Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jerry Silver and Other Discussion from ChinaSCINet Update

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

    pr your opinion on the sélégiline for the stimulation of cells

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22395135

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22284617
    more on pubmed

    Comment


      Originally posted by nowhereman View Post
      sure, sure. We can do that. Just add it to the list. Ucb + lithium + methylprednisolone + ibuprofen + salidroside herbs.
      lol..........

      Comment


        Maybe Salidroside inhibits RhoA.
        Effects of salidroside on expression of ROCK in rats with liver fibrosis. Xiao-Ling Wu,Wei-Zheng Zeng,Ming-De Jiang,Jian-Ping Qin,Hui Xu,Zhao Wang,Department of Gastroenterology,General Hospital of Chinese PLA,Chengdu Military Command,Chengdu 610083,Sichuan Province,China AIM:To observe the effects of salidroside on the expression of ROCK in liver tissue of CCl4-induced liver fibrosis in rats,and to explore its probable mechanism.METHODS:Ninety healthy SD rats were ran-domly divided into 3 groups:control group (n = 10),salidroside group (n = 40) and liver fi brosis group (n = 40). Experimental liver fi brosis was induced by (with the concentration of 300 mL/L soluted in liquid paraffin) subcutaneous injection of CCl4 (at the dosage of 3 mL/kg,twice per wk,8 wks). The salidroside was injected into the peritoneal cavity at the dosage of 5 mg/kg,twice per week for 8 weeks. Liver tissues from each group were stained with Masson and HEstaining to observe the collagen deposition. Expressions of ROCKⅠand ROCKⅡ in the liver tissue were detected with in situ hybridization (ISH) and immunohistochemistry (IH) respec-tively. All the figures were scanned with elec-tronic computer,and the data were analyzed with Image-Plus software.RESULTS:A signif icant collagen deposition and rearrangement of the parenchyma were noted in liver tissue of CCl4-treated rats. There were lots of pseudolobule in liver tissue. The semi-quantitative histological scores and average area of collagen were significantly increased when compared with control rats (2.1 ± 0.3 vs 3.6 ± 0.8,74.82 ± 21.51 μm2 vs 290.86 ± 89.37 μm2,both P 0.05). Compared with control group,the expressions of ROCKⅠ,ROCKⅡ and ROCKⅠmRNA,ROCKⅡmRNA were decreased significantly in salidroside group (0.203 ± 0.068 vs 0.357 ± 0.182,0.237 ± 0.056 vs 0.394 ± 0.238; 0.197 ± 0.019 vs 0.394 ± 0.238,0.185 ± 0.031 vs 0.279 ± 0.112,P 0.05 or 0.01).CONCLUSION:The expressions of ROCK Ⅰ and ROCK Ⅱ in liver tissues are inhibited significantly with salidroside treatment. Salidroside could interfere with the signal transduction of Rho-ROCK pathway and then inhibit liver fibrosis in rats.
        Attached:
        1. Science. 2003 Nov 14;302(5648):1215-7. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can lower amyloidogenic Abeta42 by inhibiting Rho. Zhou Y, Su Y, Li B, Liu F, Ryder JW, Wu X, Gonzalez-DeWhitt PA, Gelfanova V, Hale JE, May PC, Paul SM, Ni B. Neuroscience Discovery Research and Bioresearch Technologies and Proteins, Lilly Research Laboratories, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN 46285, USA. zhou_yan_yz@lilly.com A subset of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) has been shown to preferentially reduce the secretion of the highly amyloidogenic, 42-residue amyloid-beta peptide Abeta42. We found that Rho and its effector, Rho-associated kinase, preferentially regulated the amount of Abeta42 produced in vitro and that only those NSAIDs effective as Rho inhibitors lowered Abeta42. Administration of Y-27632, a selective Rock inhibitor, also preferentially lowered brain levels of Abeta42 in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. Thus, the Rho-Rock pathway may regulate amyloid precursor protein processing, and a subset of NSAIDs can reduce Abeta42 through inhibition of Rho activity.
        1. Behav Brain Res. 2013 Feb 5. pii: S0166-4328(13)00064-8. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2013.01.037. [Epub ahead of print] Salidroside attenuates beta amyloid-induced cognitive deficits via modulating oxidative stress and inflammatory mediators in rat hippocampus. Zhang J, Zhena YF, Pu-Bu-Ci-Ren, Song LG, Kong WN, Shao TM, Li X, Chai XQ. Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang 050017, China. Beta amyloid (Aβ)-induced oxidative stress and chronic inflammation in the brain are considered to be responsible for the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Salidroside, the major active ingredient of Rhodiola crenulata, has been previously shown to have antioxidant and neuroprotective properties in vitro. The present study aimed to investigate the protective effects of salidroside on Aβ-induced cognitive impairment in vivo. Rats received intrahippocampal Aβ(1-40) injection were treated with salidroside (25, 50 and 75mg/kg p.o.) once daily for 21 days. Learning and memory performance were assessed in the Morris water maze (days 17-21). After behavioural testing, the rats were sacrificed and hippocampi were removed for biochemical assays (reactive oxygen species (ROS), superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione peroxidase (GPx), malondialdehyde (MDA), acetylcholinesterase (AChE), acetylcholine (ACh)) and molecular biological analysis (Cu/Zn-SOD, Mn-SOD, GPx, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) oxidase, nuclear factor κB (NF-κB), inhibitor of κB-alpha (IκBα), cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS), receptor for advanced glycation end products (RAGE)). Our results confirmed that Aβ(1-40) peptide caused learning and memory deficits in rats. Further analysis demonstrated that the NADPH oxidase-mediated oxidative stress was increased in Aβ(1-40)-injected rats. Furthermore, NF-κB was demonstrated to be activated in Aβ(1-40)-injected rats, and the COX-2, iNOS and RAGE expression were also induced by Aβ(1-40). However, salidroside (50 and 75mg/kg p.o.) reversed all the former alterations. Thus, the study indicates that salidroside may have a protective effect against AD via modulating oxidative stress and inflammatory mediators.

        Comment


          Originally posted by NowhereMan View Post
          Sure, sure. We can do that. Just add it to the list. UCB + lithium + methylprednisolone + ibuprofen + salidroside herbs.
          Don't forget Aspirin, blue M&M's, lowering the core temperature, Enbrel and rubbing of feet!

          Comment


            Originally posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
            I hope so. Speaking from experience, most participants in the West that take part in a clinical trial as intrusive as an intra-spinal cell transplant are motivated by the probability of functional or sensory return rather than their noble contribution to the scientific field. Maybe I'm meeting and talking to the wrong people.
            • Of course most people hope, as I do, that the therapy will restore function. But, there is also a sense of altruism in volunteering for clinical trials amongst many of the people who have participated in our clinical trials.


            Originally posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
            You have a lot more faith in the commercial model than I do. Probably because you have seen a number of therapies make it through the pipeline successfully (MP, 4-AP). So from your perspective, it's not impossible. Fair enough.

            However, in my personal opinion the market forces for drug development have changed. Money is not flowing as it once was. It's no surprise to see organisations like U2FP, ARM, PatientsLikeMe, FasterCures working at changing the status quo to liberate medical innovation from some of the daunting hurdles that exist right now. (Admittedly, you may not see them as daunting but many others do).
            • I am glad that some organizations are working to find alternative routes towards restorative therapies for spinal cord injury. I do wish them the greatest success but point out that none have yet to yield a meaningful therapy for spinal cord injury. The spinal cord injury community must not abandon or be ignorant of how the trillion dollar therapeutics industry is organized and motivated. Many disease communities, such as those with multiple sclerosis and AIDS, have successfully convince the therapeutics industry to invest billions into the development of therapies for them. The spinal cord injury community should do so as well.

            Originally posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
            A question for you - with or without the $20m that CIRM are handing over to Stem Cells Inc, do you think they'll have the funding to get through a Phase III/IV if a Phase II is successful? Where will that money come from? Or do they hope that a Big Pharmaceutical will come along and give them a hand? Or maybe another handout from CIRM? And if so, what are the guarantees that the Big Pharmaceutical or other body wants to continue on the path originally set out for spinal cord injury. Money always comes with strings. Hence my pessimism.
            • I am sure that your question is rhetorical, so let me answer it with a another rhetorical question. How do you think that all clinical trials are done? You do it one step at a time, convince one donor at a time, deal with one naysayer at a time, obtain the commitment of one company at a time, recruit one doctor at a time, and complete one trial at a time against all odds. I have been working on ChinaSCINet for nearly 10 years (I started in 2003). We will complete the first phase III trial of the first combination cell transplant and drug therapy for chronic spinal cord injury. We will find therapies that work and then keep on finding better ones. That is the way it is. We have no sugar daddies and no guarantees. I think that it is great that CIRM handed $20 million to Stem Cell Inc. Nobody handed $20 million to ChinaSCINet. I hope that Stem Cell Inc. makes the most of it and doesn't give up after the phase II. I know that ChinaSCINet will succeed because our goal is not to make money but to find therapies that work.

            Incidentally, it is much harder to initiate and do clinical trials within companies. Within companies, the competition and fighting for internal resources is fierce, probably fiercer and harder than outside of companies because champions of therapies within companies are limited to therapies made by the company, have no other source of funding, and must convince the leadership of the company that the therapy is not only safe and effective but will make a lot of money. Few companies have the patience to wait even 6 years for a return on their investment.

            Originally posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
            This is always going to be a two-way relationship. These days large philanthropic investors want to see business plans, milestones and returns on investment (not financial) - just like any VC. These people do exist. However, it's up to researchers and the Community to pitch these projects to them in a compelling manner. Otherwise, we sit and wait for small and medium-sized biotechs struggle along looking to work the markets to raise funds to translate therapies to the bedside. Putting my faith in these small entities to facilitate a Cure for chronic spinal cord injury makes me very very nervous.
            • The venture capital industry died in 2008 and has not yet arisen from the flames. I recently shared a podium with my friend Jonas Wang, who is the CEO of Stemcyte and managing partner for Sycamore Ventures, the largest venture capital firm in New Jersey. He said something that shocked me. Since 2008, no venture-backed biotechnology company has had a successful initial public offering (IPO). Venture companies have closed most of their biotech venture funds and are simply waiting for the economy to turn up so that they can sell their stakes in the few companies that have survived.

            For the better part of two decades, big pharma has used biotech companies to de-risk therapies before they acquire them. This model turned out to be inefficient and expensive, contributing significantly to the >$2 billion price to move a therapy from discovery to market. The industry is now looking for better models. I believe that the best model is non-profit clinical trial networks that are supported by a diversity of sources to test the most promising therapies efficiently and rigorously.

            Originally posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
            If the murky patent/license issues could be solved, I think a consortium to fund Ch'ase would be very do-able. As you say, the situation is a lesson that we should all learn from. If you're breaking things down to basics, intellectual property always comes second to humanity. I'd hope you would agree with that.

            I am glad that SCINetChina is ready to take Ch'ase to trial. Let's see where ISRT take us next for this particular line.
            • Agree.

            Originally posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
            I suppose some researchers will say, why not try in a larger animal model whereby umbilical cord blood can be sourced? Therefore conflict will no doubt come with the territory.

            We've seen similar conflict between researchers on the need to perform non-human primate studies before human trials.
            • Why delay the trials for another several years when it will not change the design of the trials and the safety of the treatment has been shown? Umbilical cord blood from dogs have been injected into spinal cords of experimentally injured dogs at a week after injury in Taiwan and in Korea. The results indicate that umbilical cord blood cell transplants are be safe and improve recovery in dogs. However, the transplanted cord blood cells were not HLA-matched and they did not transplant the cells into chronically injured dogs. There is no dog cord blood bank and dog studies are difficult and expensive. The only spinal cord injury treatment efficacy dog studies that I know in the United States are actual clinical trials on naturally spinal-injured dogs at Purdue and in Austin, TX.


            Originally posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
            Does the Chinese FDA stipulate a minimum duration between completion of Phase II and start of a Phase III?
            • No. I don't think the U.S. FDA or EMA requires any delay either? Why do you ask?

            Originally posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
            I find it hard to get my head around moving to a Phase III without any evidence of motor or sensory recovery in Phase II. (Although I agree, we have to wait until we see the 12 month data before making the assumption that there will be no motor or sensory).

            FYI If you decide to move forward to a Phase III solely based on increased CPG-activated walking - then I personally wouldn't agree with that as I do not consider this as an appropriate outcome. I regard stepping and functional walking as two very different things. I dont say this flippantly but rather from my first hand experience. It's not an outcome I feel is synergistic with CST regeneration. But that's just my opinion and I have the same opinion of epidural stim btw. I dont like the term "locomotor recovery" as it has elements of grey.

            Hopefully we will see motor and sensory scores change in the Phase II data and this point will be moot
            • Please withhold judgment until the data is available. Thank you.

            Originally posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
            These are excellent questions Wise. Is Acorda actually considering these things or are we expecting someone else to do it? If Ch'ase or any other line of science is indeed stuck in "purgatory" it's logical to look for alternatives. Now, the question from us is who all is discussing these alternatives in terms of translation and pre-clinical strategies? Or are we just shooting the breeze and waiting for some commercial entity to come along and lead this?
            • I have given you evidence that Acorda is seriously investing in development of better chondroitinase. When they are ready, they will announce their trials.

            Originally posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
            Thanks for the explanation. Very interesting. I assume that the mechanism of action is always a moving target as the basic science surges forward.

            Wise, do you know for a fact that the Seigakaku enzyme will not meet FDA purity criteria for the cord?

            Thanks for explaining Ch'ase patent situation. I agree there are lessons to be learned for commercial entities, community members and researchers in this case. I hope we do not see more cases like this in the future.
            • You are welcome. Regarding Seikagaku, I don't think that they have applied to the FDA to use their formulation to inject into the spinal cord. Also, there is no reason why Seikagaku would be willing to provide its formulation or even its safety data to Acorda or any other company. This is not an unusual situation and there will be many cases like this in the future.
            Last edited by Wise Young; 15 Feb 2013, 10:06 AM.

            Comment


              Originally posted by Wise Young View Post
              Quote:
              Originally Posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly [IMG]/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/IMG]
              I find it hard to get my head around moving to a Phase III without any evidence of motor or sensory recovery in Phase II. (Although I agree, we have to wait until we see the 12 month data before making the assumption that there will be no motor or sensory).

              FYI If you decide to move forward to a Phase III solely based on increased CPG-activated walking - then I personally wouldn't agree with that as I do not consider this as an appropriate outcome. I regard stepping and functional walking as two very different things. I dont say this flippantly but rather from my first hand experience. It's not an outcome I feel is synergistic with CST regeneration. But that's just my opinion and I have the same opinion of epidural stim btw. I dont like the term "locomotor recovery" as it has elements of grey.

              Hopefully we will see motor and sensory scores change in the Phase II data and this point will be moot


              • Please withhold judgment until the data is available. Thank you.
              Wise,

              I don't see where Pelican is judging, in my opinion he is just expressing his opinion (which seems very reasonable to me).
              Then note also that he starts the second paragraph with "if", so it can't be a judgment ... as far as I understand english..

              Paolo
              Last edited by paolocipolla; 15 Feb 2013, 8:58 PM.
              In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

              Comment


                I'm sure that Pelican hasn't took it the wrong way and neither the rest of us did. I know that it's all to criticize Dr. Wise for you, so it's just you who thinks that way. You're signature just indicates your personal frustrations against him, so who cares what you think, we can see it for ourselves.


                Send kiwi my regards e si cazzo con i tuoi commenti inutili
                Last edited by Moe; 16 Feb 2013, 10:59 AM.
                "Talk without the support of action means nothing..."
                ― DaShanne Stokes

                ***Unite(D) to Fight Paralyses***

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Moe View Post
                  I'm sure that Pelican hasn't took it the wrong way and neither the rest of us did. I know that it's all to criticize Dr. Wise for you, so it's just you who thinks that way. You're signature just indicates your personal frustrations against him, so who cares what you think, we can see it for ourselves.


                  Send kiwi my regards e si cazzo con i tuoi commenti inutili
                  Moe,
                  Although I don't disagree, I would prefer if you didn't speak for me.
                  Jim

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Moe View Post
                    I'm sure that Pelican hasn't took it the wrong way and neither the rest of us did. I know that it's all to criticize Dr. Wise for you, so it's just you who thinks that way. You're signature just indicates your personal frustrations against him, so who cares what you think, we can see it for ourselves.


                    Send kiwi my regards e si cazzo con i tuoi commenti inutili
                    Moe,

                    I have just expressed my opinion as you just did. If you don't care about what I think you should just ignore my posts.
                    About my signature I have added it as I have really appreciated Wise being so straight and honest.

                    I don't understand what you are trying to say in italian in your last sentence, all I see is a bad word that does not correlate fluently with the other words. Could you say it in english? Or just send me a PM.

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

                    Comment


                      Please withhold judgment until the data is available. Thank you.
                      I don't believe I have made any judgements. Apologies if that seems to be the case. We all await the 12-month data eagerly. I am no different.

                      The spinal cord injury community must not abandon or be ignorant of how the trillion dollar therapeutics industry is organized and motivated. Many disease communities, such as those with multiple sclerosis and AIDS, have successfully convince the therapeutics industry to invest billions into the development of therapies for them. The spinal cord injury community should do so as well.
                      So are you saying that SCI user organisations (we) should appeal to the likes of Glaxxo, Pfizer et al to invest billions in delivering Cures by convincing them it is profitable?

                      The costs of SCI to nations, economies, healthcare systems, communities and individuals is publicly available in quite a few countries now. So too is the promise of SCI Cure research. It's not difficult information to find. So why is it so difficult for these teams of incredibly resourceful and intelligent 'new business' analysts to not see the potential return on investment of delivering SCI cures without an appeal from us? I'd love to understand your view on that.

                      In my opinion, these commercial entities will only get involved if Governments subsidise it. Or perhaps that is what you are alluding to?

                      I am sure that your question is rhetorical, so let me answer it with a another rhetorical question. How do you think that all clinical trials are done? You do it one step at a time, convince one donor at a time, deal with one naysayer at a time, obtain the commitment of one company at a time, recruit one doctor at a time, and complete one trial at a time against all odds.
                      I don't dismiss that this is exactly how clinical trials start and gather pace. However, sometimes, when the odds are against you - you choose play a different game. This is why you have put so much effort into setting up SCINetChina. This is also why organisations such as U2FP, FasterCures, ARM, PatientsLikeMe see it important to challenge the existing discovery to market model. Good luck to them, just as I wish SCINetChina good luck in delivering trials quickly and efficiently.

                      I just hope that China considers allowing first-in-human safety trials in the future as it would be a shame to have under-utilised trial networks deciding to choose inferior therapies whilst waiting for other countries to absorb the risk on safety of more promising ones.

                      For the better part of two decades, big pharma has used biotech companies to de-risk therapies before they acquire them. This model turned out to be inefficient and expensive, contributing significantly to the >$2 billion price to move a therapy from discovery to market. The industry is now looking for better models. I believe that the best model is non-profit clinical trial networks that are supported by a diversity of sources to test the most promising therapies efficiently and rigorously.
                      Agreed. Could it also be that non-profit translational/pre-clinical networks could facilitate discovery to market instead of relying on highly-leveraged biotech and big pharma? You could think of it as a non-profit pseudo-biotech.

                      Why delay the trials for another several years when it will not change the design of the trials and the safety of the treatment has been shown? Umbilical cord blood from dogs have been injected into spinal cords of experimentally injured dogs at a week after injury in Taiwan and in Korea. The results indicate that umbilical cord blood cell transplants are be safe and improve recovery in dogs. However, the transplanted cord blood cells were not HLA-matched and they did not transplant the cells into chronically injured dogs. There is no dog cord blood bank and dog studies are difficult and expensive. The only spinal cord injury treatment efficacy dog studies that I know in the United States are actual clinical trials on naturally spinal-injured dogs at Purdue and in Austin, TX.
                      Thanks. I understand. Personally, I have no opinion on this. As an individual with SCI, the quicker the trials are concluded the better. But I can see why some researchers may question the UCBC+Lithium trial. There seems to be a divergence of opinions within the field with regards to what is needed to move forward to human trials. You have groups like Tuszynski's moving to non-human primates and yet other groups moving to human chronic injuries with data from a mixture of chronic and acute rat studies.

                      Tuszynski's lab (Paul Lu specifically) is an interesting example. His rat studies showed efficacy in a complete transection whilst making use of clinical-grade human neural stem cells. Yet they still feel it's necessary to demonstrate efficacy in non-human primates before considering a human trial. Why is this? Is it on the advice of industry? Or is it just that they like to make use of the monkeys they have invested many millions in?

                      btw, I know you are not a fan of non-human primate studies in this context.

                      No. I don't think the U.S. FDA or EMA requires any delay either? Why do you ask?
                      I was just wondering if there is a grace period in between trial phases starting and ending. Is there ever a scenario where a modified Phase II could take place? Does that happen?

                      You are welcome. Regarding Seikagaku, I don't think that they have applied to the FDA to use their formulation to inject into the spinal cord. Also, there is no reason why Seikagaku would be willing to provide its formulation or even its safety data to Acorda or any other company. This is not an unusual situation and there will be many cases like this in the future.
                      Of course. With regards to my question about the purity. What makes you think that the formula that Seigakaku have is not of the purity required for the spinal cord?

                      Cheers
                      Fly Pelican Fly
                      Last edited by Fly_Pelican_Fly; 16 Feb 2013, 8:08 PM.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by fti View Post
                        pr your opinion on the sélégiline for the stimulation of cells

                        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22395135

                        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22284617
                        more on pubmed
                        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19422735
                        your opinion
                        Last edited by fti; 17 Feb 2013, 7:42 AM.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by paolocipolla View Post
                          Moe,

                          About my signature I have added it as I have really appreciated Wise being so straight and honest.

                          Paolo
                          This just proves that you don't read or can't understand what others write.
                          Originally posted by paolocipolla
                          Moe,

                          I... don't care about what I think ... you should just ignore my posts.

                          I don't understand ... words.

                          Paolo

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Solan View Post
                            This just proves that you don't read or can't understand what others write.
                            Solan,

                            your signature is clearly a joke and I like it. My signature wasn't intended as a joke, but maybe that wasn't very clear.

                            Do you have any news about the clinical trial that is suppose to start in Norway this year?

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

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by paolocipolla View Post
                              Solan,

                              your signature is clearly a joke and I like it. My signature wasn't intended as a joke, but maybe that wasn't very clear.

                              Do you have any news about the clinical trial that is suppose to start in Norway this year?

                              Paolo
                              Paolo,
                              I'll give you an honest answere. I don't know! This trial won't involve me since I am Asia D and therefore I am waiting it out and haven't tried to find out the latest news about it.
                              Please don't twist my answere around to there not being a trial.
                              Originally posted by paolocipolla
                              Moe,

                              I... don't care about what I think ... you should just ignore my posts.

                              I don't understand ... words.

                              Paolo

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by nrf View Post
                                Moe,
                                I would prefer if you didn't speak for me.
                                Jim
                                Agreed.

                                Dr Silver - an impossible question.

                                Knowing what you know about your research and timelines .. what if you were a paralyzed female for 28yrs who used crede/valsalva to micturate for more than 20 of those years .. which unfortunately ruined the urethral sphincter.

                                Ruined it to the point that you went on a foley cath with leg bag in 2009 ... and are now leaking around that.

                                My bladder is the size of a walnut (I'd really like to find a plastics person who could figure out how to put a tissue expander in there instead of the dangerous augmentations offered but I don't know how that would work with a giant balloon in the bladder and kidneys still dripping urine into the bladder at the same time... a uro-gyne I know came up with that idea but it was casual talk in Toronto). My work insurance won't cover Botox and Collagen is no longer an option.

                                What would you do? I'm trying to wait all this out for a better option via research - but in the meantime, I have skin breakdown, leaking and it's put quite the damper (haha), on my life.

                                Not to mention Poise pads are expensive! Males have it all easier don't they ... if it was YOU, what would you do?
                                Last edited by lynnifer; 18 Feb 2013, 8:28 PM.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X