go and it will take the collaborative effort of many people.

                Geoffrey Raisman was the first person to use an electron microscope and observe that the brain constantly made new connections - he was laughed at by the scientific community but it is now an accepted fact that the brain is plastic.

                Anyway, all I'm saying is that someone like Jerry can work on his area(s) of expertize and, as Grammy says, collaborate with whomever it is necessary to continue the work forward.

                The idea of one gallant researcher independently concocting a cure from start to finish is overly simplistic.
                Could they skype or call each other on the phone or read each other's research online? Is this not happening?

                Has Jerry Silver tried injecting stem cells, by themselves, near the injury site of a spinal cord injured rodent?

                Jerry on the chronic cord: axons that were cut have died back . . . there’s a dense wall full of stem cells surrounding the lesion with a moat of nothing in between. They can sit there for decades.
                SOURCE

                Where is the proof of this?

                Cellular and extracellular inhibitors are thought to restrict axon growth after chronic spinal cord injury (SCI), confronting the axon with a combination of chronic astrocytosis and extracellular matrix-associated inhibitors that collectively constitute the chronic “scar.” To examine whether the chronically injured environment is strongly inhibitory to axonal regeneration, we grafted permissive autologous bone marrow stromal cells (MSCs) into mid-cervical SCI sites of adult rats, 6 weeks post-injury without resection of the “chronic scar.” Additional subjects received MSCs genetically modified to express neurotrophin-3 (NT-3), providing a further local stimulus to axon growth. Anatomical analysis 3 months post-injury revealed extensive astrocytosis surrounding the lesion site, together with dense deposition of the inhibitory extracellular matrix molecule NG2. Despite this inhibitory environment, axons penetrated the lesion site through the chronic scar. Robust axonal regeneration occurred into chronic lesion cavities expressing NT-3. Notably, chronically regenerating axons preferentially associated with Schwann cell surfaces expressing both inhibitory NG2 substrates and the permissive substrates L1 and NCAM in the lesion site. Collectively, these findings indicate that inhibitory factors deposited at sites of chronic SCI do not create impenetrable boundaries and that inhibition can be balanced by local and diffusible signals to generate robust axonal growth even without resecting chronic scar tissue.
                SOURCE

                Am I reading this wrong?

                Comment


                  Originally posted by jsilver View Post
                  My primary mission in doing SCI research is to help bring whatever good we do in our lab to people.

                  So you are utterly wrong that I don’t wish to bring my science to the people. In terms of funding, you may be referring to a statement that I made at my first W2W symposium.

                  Of course, there is a need for more funding, but I think we can make substantial progress with the money that is available now in the field of SCI if we keenly focus our efforts worldwide on CHRONIC SCI models
                  I am personally of the opinion that you and others doing research genuinely want to help people or you would certainly not have engaged in the field. You choose to stay at what I probably incorrectly refer to as bench/lab research. Others do translational work. Some may even do a little of both.

                  I know that this tends to be the nature of the beast. My frustration over many years is what appears to be many efforts advancing pretty much alone (and this is directed at no single individual). I have turned down many requests to join somebody's advisory group unless they agree along with other researchers to have some common advisory or board members so the theories can be compared and maybe a common mechanism discovered.

                  The field is better than is was ten years ago and the various symposiums have done a lot to open discussion among researchers.

                  If I wanted to enter the field as a young researcher I doubt I would if I read here or most any place on the internet. We as a group can come across as ungrateful, demanding and inpatient (well the impatient part is understandable). My hat is off to those of you who do respond. Doctors in general hide behind schedulers and office staff because they don't have time to answer because they are treating patients. I really do not have sympathy for the busy claim. I likely have a lot more employees than they do and some days believe I am busy too. :-)

                  I also believe we are a long way to any "cure" and that it will require some type of cells or pharmacological intervention combined with intense therapy. The connections are highly unlikely to line up as they were originally so retraining with repetitive motion and proprioceptive feedback will have to be part of it.
                  Last edited by c473s; 21 Jan 2013, 7:40 PM. Reason: clarity

                  Comment


                    IMO helping people motivates some researchers, but for others, solving a puzzle consumes them. (Think: House)

                    Originally posted by c473s View Post
                    My frustration over many years is what appears to be many efforts advancing pretty much alone (and this is directed at no single individual).
                    This is the blessing and the curse of competition. Competition drives researchers to work extremely hard at making their therapy the one that "wins." It's this desire to win that probably keeps some from sharing information with one another.

                    Originally posted by c473s View Post
                    I have turned down many requests to join somebody's advisory group unless they agree along with other researchers to have some common advisory or board members so the theories can be compared and maybe a common mechanism discovered.
                    Do you think an advisory board would lead to politicking, lobbying, or perhaps even in some cases, bribery?

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by crabbyshark View Post
                      Do you think an advisory board would lead to politicking, lobbying, or perhaps even in some cases, bribery?
                      I can say absolutely no to all these after watching those involved in those capacities that I know well. They simply have not collaborated with others well. There have recently been multi-center trials because the reality of getting numbers enrolled in decent numbers do not happen in a single center trial.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by NowhereMan View Post
                        No, my axons are not growing in my body. The spinal cord does not regenerate. That is why there are scientists trying to figure out a treatment that will get it to regenerate. Your post quoting Wise was him discussing hypothetical axon growth, not what occurs naturally in the spinal cord. This is not open to debate, it is fact.
                        Your axons are regrowing in your body.

                        Live imaging has revealed that unconditioned axons can show some initial sprouts and grow during the first few days after injury. However, further regeneration of these sprouts could not be assessed by histological approaches. We observed regeneration of a few unconditioned axons in chronically injured spinal cords, albeit less extensively than conditioned axons. Most of these axons protruded the peripheral zone of the lesion showing less than 7% of the axonal volume within the inner 150μm region (Fig. 4d,f). Moreover, along their trajectories they intersected only three times with the cylindrical planes (Fig. 4g). These axons were readily unveiled by 3D imaging because of their abnormal trajectories (Supplementary Fig. 10a) and identifiable tips (Supplementary Fig. 11), the key criteria for unequivocally distinguishing regenerating axons from spared axons, which course on their normal path until the edge of imaged tissue segment and show no identifiable tip (Supplementary Fig. 10a). By contrast, conventional histological sectioning would reveal only axon fragments (Supplementary Fig. 10b–h) omitting key information, including a defined axonal tip and trajectory. Hence, regenerating axons would be indistinguishable from spared axons by conventional sectioning. Thus, our data indicate that unconditioned axons not only show some initial sprouting but regenerate if they can bypass the lesion.
                        IF ONLY SOMETHING EXISTED THAT COULD HELP YOUR REGENERATING AXONS BYPASS THE LESION.

                        It is notable that 3D imaging also revealed regrowth of unconditioned axons after chronic injury, highlighting a previously underestimated regenerative potential. Because clearing and subsequent 3D imaging allow the tracing of axons up to their tip, it enables unequivocal identification of regenerative axons versus spared axons.
                        SOURCE
                        Last edited by crabbyshark; 21 Jan 2013, 11:23 PM. Reason: added link

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by crabbyshark View Post

                          Your axons are regrowing in your body.

                          IF ONLY SOMETHING EXISTED THAT COULD HELP YOUR REGENERATING AXONS BYPASS THE LESION.

                          SOURCE

                          Are you high?

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by NowhereMan View Post
                            Are you high?
                            No.

                            Originally posted by NowhereMan View Post
                            No, my axons are not growing in my body. The spinal cord does not regenerate.
                            The spinal cord regenerates. This regrowth is being inhibited (not ceased, inhibited). Some suggested factors inhibiting regeneration include:
                            the scar
                            chemicals in your spinal cord
                            your immune system

                            Scientists are trying to determine how to best deal with whatever is inhibiting regeneration/regrowth/whatever you want to call it so that the spinal cord can regenerate much better.

                            It's like if you were driving down the road and the speed limit was 5 MPH. Scientists are trying to figure out to raise the speed limit to 60 MPH.

                            Originally posted by NowhereMan View Post
                            This is why there are scientists trying to figure out a treatment that will get it to regenerate.
                            This is why there are scientists trying to figure out a treatment that will get it to regenerate better.

                            Originally posted by NowhereMan View Post
                            Your post quoting Wise was him discussing hypothetical axon growth, not what occurs naturally in the spinal cord.
                            He's talking about actual axon growth man.

                            It is notable that 3D imaging also revealed regrowth of unconditioned axons after chronic injury, highlighting a previously underestimated regenerative potential. Because clearing and subsequent 3D imaging allow the tracing of axons up to their tip, it enables unequivocal identification of regenerative axons versus spared axons.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by GRAMMY View Post
                              Stephen Huhn, MD and Aileen Anderson PhD take questions and answers about the StemCells Inc. trial for chronic spinal cord injury.

                              http://www.u2fp.org/educate/
                              Hmm...interesting to hear in this video something that crabbyshark suggested. That is that the chronic stage may have some characteristics that make it more amenable to cell transplantation. If you don't have time to watch, Aileen Anderson says that, in their rodent models, they found that when the therapy is given at 9 days, 30 days and 60 days post injury they get recovery of function with the same transplantation protocol. They have to, however, change this protocol to get recovery after immediate transplation of the cells (acute).

                              Comment


                                Grammy
                                She also says it will 10 to 15 years ? But when you listen to all the other videos the researchers seems to think we will see .Big things this year or is it only me thinking that
                                AS I SIT HERE IN MY CHAIR . I LOOK OUT UPON THE GROUND .I WONDER WILL I EVER GET UP AND WALK A ROUND ??


                                http://justadollarplease.org

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X