Page 62 of 62 FirstFirst ... 125253545556575859606162
Results 611 to 619 of 619

Thread: Spinal Cord Injury Network USA (SCINetUSA)

  1. #611
    Jeeze......this thread reads like a pack of rabid junk yard dogs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
    I think you miss the point entirely Jim - as usual! If you can't talk about who or what it is you should stop telling the poor LMN injuries that come on here under the impression that you are working on LMN therapies. If you trace the threads back on this topic you (and Wise) have been claiming this work has been ongoing for 5+ years - which is 1/6th of the combined SCI research experience the two MDs you mention have and x5 times the length of study you have just revealed. See I can do numbers too.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young View Post
    Jawaid, so far, we have not considered using iPS cells. When we have tried embryonic stem cells, they have produced tumors and great care must be taken to ensure that they have differentiated into a terminal cell type. w have been transplanted neural stem cells obtained from the subventricular zone of neonatal rats, Muse cells isolated from the bone marrow, and umbilical cord blood mononuclear cells in our lumbosacral spinal cord injury model. Wise.
    The last I remember back in 2014 there was going to be work on creating neurons and motor neurons from Muse cells. I don't believe anything was posted or published on the outcome but I don't think Muse cells worked to create neurons and motor neurons from the ongoing work I've read from Mari Dezawa. I'm sure it would have been mentioned or pursued if that strategy had been successful. Jim did post this last year in the China thread from years ago but it's quite dated. I'm not able to find any updated information about the Muse cells and SCI experiments or other strategies they may want to implement on LMN injuries.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim View Post
    For the past 3/4 years lumbosacral injury research has been a top priority at our lab. Wise wrote the following several years ago, much has been learned since.

    The lumbosacral spinal cord is located at T11-L1. It contains the neurons (gray matter) that innervate the muscles of the leg. Damage to the lumbosacral cord results in loss of gray matter including the neurons responsible for innervating muscle and the circuitry for reflexes and programmed movements. When you have flaccid paralysis, you don't have spasticity.

    I believe that restoring function to lumbosacral injuries will require neuronal replacement. Neural stem cells can make neurons and some animal studies suggest that they can also replace motoneurons. There are several sources of immune-compatible neural stem cells. One is induced pluripotent stem (iPS) which can be differentiated to neural stem cells. The other is autologous call pluripotent adult stem cells which can be differentiated into neural stem cells, including the MUSE cells described by Mari Dezawa.

    Please note, however, that much research still needs to be done to find out the best kind of cells to transplant to replace motoneurons, to get these cells to send axons out of the spinal cord to innervate muscle, to regenerate sensory and descending axons to connect with these neurons to reform reflex circuits, and to program the spinal cord for micturition (urination), bowel movements, walking, and other programmed motor function.

    People who have injuries to L2 or lower segments will have primarily spinal root (cauda equina) injuries. These roots need to be regenerated. Axons must be coaxed to grow into the spinal cord. Motor axons must be grown from the spinal cord into the muscle. If the injury is close to the spinal cord, motoneuronal replacement may be necessary.

    Finally, flaccidity (complete loss of muscle tone) usually results in marked atrophy of muscles. For a long time, clinicians thought that denervated muscles could not be restored. However, a group in Vienna has reported that very intense electrical stimulation of muscle can not only maintain but restore denervated muscles.

    I know that the reversal of flaccid paralysis sounds daunting but I think that we will be surprised by how flexible the spinal cord is.

    Wise

  2. #612
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,732
    Blog Entries
    1
    Asking questions and receiving honest and accurate responses are the purposes of this Web Site. Aren’t they?

  3. #613
    Pelican, you continually make false assumptions, attribute statements to me that I haven't made, then based on your falsehoods, say I am lying to this community and being secretive. You have been doing this for years, it ends now.

    Examples, from just part of this thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
    Ah so there it is. ?We are working on it? actually translates to Rutgers has a single PhD candidate working on a thesis related to lumbosacral injury repair. Only took 5 years to get that answer out of you.
    Wise's PhD candidate is working on this, along with a visiting scholar who has a MD/PhD, and others. They are overseen by Wise and our Center's Director who also has a MD/Phd. Wise and Dongming have 60 years of combined sci research experience, but you say what they are doing is bs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
    True collaboration is only possible with transparency. Most PhD candidates and their mentors are very open about dissertations that are being worked upon. Why the secrecy here? If it smells like bs......
    They are completely open. As I have stated several times, it would be very inappropriate for ME to discuss their ongoing study on a public message board. But, according to you, this means it is bs and secretive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fly_Pelican_Fly View Post
    I think you miss the point entirely Jim - as usual! If you can't talk about who or what it is you should stop telling the poor LMN injuries that come on here under the impression that you are working on LMN therapies. If you trace the threads back on this topic you (and Wise) have been claiming this work has been ongoing for 5+ years - which is 1/6th of the combined SCI research experience the two MDs you mention have and x5 times the length of study you have just revealed. See I can do numbers too.
    I clearly stated in post 591 "This 1+ year study". I was speaking about this specific study, not all of the LMN research our lab has done. So, your 'numbers' and logic are completely wrong.

    Then you tell me what I can and can not share with my community, based on your false assertions. Such arrogance. Makes me laugh and feel sorry for you at the same time.

    Quote Originally Posted by paolocipolla View Post
    Since I know a bit what FPF is talking about, I am afraid that if there were positive answers to his hard questions, answers would have been posted already.
    This ongoing study is often reported, to guests, at Open Houses, at lectures, but not by me, on a public message board. Ask a team of researchers what they would think of someone discussing their project on the internet. Why can you guys grasp this?

    Quote Originally Posted by paolocipolla View Post
    ...And since we all know how hard it is SCI life I think that we should not pay too much attention to good manners or polite expessions commonly should be used, it's the content what metters as here we have to find a way out of this hell at any cost.
    Has nothing to do with manners. He is attributing statements to me that he made up and, then infers I am lying and being secretive.

    Pelican, I am done wasting time with you. Stop making things up and attacking me.

  4. #614
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim View Post
    Pelican, you continually make false assumptions, attribute statements to me that I haven't made, then based on your falsehoods, say I am lying to this community and being secretive. You have been doing this for years, it ends now.


    Pelican, I am done wasting time with you. Stop making things up and attacking me.
    Jim-
    I am also entirely bored and long put off by these guys. They taint the forum. Is there some reason you cannot ban such folk?

  5. #615
    Tet, we have only banned a few people since the existence of CC (20+ years.) Everyone's input is welcome and necessary for robust debate, free speech is sacrosanct. Continually questioning my integrity and trashing our Center/researchers based on false assumptions and made up bs, is not cool and won't be tolerated.

  6. #616
    Quote Originally Posted by Tetracyclone View Post
    Jim-
    I am also entirely bored and long put off by these guys. They taint the forum. Is there some reason you cannot ban such folk?
    hell yea BAN ..............there's two blowhards that need to be permanently banned, one of them wears a tinfoil hat.
    "I'm manic as hell-
    But I'm goin' strong-
    Left my meds on the sink again-
    My head will be racing by lunchtime"

    <----Scott Weiland---->

  7. #617
    Senior Member Moe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Springfield
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by ineedmyelin View Post
    hell yea BAN ..............there's two blowhards that need to be permanently banned, one of them wears a tinfoil hat.
    Hell yeah, BAN Weird Al Yankovic from the internet!

    Gets really tricky asking questions for updates since Dr.Wise doesn't get involved with the forum anymore with the reason giving that 'he has no access to the network' but yet isn't he a super admin? I remember he used to clean up the unrelated posts into topics, answer important questions without going through Jim. Poor guy, he answers for Dr. Wise but can't answer in behalf of Dr. Wise, must be going nuts. Although I may sound frustrated with my comments/questions sometimes, I may question the research but I seriously don't question his intent, I met him in an open house, great guy with good family, has good values and also a fellow quad. It's just tricky for me to comment without sounding personal while he's the 'middle guy' to any questions asked to ANYSCINet, especially when it's easy to get words misinterpreted.

    I do question research and researchers. It still would be nice to know about the follow-up of the IIb patients that 'live too far' I seriously don't understand how distance would be such a big obstacle for a research that was considered that important. They didn't seem that far to participate to begin with and it's hard to believe that they moved to different towns the passed 2-3 years, even if they did, there's telephones and internet to communicate in China. If you can't network with the previous patients, how would you expect to network to other SCINet countries?? Seems people care more for Rat recovery instead of the previous (human) participants? If it's classified information then fine, then say so, Id undertand... it's just the excuse 'living too far' in my opinion sounds very sloppy for a research that important.
    Last edited by Moe; Yesterday at 12:30 PM.
    "Talk without the support of action means nothing..."
    ― DaShanne Stokes

  8. #618
    Quote Originally Posted by Moe View Post

    Gets really tricky asking questions for updates since Dr.Wise doesn't get involved with the forum anymore with the reason giving that 'he has no access to the network'
    Moe, when you posted your request for info about the trial networks, Wise was out of the country, so I emailed your question to him and he emailed his answer back. He can't access the site in some countries. He isn't active on the site because he just doesn't have time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moe View Post
    It still would be nice to know about the follow-up of the IIb patients that 'live too far' I seriously don't understand how distance would be such a big obstacle for a research that was considered that important. They didn't seem that far to participate to begin with and it's hard to believe that they moved to different towns the passed 2-3 years, even if they did, there's telephones and internet to communicate in China. If you can't network with the previous patients, how would you expect to network to other SCINet countries?? Seems people care more for Rat recovery instead of the previous (human) participants? If it's classified information then fine, then say so, Id undertand... it's just the excuse 'living too far' in my opinion sounds very sloppy for a research that important.
    All of the patients completed their required follow-up exams. They didn't agree to the three year follow-up but that is being organized. Several of the subjects live in remote areas that are not accessible by car. Because of that, teams have to hike in, money is being raised to make this happen. That is what I know, Moe.

  9. #619
    Senior Member Moe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Springfield
    Posts
    409
    Yes my mistake, you did say he was out of the country that time, still feels he doesn't get involved to the forum. As for the follow-up I'll just give it a rest for now... Thanks.
    "Talk without the support of action means nothing..."
    ― DaShanne Stokes

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 67
    Last Post: 12-04-2015, 12:50 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-29-2012, 01:08 AM
  3. Ongoing NIH Grants for SCI
    By Steven Edwards in forum Cure
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-28-2006, 10:40 AM
  4. Dr.Young
    By pla9302 in forum Cure
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-06-2006, 02:08 PM
  5. Replies: 66
    Last Post: 01-11-2006, 03:59 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
  •