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 crabbyshark View Post


    Very good question. Perhaps if we lived to be 1,000 years old we would all regain some function. We don't. In most of us, the inhibitors are preventing more than enough axons from regenerating across the injury site to keep us from seeing functional improvement.

    I'll try to explain it like this:

    Imagine you and 10,000 other drivers are at an intersection. You all drive slow cars.

    Now, let's assume you don't know how to speak German. A police officer that speaks only German crosses the road and stops in front of your cars. He will not move and he will not let you go past him. You're not totally sure why. You are all inching forward but he's stubborn and no one can get by. More cars are piling up behind you.

    After waiting a little while, some drivers get frustrated and try to detour around him (growth cones)
    . A few other drivers, feeling bold, defy the officer and manage to sneak by him. For whatever reason you and many of the other drivers are not comfortable doing that yet. You decide you have some choices: you could run the officer over (scaffold), you could throw a bomb at him (chemicals), or you could find a translation app on your iPhone that speaks his language and try asking him to let you by (stem cells).

    You decide to try the app. To your surprise, after speaking to him in German, he gladly agrees to let you through. You are all still driving slow cars, but you are all now finally cruising down the road.

    This is kind of a crude example but I hope it helps explain what's going on.
    Enough of the semantics!

    The chronic adult spinal cord does not regenerate. The reasons are numerous and still being researched by some very talented scientists. There are factors, some known and some unknown, for inhibiting regeneration and equally there are factors, some known and some unknown, as to why the adult human cord does not have intrinsic regenerative properties.

    Let's not waste time coming up with analogies that just confuse things further. Inhibition or Growth promotion? The candle is burning at both ends.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Moe View Post
      Funny to see Dr Silver defending Paolo that way… I wonder why Paolo does not bug Silver with all the non-stop questioning and evidences instead??
      Moe, as much as you would like to believe it so, there is no conspiracy theory.

      Comment


        Originally posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
        Enough of the semantics!

        The chronic adult spinal cord does not regenerate. The reasons are numerous and still being researched by some very talented scientists. There are factors, some known and some unknown, for inhibiting regeneration and equally there are factors, some known and some unknown, as to why the adult human cord does not have intrinsic regenerative properties.

        Let's not waste time coming up with analogies that just confuse things further. Inhibition or Growth promotion? The candle is burning at both ends.
        Yea, this argument is silly. I get that crabbyshark is trying to focus on the semantics in the context of the scar theory, which is fair to argue...but the underlying point being that without some sort of intervention, the cord is not regenerating sufficiently to give us back function. Period.

        Comment


          Originally posted by kivi66 View Post
          Because J.Silver is not bluff. Very simple.
          Really? So when Silver builds a multi-country clinical trials network (when is this planned for by the way?) and start clinical trials on humans (remind me again when this is going to happen again?) he will prove... well we don't know do we. Because he is doing none of those things.

          It is easy to believe newer unproven research. By the time (if) Silver's research gets to where UMBC-Li is I am sure there will be other therapies in the pipe that may seem better. Science builds on its successes and failures and unfortunately for us takes a long time.

          Comment


            Originally posted by t8burst View Post
            Really? So when Silver builds a multi-country clinical trials network (when is this planned for by the way?) and start clinical trials on humans (remind me again when this is going to happen again?) he will prove... well we don't know do we. Because he is doing none of those things.

            It is easy to believe newer unproven research. By the time (if) Silver's research gets to where UMBC-Li is I am sure there will be other therapies in the pipe that may seem better. Science builds on its successes and failures and unfortunately for us takes a long time.
            Therein lies the crux of the debate. The parameters for taking a therapy to trial have now changed dramatically. Chronic animal studies and standards are improving the probability of success at clinical stages. Larger animal models may suddenly become de facto soon. Things are always changing. We, as a population, are no longer looking at cells and enzymes that may provide a short window for sprouting but rather true robust regeneration of the chronic spinal cord. In my short time being injured (3.5 years) I have seen a total shift of expectations from the return of 1 or 2 levels of function to robust regeneration for all levels of spinal cord injury!

            As basic science charges forward at pace the priority is to make sure that the selection, translation and trial of therapies is done based upon the most compelling evidence.

            Comment


              Originally posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
              Enough of the semantics!

              The chronic adult spinal cord does not regenerate. The reasons are numerous and still being researched by some very talented scientists. There are factors, some known and some unknown, for inhibiting regeneration and equally there are factors, some known and some unknown, as to why the adult human cord does not have intrinsic regenerative properties.

              Let's not waste time coming up with analogies that just confuse things further. Inhibition or Growth promotion? The candle is burning at both ends.
              Yes, it does. The science is all about dealing with inhibitors so that it can regenerate better.

              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.
              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.
              Last edited by crabbyshark; 23 Jan 2013, 6:27 PM. Reason: changed "removing" to "dealing with"

              Comment


                Originally posted by crabbyshark View Post
                Yes, it does. The science is all about removing inhibitors so that it can regenerate better.
                No no no!!! I will not get drawn into this bizarre conversation.

                Regenerative potential of axons is not the same as regeneration of the spinal cord!! The spinal cord is made up of a hell of a lot more than f****** axons!

                I will waste no more time on semantics.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
                  No no no!!! I will not get drawn into this bizarre conversation.

                  Regenerative potential of axons is not the same as regeneration of the spinal cord!! The spinal cord is made up of a hell of a lot more than f****** axons!

                  I will waste no more time on semantics.
                  Yes yes yes.

                  Regeneration of axons is a huge part of regeneration of the spinal cord.

                  In some injuries where neurons have been damaged, neurons will have to be regenerated too in order to get functional improvement.

                  Yelling the loudest or getting angry doesn't make someone more right.

                  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 crabbyshark View Post
                    Yes yes yes.

                    Regeneration of axons is a huge part of regeneration of the spinal cord.

                    In some injuries where neurons have been damaged, neurons will have to be regenerated too in order to get functional improvement.

                    Yelling the loudest or getting angry doesn't make someone more right.
                    You just answered my case in point. Thanks.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
                      You just answered my case in point. Thanks.
                      And what's that?

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
                        You just answered my case in point. Thanks.
                        Axonal regeneration, in the absence of neuron regeneration, has shown to result in significant functional improvement.

                        Page 57:
                        Apparently, USSC did not differentiate into neurons, astrocytes, oligodendrocytes or Schwann cells after transplantation into the acutely injured spinal cord.
                        Page 68:
                        These data provide evidence that USSC promote axonal regeneration after transplantation into the injured SC.
                        Page 63:
                        Taken together, the behavioral data demonstrate that USSC transplantation significantly improved the locomotor performance compared to spinal injured animals lacking the stem cell graft.
                        SOURCE

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
                          Moe, as much as you would like to believe it so, there is no conspiracy theory.
                          Good point. No conspiracy, much less a "conspiracy theory", is needed for 3 or 4 people to spend most of their time attacking the beliefs of someone trying to prove something.

                          It is puzzling why they don't just wait for the results the trials. It seems like they are afraid he might be right.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
                            Therein lies the crux of the debate. The parameters for taking a therapy to trial have now changed dramatically. Chronic animal studies and standards are improving the probability of success at clinical stages. Larger animal models may suddenly become de facto soon. Things are always changing. We, as a population, are no longer looking at cells and enzymes that may provide a short window for sprouting but rather true robust regeneration of the chronic spinal cord. In my short time being injured (3.5 years) I have seen a total shift of expectations from the return of 1 or 2 levels of function to robust regeneration for all levels of spinal cord injury!

                            As basic science charges forward at pace the priority is to make sure that the selection, translation and trial of therapies is done based upon the most compelling evidence.
                            More my point was that I don't doubt Jerry Silver is good at what he does and Wise is very good at what he does. My point was they do very different things yet people are comparing them apples to apples.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by amole View Post
                              Good point. No conspiracy, much less a "conspiracy theory", is needed for 3 or 4 people to spend most of their time attacking the beliefs of someone trying to prove something.

                              It is puzzling why they don't just wait for the results the trials. It seems like they are afraid he might be right.
                              I don't think it's fear. I agree, we are where we are and we look forward to seeing the results.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by t8burst View Post
                                More my point was that I don't doubt Jerry Silver is good at what he does and Wise is very good at what he does. My point was they do very different things yet people are comparing them apples to apples.
                                I agree with that point too.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X