Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Doctors in China carry out world first spine surgery

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by GRAMMY View Post
    The global media hasn't bothered to pick up this piece and the problem may be exactly the one I asked about in my first post. Nearly always, a high impact study and huge international recognition on good research will at least have the links to the pertinent animals studies that were peer reviewed and published in a medical journal or mentioned so interested parties can look them up. It's glaringly absent here guys on the just the few posted pieces. I feel like I'm trying to read and find important facts in the "Enquirer" or something. I can't get excited unless I see how the animal studies fared. I never would blindly participate in a clinical trial unless I took the time to read through the animal studies that led up to the experimental treatment I was choosing to undergo and also shared them with my doctor so I could ask additional questions. I just don't see what there is to discuss at this point without having a link into the pertinent animal studies. Maybe Wise would be able to find them... Hopefully everyone here at the forum already knows that they really must do their homework before submitting themselves to clinical trial participation. It is important to find everything you can read on a SCI subject before signing on the dotted line. (This isn't the first group to work with collagen and MSC injected into sci lesions).
    So, what do we know about this treatment so far? Is this just a fabricated story, Is this a real trial and we just haven't found all the elements yet. Is the sticking point that we haven't found a trail to the animal studies?

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Nowhere Man View Post
      Stop embarrassing yourself. You do know there are different meanings to a word?
      1vocal

      adjective \ˈvō-kəl\
      : of, relating to, or produced by the voice
      : expressing opinions in a public and forceful way
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vocal

      I saw a lot of excitement in this thread when there is little information known about the therapy. I wouldn't call that "wait and see", more like "This is great, until I get let down".

      SCI community can help facilitate research. The best way to spend the money is to fund the right projects. Unfortunately, that requires analyzing animal data. So a “wait and see” approach is a losing game. Ask people who donated to Stephen Davies.
      Nowhere Man, perhaps if you didn’t take yourself so seriously you would have seen the humor in my comment. You may not have found it to be humorous, but at least you could have taken it for what it was, instead you come back with a definition? You are one uptight person.

      I can’t speak for others, for me it is a wait and see. I’ve been around this block many times.

      I’m very familiar with the Davies case; I believe I was the first to ask him how individuals could donate directly to his lab. I’m sorry I did so. We had a member, who is no dummy, tour Davies lab, completed a lengthy write up which was reviewed by Davies prior to release. Davies was a con; I doubt that is the case with most researcher. My wait and see approach meant I gave no money to Davies’ lab.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by GRAMMY View Post
        The global media hasn't bothered to pick up this piece and the problem may be exactly the one I asked about in my first post. Nearly always, a high impact study and huge international recognition on good research will at least have the links to the pertinent animals studies that were peer reviewed and published in a medical journal or mentioned so interested parties can look them up. It's glaringly absent here guys on the just the few posted pieces. I feel like I'm trying to read and find important facts in the "Enquirer" or something. I can't get excited unless I see how the animal studies fared. I never would blindly participate in a clinical trial unless I took the time to read through the animal studies that led up to the experimental treatment I was choosing to undergo and also shared them with my doctor so I could ask additional questions. I just don't see what there is to discuss at this point without having a link into the pertinent animal studies. Maybe Wise would be able to find them... Hopefully everyone here at the forum already knows that they really must do their homework before submitting themselves to clinical trial participation. It is important to find everything you can read on a SCI subject before signing on the dotted line. (This isn't the first group to work with collagen and MSC injected into sci lesions).
        Grammy, I could be mistaken, but I thought I read that the animal trial results were published in December’s Biomaterial journal.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by NWC4 View Post
          Grammy, I could be mistaken, but I thought I read that the animal trial results were published in December?s Biomaterial journal.
          All I've seen posted here in the thread is a link to an abstract about the scaffold. I have not gotten the published paper with data on the scaffold material or any other publications on the various stem cells studies that have been added to the scaffold and trialed in human uterus or this one where a SCI patient is implanted. I really don't know why the dog abstract is there if the scaffold had already been run through a human trial on uterus before or if it's even the same exact scaffold. I don't know, but the stem cell part isn't even mentioned in the abstract....
          http://spinalcordresearchandadvocacy.wordpress.com/

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by GRAMMY View Post
            The global media hasn't bothered to pick up this piece and the problem may be exactly the one I asked about in my first post. Nearly always, a high impact study and huge international recognition on good research will at least have the links to the pertinent animals studies that were peer reviewed and published in a medical journal or mentioned so interested parties can look them up. It's glaringly absent here guys on the just the few posted pieces. I feel like I'm trying to read and find important facts in the "Enquirer" or something. I can't get excited unless I see how the animal studies fared. I never would blindly participate in a clinical trial unless I took the time to read through the animal studies that led up to the experimental treatment I was choosing to undergo and also shared them with my doctor so I could ask additional questions. I just don't see what there is to discuss at this point without having a link into the pertinent animal studies. Maybe Wise would be able to find them... Hopefully everyone here at the forum already knows that they really must do their homework before submitting themselves to clinical trial participation. It is important to find everything you can read on a SCI subject before signing on the dotted line. (This isn't the first group to work with collagen and MSC injected into sci lesions).
            Grammy You're saying there has been another human trial, where they used a collagen scaffold in combination bone marrow stem cells? I am more interested in seeing the collagen scaffold with neural stem cells and nerve growth factors. What I don't understand is why they haven't done that already, maybe it has. Sounds like a plan to use neural cell and growth factors in the phase II 30 patient trial.

            Comment


            • #96
              There?s a corresponding author Email address below the published paper topic, you may try to ask Jianwu Dai some questions.

              http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...42961214011910

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by NWC4 View Post
                Nowhere Man, perhaps if you didn?t take yourself so seriously you would have seen the humor in my comment. You may not have found it to be humorous, but at least you could have taken it for what it was, instead you come back with a definition? You are one uptight person.

                I can?t speak for others, for me it is a wait and see. I?ve been around this block many times.

                I?m very familiar with the Davies case; I believe I was the first to ask him how individuals could donate directly to his lab. I?m sorry I did so. We had a member, who is no dummy, tour Davies lab, completed a lengthy write up which was reviewed by Davies prior to release. Davies was a con; I doubt that is the case with most researcher. My wait and see approach meant I gave no money to Davies? lab.
                It was obviously an attempt at humor, but you were clearly saying I was stupid for using "vocally" in reference to typed words as opposed to talking. If you weren't then I do not see what the joke was. Either way it's of no importance.

                Did you give a dollar a day to ChinaSci?

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Jim View Post
                  We won't know until the phase III is complete if it in fact works, and if so, what combination is most effective. Might be cells + rehab or cells + MP + rehab. Of course animal studies are absolutely necessary, never meant to imply they weren't. When the leading neurosurgeons and researchers decide a therapy is safe to move to humans we must. Animal studies are not saving the thousands of people we lose every year.
                  I can think of a thousand different chemicals that are deemed safe. Should we spend millions ($ we don't have) to test each one? Efficacy must be a factor. Who were all of the leading researchers saying we should test UCB in humans? Besides Dr. Young.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Of course we should not do trials just to do trials. Wise didn't choose UCB, a consensus meeting was held and the group concluded it was the most promising. When the phase III is complete, they will do the same but with a ton of new knowledge which they wouldn't have gained by doing another animal study.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jim View Post
                      Of course we should not do trials just to do trials. Wise didn't choose UCB, a consensus meeting was held and the group concluded it was the most promising. When the phase III is complete, they will do the same but with a ton of new knowledge which they wouldn't have gained by doing another animal study.
                      Whom did this group consist of?

                      Comment


                      • bro how come u say it's not cure yet,stay positive anything is possible

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Nowhere Man View Post
                          Whom did this group consist of?
                          The answer is in this thread. You will learn a lot looking for it.

                          Comment


                          • Please post the answer. Simple copy/paste.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Nowhere Man View Post
                              Please post the answer. Simple copy/paste.
                              Just start at the beginning of ChinaSCINet Update. You won't have to read too far. I'm surprised with all your criticism of the trials, you haven't read this.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by amole View Post
                                Just start at the beginning of ChinaSCINet Update. You won't have to read too far. I'm surprised with all your criticism of the trials, you haven't read this.
                                Hahahahaha

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X