Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So what is going on concerning sci research ?

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

  • #16
    When I first read about injections that could improve neuro transmission, I was very impressed and hopeful. But with time, I've read about the dangers, too.

    I didn't open an account at Medscape, so I only read the front article. Are the growth hormones causing tumors or cancer, i.e. neoplasms? Whenever we read of some improvement in function through use of growth hormones, the downside is usually that the researchers say, "Oh, but, by the way, you may notice yourself growing some rather intruguing new lumps, bumps, and adhesions all over the place,.. and we don't know where they will pop up next. But just keep taking the treatment and doing the pt. We will monitor your progress."

    As an example of GH causing tumors and malignant tissue, I offer this research article:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4357770/
    Female, T9 incomplete

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by JAMESRRR View Post

      While the study seems very legit there are things I find a little bit odd.


      1. They discussed the subject's regaining sensory but not motor despite doing intensive physical therapy. This seems to be different than a lot of the other trials. Instead of been done.

      Even if there are no sensory or motor changes below the level of injury, this seems to be very beneficial for my exercise routine.
      I'm thinking that these articles are just not detailed about the full assessment of improvements.
      And I'm the same, even if there're no sensory/motor changes, I'd have nothing to lose, but just benefits for training, feeling better, more energy and strength, etc

      Comment


      • #18
        Have you figured out a path to try this? I'm thinking that I will give it a shot as well.

        Edit: Meant to reply to JamesRRR

        Comment


        • #19
          Friday I went in and had all the necessary blood tests taken.


          The doctors should have the results tomorrow or Tuesday and will make a recommendation as to where to get started.


          I'm still in the process of researching everything to figure out what I think is the best approach to take.


          I hope to get started with something by the end of the week.


          I recently had some movements in my legs and so I am looking for this to complement my exercise regime.


          I'm not guilty on the sensory or motor recovery, but honestly that would be enormous.


          In researching everything I found that were approved indications are for AIDS patients to offset muscle wasting.


          It has a number of other benefits.


          If I get any return or anything that I think may be attributed to the HGH I will certainly bless everyone know.


          I find it hard to believe that there's never been a trial on this or except for the one that was recently discussed



          Originally posted by nphuskers View Post
          Have you figured out a path to try this? I'm thinking that I will give it a shot as well.

          Edit: Meant to reply to JamesRRR

          Comment


          • #20
            Executive functions in the spinal cord?

            Check out these links:

            https://www.statnews.com/2016/03/30/...reatment-ucla/

            https://www.nibib.nih.gov/news-event...mise-paralyzed

            This research has been alluded to a few places previously In this forum. But the idea that the spinal cord can Perform executive functions On the autonomic nervous system Is news to me . It might indeed be a breakthrough For younger SCI folks With newer injuries.

            Comment


            • #21
              I wonder if this could help me. I'm C2-T2 spinal cord infarction, incomplete, walking. If I could get bladder and bowel sensation improved that would be huge for me. I'm 10 years out though. I sent it to my urologist to see what she thinks.

              Comment


              • #22
                Article questions

                Has anyone seeing the research paper on this yet?

                After reading the article numerous times there are a number of things that don't quite seem to add up.

                I have to assume that the clinical trial listed below is not related to this article.

                Here is the link to the article

                http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/880536

                Here is a link to the clinical trial. Or what I thought was the click clinical trial.

                https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01329757

                There are a number of inconsistencies:

                1. The article talks specifically about complete injuries, however the clinical trial states that it is recruiting for incomplete injuries and complete injuries are excluded.

                2. The article states it was six months of treatment and the clinical trial is recruiting for 12 months.

                I have to assume that I am looking at the wrong clinical trial? Or perhaps they did a follow-up study to their original clinical trial, but it does not qualify as a clinical trial?

                There are numerous things stated in the article that don't make sense to me. If anyone clarify I would appreciate it.

                1. The other states that Those in the treatment group (n = 7) had peak growth hormone levels of 1.8 ng/mL prior to randomization while those in the placebo group (n = 5) had levels of 5.3 ng/mL. One patient was lost to follow-up.

                Six months of treatment with growth hormone has improved sensory function in patients with spinal-cord injury and concomitant growth-hormone deficiency, according to the first such trial of this approach.


                How can this be an accurate comparison if the levels of growth hormone were so difference in the two groups?

                2. The article states: She also pointed out that the glucagon test used in the study to determine growth-hormone deficiency "could have overestimated the rate of complete spinal injury." And data on possible traumatic brain injury (concomitant with the spinal injury) in these patients were "not provided," she said.

                Why would a glucagon test overestimate the rate of complete spinal cord injury? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me

                Six months of treatment with growth hormone has improved sensory function in patients with spinal-cord injury and concomitant growth-hormone deficiency, according to the first such trial of this approach.

                Does this mean that if you have normal Growth Hormone levels you would not benefit?

                Comment

                Working...
                X