Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could Cancer Genes Help Repair Spinal Cord Injuries? - NEWS

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

  • #16
    My understanding 'growth' means increase of size, "regeneration" is rebirth/reproducing?
    "Talk without the support of action means nothing..."
    ― DaShanne Stokes

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

    Comment


    • #17
      Exactly

      Comment


      • #18
        The point is, Wise has not used the word regenerate and I wanted to clarify that.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Nowhere Man View Post
          "First, we found that evidence of white matter regrowth in 2 of 5 subjects after UCMBC transplants, not just across the gap but apparently long distances both up and down the spinal cord. All ASIA A subjects showed a white matter gap before treatment. None had shown white matter growth across the gap before cell transplantation. The growth does not seem to correspond with motor and sensory scores in the subjects. We believe that this may be because the growing fibers have not yet reached their targets, i.e. have not connected with neurons in the brainstem that would be necessary for sensory improvement or in the lumbosacral spinal cord for voluntary activation of the leg muscles." ~ Dr. Young


          What is the difference in meaning between "regrowth"/ "growing" vs. "regenerating" ?
          That is pretty clear. "Regenerate" carries with it an implication of "repair", of "healing", of putting something back into "working" order or into a previously functional state. This is not what the good doctor has claimed. "Regrowth" of the white matter is simply that; the growing of the tissues. The difference is HUGE. This is an important step, to be sure, but the cord has yet to be returned to a functional state worthy of the term "regeneration".

          That's one big difference, IMO.
          "I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it." - Edgar Allen Poe

          "If you only know your side of an issue, you know nothing." -John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

          "Even what those with the greatest reputation for knowing it all claim to understand and defend are but opinions..." -Heraclitus, Fragments

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Oddity View Post
            That is pretty clear. "Regenerate" carries with it an implication of "repair", of "healing", of putting something back into "working" order or into a previously functional state. This is not what the good doctor has claimed. "Regrowth" of the white matter is simply that; the growing of the tissues. The difference is HUGE. This is an important step, to be sure, but the cord has yet to be returned to a functional state worthy of the term "regeneration".

            That's one big difference, IMO.
            I disagree with your opinion. Most spinal cord papers I read use the term "regenerate" to mean axons are growing from their cut ends, regardless of those axons being "back into a previously functional state". In fact, some have said they got regeneration, but animal's function got worse.
            Last edited by Nowhere Man; 02-26-2016, 05:01 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Jim View Post
              The point is, Wise has not used the word regenerate and I wanted to clarify that.
              When trying to clarify, do so correctly the first time, not the third.


              Here is an article quoting him:

              http://www.news.com.au/technology/sc...-1226670516113
              "It's the first time in human history that we can see the regeneration of the spinal cord," Dr Young said.


              Here is Dr. Young in person. Note Oddity, that he says "regeneration" and also says no motor return on function.

              https://vimeo.com/album/3113917/video/110802892

              "it was very disappointing, neither subject that showed really incredible regeneration, apparently in the spinal cord, had any motor return."
              – 11:06

              I don't give a s^*t between "regenerate" or "growth". That's not my point. My point is that Dr. Young believes he has caused growth of spinal cord axons, long distances I may add, using his therapy. So Dr. Murray Blackmore should stop looking for genes that may stimulate growth, and start looking at how to refine Umbilical Cord Blood cells to make them grow better/longer. Maybe add some new concoctions. Why recreate the wheel?! Its crazy. We can be out of these chairs. Stop spending $$$ on trying to get axon growth in petri dishes or rats. We have it already in humans! UCB + lithium.
              Last edited by Nowhere Man; 02-26-2016, 03:55 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Nowhere Man View Post
                I disagree with your opinion. Most spinal cord papers I read use the term "regenerate" to mean axons are growing from their cut ends, regardless of those axons being "back into a previously functional state". In fact, some have said they got regeneration, but animal's function got worse.
                Fair enough.
                "I have great faith in fools; self-confidence my friends call it." - Edgar Allen Poe

                "If you only know your side of an issue, you know nothing." -John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

                "Even what those with the greatest reputation for knowing it all claim to understand and defend are but opinions..." -Heraclitus, Fragments

                Comment


                • #23
                  If the metabolic theory of cancer is true studying cancer genes may not help much finding a therapy to reverse SCI:

                  "If you have 10 people in the room with, say, pancreatic cancer and you sequence each of their tumors, what you'll find is there are a couple of commonly mutated genes, but from one patient to the next, there not much of a pattern. It's very random.
                  You'll even find some cases with one single driving mutation. You cannot explain that through a genetic origin of cancer, through the somatic mutation theory. You'll even find tumors with zero mutations."

                  http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...ry-cancer.aspx
                  In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by paolocipolla View Post
                    If the metabolic theory of cancer is true studying cancer genes may not help much finding a therapy to reverse SCI:
                    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...ry-cancer.aspx
                    Fortunately, that would only be true when you study the theory of those already listed on the Quackwatch... http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html
                    http://spinalcordresearchandadvocacy.wordpress.com/

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by GRAMMY View Post
                      Fortunately, that would only be true when you study the theory of those already listed on the Quackwatch... http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html
                      I was just wondering if this theory should be considered at least a bit or not, so do you think is totally worthless just because Dr. Mercola wrote about it or you also have other facts?

                      For the record I fully support the work of Murray Blackmore and others working in the same area.
                      In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by paolocipolla View Post
                        For the record I fully support the work of Murray Blackmore and others working in the same area.
                        How so and who are these "others" are working in the same area that you fully support?
                        Last edited by Moe; 03-19-2016, 10:14 AM.
                        "Talk without the support of action means nothing..."
                        ― DaShanne Stokes

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

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X