Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Regarding scar tissue

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Malibu View Post
    6 shooter - where does your son go to get these. How long does it take per treatment. I read about 200 hours from the link in the other post of mine. Not sure what it was referring too exactly.


    http://www.amri-intl.com/clinics.html


    My son received treatment at AMRI Tucson and AMRI in Va Beach. Because of my son's extensive MME treatments, we have learned the ideal treatment times for a spinal cord injury. He was receiving treatment for up to 20 hours per day, but probably averaged 15-16 hours per day. 13 of those hours he was asleep. We have also learned that the maximum number of hours for any one treatment time would be no more than 250 hours over 2-3 weeks. Also learned that back to back treatment sessions are not cost effective. A person would need to wait about 6 months with a spinal cord or other nerve injury before a second round of 200-250 hours. The reasoning is because the body has to develop a new supply of stem cells to use as the raw materials. My son's second session was 7 weeks between his first session and the changes for the 2nd session were less dramatic. We believe that changes were less because the body had not manufactured enough stem cells to make a dramatic change.

    We have also learned that with nerve damage, breaks off of the MME should be no longer than 10-12 hours. Minimum treatment time would be 3 hours in any one session.

    We took breaks twice per day and left the clinic for lunch and dinner. At the clinic, a patient would need to bring a caregiver who can sleep in the treatment room with the patient. A caregiver would need to stay the entire treatment time. The clinics have roll-in showers, laundry facilities, and break rooms where some cooking and food prep can be accomplished. They have refrigerators for food and drink storage.

    The MME beds have single and double memory foam mattresses. My son had no problems with skin breaking down. Spasms were significantly reduced throughout the 2-3 weeks of treatments. All changes were visable while at the clinic in the 2nd and 3rd week of treatment. New nerves were innervated, but atrophies muscles must be worked easily and frequently to regain significant function.

    The doctor at the clinic in Tucson is a retired opthomologist. The doctor in Va Beach is a working othopedic trama surgeon.
    Last edited by 6 Shooter; 10-21-2008 at 10:47 PM.

  2. #12

    Question

    So I guess for someone who has bullet fragments left in the body, this type of treatment is imposibble?
    My mouth is like a magician's hat, never know what might come out of it.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by macska View Post
    So I guess for someone who has bullet fragments left in the body, this type of treatment is imposibble?
    Yes, that is true. Bullet fragments must first be surgically removed before any magnetic treatment. One cannot have any metal containing iron or steel embedded in the body because the MME magnet will dislodge it and cause the metal to move toward the magnetic field. If the bullet fragments were made of lead, you could call and ask someone at one of the clinics.

    BTW, my son has a titanium plate in his neck and that was not an issue.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Isildur View Post
    More data, and the opinion of Dr.Young would be great to understand better how could MME helps to SCI.
    Interesting field.
    This is the first I have read about it. I would like to hear Dr Young's thoughts as well and what he knows about it.

  5. #15

    Dubious Claims for the Molecular Magnetic Energizer

    Not coming to any conclusion just yet but this article provides something to think about. We are talking 12-15k per treatment cycle.

    http://www.devicewatch.org/reports/mme.shtml
    ______
    Awe at my magnificent coq!

    "You may say I'm a dreamer
    but I'm not" - J. Lennon

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by eks View Post
    Not coming to any conclusion just yet but this article provides something to think about. We are talking 12-15k per treatment cycle.

    http://www.devicewatch.org/reports/mme.shtml
    Interesting. But why did the FDA provide the experimental license? Simple. It works and does no harm. Who do you know that would spend $750,000 on a clinic with machines that do not work? The writer, Dr. Stephen Barrett presents NO evidence that the MME does not work. Just his opinion based on reading website information. Did Dr. Barrett interview anyone who had been given MME treatment? He did not say. I believe his article is as dubious as his claims that the MME does not work.

    BTW, anyone please volunteer any information about EXACTLY HOW the body heals itself. When a surgeon cuts on someone, how does the body repair the seam? How do stem cells know where to go to replace other damaged cells? How do stem cells know how to convert to another cell? How do cells communicate with each other to coordinate repair? Why does scar tissue form? Why and how does scar tissue convert back to normal tissue after about 15 years? How does the body know it has been damaged and where the damage is? Why does the body seem to ignore damaged areas that contain scar tissue and not attempt a repair using stem cells?

    My guess is that NO one knows the answers to the above questions. But, what ever is going on inside the body to attempt to heal itself, the MME, in the area of the magnetic beam, seems to put the body's healing process in overdrive using the outside power source. And, the healing process speeds up to a much greater extent than doing nothing. Thats why there are so many different diseases and medical conditions that improve from the magnetic treatment.

    Dr. Barnett complained that there was no control group. Well, there are several hundred thousand people in America in wheelchairs (the control group) that are paralyzed to some extent who have had extensive medical care, the best that America can offer. They are not changing much after years and years in that condition.

    In contrast, people who have had MME treatment with a variety of neurological conditions are changing for the better. Think I remember reading about 85% of the treated persons report improvement. Maybe Dr. Barnett should talk to some of them.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by 6 Shooter View Post
    Interesting. But why did the FDA provide the experimental license? Simple. It works and does no harm. Who do you know that would spend $750,000 on a clinic with machines that do not work? The writer, Dr. Stephen Barrett presents NO evidence that the MME does not work. Just his opinion based on reading website information. Did Dr. Barrett interview anyone who had been given MME treatment? He did not say. I believe his article is as dubious as his claims that the MME does not work.

    BTW, anyone please volunteer any information about EXACTLY HOW the body heals itself. When a surgeon cuts on someone, how does the body repair the seam? How do stem cells know where to go to replace other damaged cells? How do stem cells know how to convert to another cell? How do cells communicate with each other to coordinate repair? Why does scar tissue form? Why and how does scar tissue convert back to normal tissue after about 15 years? How does the body know it has been damaged and where the damage is? Why does the body seem to ignore damaged areas that contain scar tissue and not attempt a repair using stem cells?

    My guess is that NO one knows the answers to the above questions. But, what ever is going on inside the body to attempt to heal itself, the MME, in the area of the magnetic beam, seems to put the body's healing process in overdrive using the outside power source. And, the healing process speeds up to a much greater extent than doing nothing. Thats why there are so many different diseases and medical conditions that improve from the magnetic treatment.

    Dr. Barnett complained that there was no control group. Well, there are several hundred thousand people in America in wheelchairs (the control group) that are paralyzed to some extent who have had extensive medical care, the best that America can offer. They are not changing much after years and years in that condition.

    In contrast, people who have had MME treatment with a variety of neurological conditions are changing for the better. Think I remember reading about 85% of the treated persons report improvement. Maybe Dr. Barnett should talk to some of them.
    6-shooter,

    I realize that you believe that this treatment works and I hope that it does. However, some of the language that you use is misleading. There is no such thing as an "experimental license" given out by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). I believe that you are referring to an IND (Investigational Drug or Device Application). This designation is give when the FDA is convinced that the drug or device is safe enough to be applied to people under carefully monitored conditions, usually based on data from animal studies.

    An NDA (New Drug or Device Application) is the process through which all new drugs and devices, as well as old drugs or devices with new claims, must go through. The fact that a treatment is going through an NDA does not mean the FDA has approved the treatment. Efficacy has not been shown. Only crude safety has been shown. The clinical trials must show both safety and efficacy before the drug or device is finally "approved" by the FDA. During this approval process, doctors and manufacturers are not supposed to charge for the treatment.

    Let me repeat. The device and the treatment that it provides has not been shown to be effective. The doctors who are using it are testing the therapy to see if it is effective. The evidence that magnetic fields have any healing effect on the body is very limited and controversial.

    Wise

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young View Post

    Let me repeat. The device and the treatment that it provides has not been shown to be effective. The doctors who are using it are testing the therapy to see if it is effective. The evidence that magnetic fields have any healing effect on the body is very limited and controversial. Wise
    Please provide your references to support the above statements.

    Please also state what you would like to see as evidence to demonstrate that a particular treatment is/was effective. I would like to provide you with my son's MRI of his C-6 spinal cord injury 2 years post injury and next day post 3rd. MME treatment. You could view, analyze, and post anything you wish about the report.

    I do except that the numbers of persons using magnetic therapy is very limited up to this point in time. So are the numbers receiving stem cells. Both procedures are certainly controversial. IMHO, as the numbers of persons receiving treatment continue to rise and show functional improvement, acceptance will rise at the FDA and within the medical community.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by 6 Shooter View Post
    Please provide your references to support the above statements.

    Please also state what you would like to see as evidence to demonstrate that a particular treatment is/was effective. I would like to provide you with my son's MRI of his C-6 spinal cord injury 2 years post injury and next day post 3rd. MME treatment. You could view, analyze, and post anything you wish about the report.

    I do except that the numbers of persons using magnetic therapy is very limited up to this point in time. So are the numbers receiving stem cells. Both procedures are certainly controversial. IMHO, as the numbers of persons receiving treatment continue to rise and show functional improvement, acceptance will rise at the FDA and within the medical community.
    6-shooter,

    I am sorry that I did not respond earlier. There is no credible clinical trial evidence that magnetic therapy is efficacious for any disease. Wikipedia summarizes this lack of evidence:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_therapy
    A 2002 NSF report on public attitudes and understanding of science noted that magnet therapy is "not at all scientific."[16] A number of vendors make unsupported claims about magnet therapy by using pseudoscientific and new-age language. Such claims are unsupported by the results of scientific and clinical studies.[17] Most criticisms include:

    * The typical magnet used produces insufficient magnetic field to have any effect on muscle tissue, bones, blood vessels, or organs.[1]
    * Some manufacturers claim that the magnets help to circulate the blood by interacting with the iron in hemoglobin, a major component of red blood cells. There is no indication that circulatory benefits would result even if some blood component were to couple strongly to magnetic fields.
    * Others claim that the magnets can restore the body's theorized "electromagnetic energy balance", but no such balance is medically recognized.
    * Even in the many times stronger magnetic fields used in magnetic resonance imaging, none of the claimed effects are observed.[18]
    * There are claims that the south pole of a magnet acts differently on the body than the north pole.[19]
    * Many of the websites that promote the benefits of magnetic therapy belong to individuals and companies that profit from the sale of magnetic therapy products.
    Stephen Barrett's article "Magnet Therapy, a Skeptical View" (Source) cites two studies that claim that magnetic therapy is effective for pain. I agree with him that neither study are convincing. Barrett points out that a number of state and other governmental organizations have sued manufacturers of magnetic devices for making false and misleading claims about their products. I realize that you disagree with the article but it makes a convincing argument that little or no data support the efficacy of the magnetic therapies.

    I am surprised that organizations such as AMRI are allowed to charge for the treatment. According to http://www.healing-arts.org/children/cp/cpmagnetic.htm web site, the cost of MME is usually $50.00 per hour and "the therapy is best taken by sleeping overnight under the magnet". A good night's sleep presumably would cost about $400. I suppose that one could go to sleep next to an MRI which has a 1.5-3.0T field compared to the 0.5T field being offered in an MME machine. Several scientific facilities with significant magnetic fields, including the Stanford Linear Accelerator. In fact, the Clarendon Facility in Oxford offers systems that provide magnetic fields of 18T or even higher pulsed fields ((Source)). The strongest magnetic, however, may be provided by the Large Hadron Collider whose 43-foot magnet imploded last year under the strength of its own field ((Source)).

    I am astounded by the number of web sites selling therapeutic magnets (Source). You can pay up to $240 for a magnetic sleep pad that supposedly "improves circulation, accelerates healing and enhances pain relief". There are over a million web sites making ill-supported claims of efficacy. Most of these are scams. I suppose that it is not surprising that there are some organizations that are offering $50/hour therapeutic sessions with higher magnetic fields.

    Please, I do not want to see your son's MRI. MRI's do not show scar tissues in the spinal cord and there is no point in looking an individual MRI's without a before and after treatment comparison. A single case would not prove anything. By the way, it is not true that people with spinal cord injury do not improve over time. A lot of people improve during the years after an injury.

    If this were really so effective, there would be dozens or even hundreds of peer-reviewed clinical trial reports indicating that MME therapies are effective. However, I was unable to find a single convincing article. Most of the recent studies that I found concerning static magnetic field therapy have stated that the available studies are inadequate. Here are two of the most recent studies that I was able to find.

    1. Colbert AP, Wahbeh H, Harling N, Connelly E, Schiffke HC, Forsten C, Gregory WL, Markov MS, Souder JJ, Elmer P and King V (2007). Static Magnetic Field Therapy: A Critical Review of Treatment Parameters. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. Helfgott Research Institute, National College of Natural Medicine, 049 SW, Porter Street, Portland, OR 97291, USA. acolbert@ncnm.edu. Static magnetic field (SMF) therapy, applied via a permanent magnet attached to the skin, is used by people worldwide for self-care. Despite a lack of established SMF dosage and treatment regimens, multiple studies are conducted to evaluate SMF therapy effectiveness. Our objectives in conducting this review are toi) summarize SMF research conducted in humans; (ii) critically evaluate reporting quality of SMF dosages and treatment parameters and (iii) propose a set of criteria for reporting SMF treatment parameters in future clinical trials. We searched 27 electronic databases and reference lists. Only English language human studies were included. Excluded were studies of electromagnetic fields, transcranial magnetic stimulation, magnets placed on acupuncture points, animal studies, abstracts, posters and editorials. Data were extracted on clinical indication, study design and 10 essential SMF parameters. Three reviewers assessed quality of reporting and calculated a quality assessment score for each of the 10 treatment parameters. Fifty-six studies were reviewed, 42 conducted in patient populations and 14 in healthy volunteers. The SMF treatment parameters most often and most completely described were site of application, magnet support device and frequency and duration of application. Least often and least completely described were characteristics of the SMF: magnet dimensions, measured field strength and estimated distance of the magnet from the target tissue. Thirty-four (61%) of studies failed to provide enough detail about SMF dosage to permit protocol replication by other investigators. Our findings highlight the need to optimize SMF dosing parameters for individual clinical conditions before proceeding to a full-scale clinical trial.
    2. Richmond SJ (2008). Magnet therapy for the relief of pain and inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis (CAMBRA): A randomised placebo-controlled crossover trial. Trials. 9: 53. Department of Health Sciences, The University of York, England, UK. sjr503@york.ac.uk. ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis is a common inflammatory autoimmune disease. Although disease activity may be managed effectively with prescription drugs, unproven treatments such as magnet therapy are sometimes used as an adjunct for pain control. Therapeutic devices incorporating permanent magnets are widely available and easy to use. Magnets may also be perceived as a more natural and less harmful alternative to analgesic compounds. Of interest to health service researchers is the possibility that magnet therapy might help to reduce the economic burden of managing chronic musculoskeletal disorders. Magnets are extremely cheap to manufacture and prolonged treatment involves a single cost. Despite this, good quality scientific evidence concerning the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of magnet therapy is scarce. The primary aim of the CAMBRA trial is to investigate the effectiveness of magnet therapy for relieving pain and inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS/DESIGN: The CAMBRA trial employs a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled crossover design. Participant will each wear four devices: a commercially available magnetic wrist strap; an attenuated wrist strap; a demagnetised wrist strap; and a copper bracelet. Device will be allocated in a randomised sequence and each worn for five weeks. The four treatment phases will be separated by wash out periods lasting one week. Both participants and researchers will be blind, as far as feasible, to the allocation of experimental and control devices. In total 69 participants will be recruited from general practices within the UK. Eligible patients will have a verified diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis that is being managed using drugs, and will be experiencing chronic pain. Outcomes measured will include pain, inflammation, disease activity, physical function, medication use, affect, and health related costs. Data will be collected using questionnaires, diaries, manual pill counts and blood tests. DISCUSSION: Magnetism is an inherent property of experimental devices which is hard to conceal. The use of multiple control devices, including a copper bracelet, represents a concerted attempt to overcome methodological limitations associated with trials in this field. The trial began in July 2007. At the time of submission (August 2008) recruitment has finished, with 70 trial participants, and data collection is almost complete. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51459023.


    I don't expect to convince you that magnetic molecular energizing does not work. I am glad that your son is improving.

    Wise.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by 6 Shooter View Post
    Please provide your references to support the above statements.

    Please also state what you would like to see as evidence to demonstrate that a particular treatment is/was effective. I would like to provide you with my son's MRI of his C-6 spinal cord injury 2 years post injury and next day post 3rd. MME treatment. You could view, analyze, and post anything you wish about the report.

    I do except that the numbers of persons using magnetic therapy is very limited up to this point in time. So are the numbers receiving stem cells. Both procedures are certainly controversial. IMHO, as the numbers of persons receiving treatment continue to rise and show functional improvement, acceptance will rise at the FDA and within the medical community.
    6-shooter,

    I am sorry that I did not respond earlier. There is no credible clinical trial evidence that magnetic therapy is efficacious for any disease. Wikipedia summarizes this lack of evidence:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_therapy
    A 2002 NSF report on public attitudes and understanding of science noted that magnet therapy is "not at all scientific."[16] A number of vendors make unsupported claims about magnet therapy by using pseudoscientific and new-age language. Such claims are unsupported by the results of scientific and clinical studies.[17] Most criticisms include:

    * The typical magnet used produces insufficient magnetic field to have any effect on muscle tissue, bones, blood vessels, or organs.[1]
    * Some manufacturers claim that the magnets help to circulate the blood by interacting with the iron in hemoglobin, a major component of red blood cells. There is no indication that circulatory benefits would result even if some blood component were to couple strongly to magnetic fields.
    * Others claim that the magnets can restore the body's theorized "electromagnetic energy balance", but no such balance is medically recognized.
    * Even in the many times stronger magnetic fields used in magnetic resonance imaging, none of the claimed effects are observed.[18]
    * There are claims that the south pole of a magnet acts differently on the body than the north pole.[19]
    * Many of the websites that promote the benefits of magnetic therapy belong to individuals and companies that profit from the sale of magnetic therapy products.
    Stephen Barrett's article "Magnet Therapy, a Skeptical View" (Source) cites two studies that claim that magnetic therapy is effective for pain. I agree with him that neither study are convincing. Barrett points out that a number of state and other governmental organizations have sued manufacturers of magnetic devices for making false and misleading claims about their products. I realize that you disagree with the article but it makes a convincing argument that little or no data support the efficacy of the magnetic therapies.

    I am surprised that organizations such as AMRI are allowed to charge for the treatment. According to http://www.healing-arts.org/children/cp/cpmagnetic.htm web site, the cost of MME is usually $50.00 per hour and "the therapy is best taken by sleeping overnight under the magnet". A good night's sleep presumably would cost about $400. I suppose that one could go to sleep next to an MRI which has a 1.5-3.0T field compared to the 0.5T field being offered in an MME machine. Several scientific facilities with significant magnetic fields, including the Stanford Linear Accelerator. In fact, the Clarendon Facility in Oxford offers systems that provide magnetic fields of 18T or even higher pulsed fields (Source). The strongest magnetic, however, may be provided by the Large Hadron Collider whose 43-foot magnet imploded last year under the strength of its own field (Source).

    I am astounded by the number of web sites selling therapeutic magnets (Source). You can pay up to $240 for a magnetic sleep pad that supposedly "improves circulation, accelerates healing and enhances pain relief". There are over a million web sites making ill-supported claims of efficacy. Most of these are scams. I suppose that it is not surprising that there are some organizations that are offering $50/hour therapeutic sessions with higher magnetic fields.

    Please, I do not want to see your son's MRI. MRI's do not show scar tissues in the spinal cord and there is no point in looking an individual MRI's without a before and after treatment comparison. A single case would not prove anything. By the way, it is not true that people with spinal cord injury do not improve over time. A lot of people improve during the years after an injury.

    If this were really so effective, there would be dozens or even hundreds of peer-reviewed clinical trial reports indicating that MME therapies are effective. However, I was unable to find a single convincing article. Most of the recent studies that I found concerning static magnetic field therapy have stated that the available studies are inadequate. Here are two of the most recent studies that I was able to find.

    1. Colbert AP, Wahbeh H, Harling N, Connelly E, Schiffke HC, Forsten C, Gregory WL, Markov MS, Souder JJ, Elmer P and King V (2007). Static Magnetic Field Therapy: A Critical Review of Treatment Parameters. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. Helfgott Research Institute, National College of Natural Medicine, 049 SW, Porter Street, Portland, OR 97291, USA. acolbert@ncnm.edu. Static magnetic field (SMF) therapy, applied via a permanent magnet attached to the skin, is used by people worldwide for self-care. Despite a lack of established SMF dosage and treatment regimens, multiple studies are conducted to evaluate SMF therapy effectiveness. Our objectives in conducting this review are toi) summarize SMF research conducted in humans; (ii) critically evaluate reporting quality of SMF dosages and treatment parameters and (iii) propose a set of criteria for reporting SMF treatment parameters in future clinical trials. We searched 27 electronic databases and reference lists. Only English language human studies were included. Excluded were studies of electromagnetic fields, transcranial magnetic stimulation, magnets placed on acupuncture points, animal studies, abstracts, posters and editorials. Data were extracted on clinical indication, study design and 10 essential SMF parameters. Three reviewers assessed quality of reporting and calculated a quality assessment score for each of the 10 treatment parameters. Fifty-six studies were reviewed, 42 conducted in patient populations and 14 in healthy volunteers. The SMF treatment parameters most often and most completely described were site of application, magnet support device and frequency and duration of application. Least often and least completely described were characteristics of the SMF: magnet dimensions, measured field strength and estimated distance of the magnet from the target tissue. Thirty-four (61%) of studies failed to provide enough detail about SMF dosage to permit protocol replication by other investigators. Our findings highlight the need to optimize SMF dosing parameters for individual clinical conditions before proceeding to a full-scale clinical trial.
    2. Richmond SJ (2008). Magnet therapy for the relief of pain and inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis (CAMBRA): A randomised placebo-controlled crossover trial. Trials. 9: 53. Department of Health Sciences, The University of York, England, UK. sjr503@york.ac.uk. ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis is a common inflammatory autoimmune disease. Although disease activity may be managed effectively with prescription drugs, unproven treatments such as magnet therapy are sometimes used as an adjunct for pain control. Therapeutic devices incorporating permanent magnets are widely available and easy to use. Magnets may also be perceived as a more natural and less harmful alternative to analgesic compounds. Of interest to health service researchers is the possibility that magnet therapy might help to reduce the economic burden of managing chronic musculoskeletal disorders. Magnets are extremely cheap to manufacture and prolonged treatment involves a single cost. Despite this, good quality scientific evidence concerning the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of magnet therapy is scarce. The primary aim of the CAMBRA trial is to investigate the effectiveness of magnet therapy for relieving pain and inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS/DESIGN: The CAMBRA trial employs a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled crossover design. Participant will each wear four devices: a commercially available magnetic wrist strap; an attenuated wrist strap; a demagnetised wrist strap; and a copper bracelet. Device will be allocated in a randomised sequence and each worn for five weeks. The four treatment phases will be separated by wash out periods lasting one week. Both participants and researchers will be blind, as far as feasible, to the allocation of experimental and control devices. In total 69 participants will be recruited from general practices within the UK. Eligible patients will have a verified diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis that is being managed using drugs, and will be experiencing chronic pain. Outcomes measured will include pain, inflammation, disease activity, physical function, medication use, affect, and health related costs. Data will be collected using questionnaires, diaries, manual pill counts and blood tests. DISCUSSION: Magnetism is an inherent property of experimental devices which is hard to conceal. The use of multiple control devices, including a copper bracelet, represents a concerted attempt to overcome methodological limitations associated with trials in this field. The trial began in July 2007. At the time of submission (August 2008) recruitment has finished, with 70 trial participants, and data collection is almost complete. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51459023.


    I don't expect to convince you that magnetic molecular energizing does not work. I am glad that your son is improving.

    Wise.

Similar Threads

  1. Wound ballistics
    By Wise Young in forum Science, Medicine, & Technology
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 06-24-2008, 10:39 PM
  2. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 02-23-2004, 05:37 PM
  3. A Law's Fetal Flaw Fatal to Hopes for Cure
    By Faye in forum Funding, Legislation, & Advocacy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-03-2003, 10:25 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-21-2002, 11:35 AM
  5. Dr. John Houle?
    By Josh in forum Cure
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-20-2001, 10:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •