Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jerry Silver and Other Discussion from ChinaSCINet Update

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

    #31
    Originally posted by lunasicc42 View Post
    I totally agree. Stephen davies had his own thread and he wasn't even an active member (for whatever reason )
    Huh? Look up the member "Stephen Davies". He posted 107 times.

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by Skipow View Post
      On scar tissue, are there any compounds that are being developed to remove scar tissue?
      Remember Decorin. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decorin . It hasn't been too successful to date.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Moe View Post


        I see your point, The more reserchers the better. It's just the rat testing doctors, since they think their rat teory is so good that they think its better than the current human trials in china, why havn't they started on human trials yet?? the're 2 years behind allready and still no proof to show for. Instead they come in here to criticise with off topic material talking about how much better their own findings are compared to this one... too much barking but no biting... gets annoying

        All of Dr. Silver's criticisms and questions are legitimate.

        You can't pick one scientist or treatment as better than another just because it is in human trials phase. As of now, there have been no animal studies that have shown regeneration in a chronic injury. Why would you then be calling for human trials? That makes no sense.

        If Dr. Silver is getting good results with his new treatments in 2012, why would you expect it to be in human trials already? It takes many years to prove efficacy and safety before getting approval by the FDA. It could take 5-10 years.

        I'm not advocating Dr. Silver's work but he raises good points that need to be listened to.
        Last edited by NowhereMan; 26 Dec 2012, 7:09 PM.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by khmorgan View Post
          Huh? Look up the member "Stephen Davies". He posted 107 times.

          I just meant that jerry posts here alot... And yes davies was here but he hasn't visited in very long. Just a thought
          "That's not smog! It's SMUG!! " - randy marsh, southpark

          "what???? , you don't 'all' wear a poop sac?.... DAMNIT BONNIE, YOU LIED TO ME ABOUT THE POOP SAC!!!! "


          2010 SCINet Clinical Trial Support Squad Member
          Please join me and donate a dollar a day at http://justadollarplease.org and copy and paste this message to the bottom of your signature

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by NowhereMan View Post
            All of Dr. Silver's criticisms and questions are legitimate.

            You can't pick one scientist or treatment as better than another just because it is in human trials phase. As of now, there have been no animal studies that have shown regeneration in a chronic injury. Why would you then be calling for human trials? That makes no sense.

            If Dr. Silver is getting good results with his new treatments in 2012, why would you expect it to be in human trials already? It takes many years to prove efficacy and safety before getting approval by the FDA. It could take 5-10 years.

            I'm not advocating Dr. Silver's work but he raises good points that need to be listened too.
            I can associate a few good points but I don't understand your 2nd paragraph very well. Even if someone gives results they still have to go through trials to get fda aproval, right?

            My point was if Silvers research findings, point of views & critisms are that so good, legit or not, how come he's not as advanced as China to prove all this and get this treatment/'cure' official? he's 2 years behine since 2010... He should concentrate in his work and stop barging here criticising a trail thats going to p3, you can't just change a trial on progress with multiple ideas as it goes along... think realistic...
            "Talk without the support of action means nothing..."
            ― DaShanne Stokes

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

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by Moe View Post
              I can associate a few good points but I don't understand your 2nd paragraph very well. Even if someone gives results they still have to go through trials to get fda aproval, right?

              My point was if Silvers research findings, point of views & critisms are that so good, legit or not, how come he's not as advanced as China to prove all this and get this treatment/'cure' official? he's 2 years behine since 2010... He should concentrate in his work and stop barging here criticising a trail thats going to p3, you can't just change a trial on progress with multiple ideas as it goes along... think realistic...
              Moe I think you're missing a big part of Dr.Youngs clinical trial network is to expedite future potential therapies through the system. I don't think Dr.Young ever thought umbilical cord cells with lithium was the end game.

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by Moe View Post
                I can associate a few good points but I don't understand your 2nd paragraph very well. Even if someone gives results they still have to go through trials to get fda aproval, right?


                My point was if Silvers research findings, point of views & critisms are that so good, legit or not, how come he's not as advanced as China to prove all this and get this treatment/'cure' official? he's 2 years behine since 2010... He should concentrate in his work and stop barging here criticising a trail thats going to p3, you can't just change a trial on progress with multiple ideas as it goes along... think realistic...
                No, I'm saying that even if a researcher gets good results in animals it could take 5-10 years of animal experiments just to get FDA approval to START testing it in humans trials.

                From what I've read Dr. Silver says he is not there yet and is making progress. He hasn't had any regeneration of the corticospinal tract (important), nor has he ever mentioned any sensory tract regeneration. You must understand that there are no treatments ready for human trial. There has never been a rat with a complete, chronic injury that has recovered. That is why there is legitimate skepticism in ChinaSci trial.

                Dr. Young is not out there trying to prove that his treatment works. He is trying to see IF umbilical blood cells work or not. It is not even his treatment. We will see how well it works when the results are published. Until then, you can't blindly support the treatment without published results that can also stand up to scientific scrutiny.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by jsilver View Post
                  The good news is that regeneration (with significant recovery at least of bladder function) is possible at chronic stages when one uses an appropriate combinatorial strategy.
                  Oh please let this happen soon! Paralyzed bladders kill ... infection after infection. Shrinkage and erosion. Leaking leading to pressure sores and restricting how much you can laugh, cough or be involved in physical activity. Sepsis and death. If I wasn't just a para, I don't know what I would do to handle it ... honestly I'd be at the end of my rope. I am lucky that I have the function to still be able to transfer in the washroom and take care of everything when there are accidents (worse after a prolapse, hysterectomy and two decades of valsalva/crede).

                  My bladder has been the bane of my existence and I've hated it since age 12 when I first went paralyzed ... I've always suspected it would be my endgame. Such a shame too - kidneys that function so well that I have low creatinine yet a crappy bladder that messes up my life!

                  A friend who is quadriplegic (25yrs) and I (almost 28yrs now) are both having severe trouble with our bladders and leaking (me with foley now and she with suprapubic leaking around her stoma) ... both female and I suspect when catheters were made that females weren't exactly at the forefront of the design. It is hell. I am really worried it will kill one of us eventually.

                  I will break my toes to cross them to get this to work! That desperate! lol
                  Last edited by lynnifer; 26 Dec 2012, 9:11 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


                    #39
                    Originally posted by Moe View Post
                    ...why havn't they started on human trials yet?? the're 2 years behind already and still no proof to show for ...
                    Ampyra/Fampyra took almost 15yrs - perhaps longer - from the patient who died in Switzerland or Sweden when she died of a brain seizure. Fifteen years for an oral pill.

                    This is surgery ... unless they can fast-track like the CCSVI people are trying to do with the Liberation treatment ... you see where this could take a while.
                    Last edited by lynnifer; 26 Dec 2012, 9:12 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


                      #40
                      Originally posted by lynnifer View Post
                      This is surgery ... unless they can fast-track like the CCSVI people are trying to do with the Liberation treatment ... you see where this could take a while.
                      What surgery?

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by nrf View Post
                        Moe I think you're missing a big part of Dr.Youngs clinical trial network is to expedite future potential therapies through the system. I don't think Dr.Young ever thought umbilical cord cells with lithium was the end game.
                        Agree, Dr Young did say he may combine others to work on future trials.IF i am a researcher, I would love people to proof me wrong and help to improve whatever i am working on.

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by NowhereMan View Post
                          No, I'm saying that even if a researcher gets good results in animals it could take 5-10 years of animal experiments just to get FDA approval to START testing it in humans trials.
                          Really? The FDA says it doesn't. See http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/byau.../ucm128291.htm .

                          I think you might be confusing a new erectile dysfunction or ache treatment with a procedure for which there is no alternative treatment.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by nrf View Post
                            Moe I think you're missing a big part of Dr.Youngs clinical trial network is to expedite future potential therapies through the system. I don't think Dr.Young ever thought umbilical cord cells with lithium was the end game.
                            nrf, allthough I agree with the above, its obvious that you havn't understood my previous posts or simply missed my point.

                            Anyways were just giving more work to the admins to clean this thread (again) all this off topic material...
                            "Talk without the support of action means nothing..."
                            ― DaShanne Stokes

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

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Originally posted by Moe View Post
                              nrf, allthough I agree with the above, its obvious that you havn't understood my previous posts or simply missed my point.

                              Anyways were just giving more work to the admins to clean this thread (again) all this off topic material...
                              Big Moe,

                              I enjoy seeing opposing dialogue between neurosurgeons, I don't think you do. I'm sorry but I still like it and feel more informed because of it. I hope you understand.

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Basic science is very different to translational science which in turn is very different to a clinical study. You cannot expect a single researcher to be responsible for a therapy from discovery to bedside. To expect that is ridiculous.

                                Also note that the nature of beast (science can be glacial) is that any science at clinical study stage will likely be objectively analysed by researchers that are working upon lines of science that are one or two generations down the line at basic/translational stages.

                                If and when Ch'ase gets to the clinic, Hans Keirstead or Murray Blackmore may debate the weaknesses of the enzyme or the viral vector delivery. If PTEN/SOCS3 gets to the clinic, Reggie Edgerton may question whoever the principal investigator is for the trial about the type of rehabilitative component being used in the trial.

                                May the debate continue - it's healthy. It happens at scientific meetings. It happens at symposiums. Why shouldn't it happen here? If we suppress it, more of our well-informed advocates will leave this forum as they have done recently.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X