Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Leading experts in basic science and clinical care discuss barriers to a "cure" for s

  1. #11
    what have u said / u just quoted wise

  2. #12
    I was trying to put certain statements in quotations, but didn't work so well doing it with an iPhone.
    Donnie: Dr. Xiao, What are your thoughts on a cure/combination therapy for SCI's??
    CG Xiao: Donnie, I don't want to disappoint you, but I think it is impossible to restore the continuity of the cord or "bridge the gap" in the near future, let's say: 50 years. Dr Wise Young has been my most respected scientist in SCI. He has dedicated and contributed to SCI no other can match.

  3. #13
    I'm confused. Geron's trial with FDA approval was put on hold for tumor formation in the cord. My understanding is that the trial was put on hold by FDA. In the meantime further testing and better purification techniques have been implemented by Geron have shown that the outcome for adverse effects has been improved. Am I missing something?

  4. #14

    tired

    I'm so tired of hearing the same bs! when i was hurt 15yrs ago they said the same thing. i have lost all hope of any recovery in my lifetime. even if in 10 yrs somthing does happen our bodies will not be able to improve at all. our bodies will be to deteriated!

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Wise Young View Post
    Paolo,

    The discussion was frustrating because few of the people in the audience had ever taken any therapy from animal experiments to clinical trial. Most have never done a spinal cord injury clinical trial. The criticisms expressed by some people that the clinical outcome measures had not been validated, for example, were wrong. Every one of the outcome measures have been tested and validated by multiple groups, published in many articles. Of course, they can be improved but ASIA motor and sensory scores are quite sensitive and reliable. Likewise, there is a good function score (SCIM) and a widely accepted walking score (WISCI).

    During the discussion, Dr. Ann Kiessling encouraged people to suggest why so few therapies have gone to clinical trial. Not surprisingly, you heard every excuse from lack of funding and lack of outcome measures to lack of of therapies, inadequate translational research and absence of clinical trial infrastructure. All of these of course contributed to the lack of progress over the past 8 year although, as I pointed out, other diseases such as multiple sclerosis were able to get therapies into clinical trials even though animal models of MS were not as good and multiple sclerosis is a very difficult disease to assess clinically.

    We do need more funding for basic, translational, and clinical research. We need better outcome measures. We need more large animal experiments. We need clinical trial networks. Of course, it would help if we have really good therapies that have been vetted in many good animal models. Finally, we need more and better scientists working on the problem. Regenerating the spinal cord is not a simple or easy problem. The field doesn't have enough good scientists, resources, or money.

    However, this does not mean that we should hold off on clinical trials. There are promising therapies that we need get into clinical trials. Unfortunately, we lack clinical trials infrastructure to test the most promising therapies efficiently and rigorously. We need to test combinations of the therapies. Above all, we need clinicians committed to doing clinical trials. As you know, a lot of time is taken up convincing clinicians to do clinical trials and then to raise the money for the trial.

    But, perhaps the most telling reason of all was pointed out by Irv Naylor (the man in the wheelchair who sponsored the meeting). Irv pointed out that there was a fear of failure. This was a particularly telling point he made it shortly after several people had brought up the consequences of failure of the Geron trial. The fear of false hope, for example, is a form of fear of failure. Scientistis and clinicians are afraid that the therapy will not work. However, until they try, they won't know.

    I agree with Irv Naylor. Fear of failure has been a major deterrent to clinical trials in the United States. Until we try, we won't know what problems we face. More important, it is not a failure when a trial shows that a treatment does not work, especially if the therapy is already being used without evidence for efficacy. If a well-designed trial shows that the therapy does not work, we should be going forward to the next promising therapy.

    Wise.
    The main barrier to cure I see now are clinicians.
    They should be willing to make progress to finally give a chance of recovery to people with SCI, but they don't. Probably often it is because of the fear of failure and they don't want to be the one who run the trial.
    If this is the case they should chage job. It is like deciding to be a soldier and when a war comes you escape.
    Last edited by paolocipolla; 11-30-2009 at 09:23 PM.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by paolocipolla View Post

    Probably in 1962 the idea of going to the moon was considered false hope from many people and scientists
    paolocipolla, this isn't a knock against your post.


    Comparing the space agency in 1962 to current infancy of the stem cell industry shouldn't be done. The space agency (in "62") displayed poise, purpose, resolve & courage.

    In direct contrast, the stem cell industry (currently) is littered with con artists and fraudsters. With quite a few of the individuals being cowards. More afraid of their own possible failures or setbacks, than (concerned about) the four million and growing that are suffering daily. It is far easier for them to do nothing, and then complain that the reason for status quo is the fault of inadequate funding.

    The select few scientists pioneers that have set their egos aside, forging ahead are mired in red tape from government over regulation, political pressure, and opposition from the whacked out right wing.

    It is almost a certainty the first human tests will encounter difficulties. No matter how much forethought goes into the process, it is impossible to eliminate the danger.

    Can you imagine had NASA said, "we can't do this, it might be dangerous". NASA attempted a manned space launch (in 1967), and in fact it was dangerous. This first brave pioneers died on the launch pad *.

    NASA then learned from their failures and continued to forge ahead. There have been other astronauts lost along the way. Each time NASA learned and improved their techniques. Now they (NASA) are able to blast a manned spaceship into orbit (with approximately six million pounds of thrust at take off, depending on configuration) with a payload, then land the same craft dead-stick. Simply amazing when you consider the difficulties. The rest of the world watches in awe.

    It's a far greater tragedy to not attempt a solution, then to try and fail.


    * Apollo 1 is the official name that was retroactively assigned to the never-flown Apollo/Saturn 204 (AS-204) mission. Its command module (CM-012) was destroyed by fire during a test and training exercise on January 27, 1967 at Pad 34 (Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral, then known as Cape Kennedy) atop a Saturn IB rocket. Command Pilot Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom, Senior Pilot Ed White and Pilot Roger B. Chaffee. All three died in the fire.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by chasb View Post
    paolocipolla, this isn't a knock against your post.


    Comparing the space agency in 1962 to current infancy of the stem cell industry shouldn't be done. The space agency (in "62") displayed poise, purpose, resolve & courage.

    In direct contrast, the stem cell industry (currently) is littered with con artists and fraudsters. With quite a few of the individuals being cowards. More afraid of their own possible failures or setbacks, than (concerned about) the four million and growing that are suffering daily. It is far easier for them to do nothing, and then complain that the reason for status quo is the fault of inadequate funding.

    The select few scientists pioneers that have set their egos aside, forging ahead are mired in red tape from government over regulation, political pressure, and opposition from the whacked out right wing.

    It is almost a certainty the first human tests will encounter difficulties. No matter how much forethought goes into the process, it is impossible to eliminate the danger.

    Can you imagine had NASA said, "we can't do this, it might be dangerous". NASA attempted a manned space launch (in 1967), and in fact it was dangerous. This first brave pioneers died on the launch pad *.

    NASA then learned from their failures and continued to forge ahead. There have been other astronauts lost along the way. Each time NASA learned and improved their techniques. Now they (NASA) are able to blast a manned spaceship into orbit (with approximately six million pounds of thrust at take off, depending on configuration) with a payload, then land the same craft dead-stick. Simply amazing when you consider the difficulties. The rest of the world watches in awe.

    It's a far greater tragedy to not attempt a solution, then to try and fail.


    * Apollo 1 is the official name that was retroactively assigned to the never-flown Apollo/Saturn 204 (AS-204) mission. Its command module (CM-012) was destroyed by fire during a test and training exercise on January 27, 1967 at Pad 34 (Launch Complex 34, Cape Canaveral, then known as Cape Kennedy) atop a Saturn IB rocket. Command Pilot Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom, Senior Pilot Ed White and Pilot Roger B. Chaffee. All three died in the fire.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1
    Chasb,

    I agree with what you say here.
    I was referring to what some people not invoved in the moon project have been thinking at that time, in particular out of the US. But in any case I think the 60s, in general, were years full of hope and that made possible even the impossible.
    Last edited by paolocipolla; 12-01-2009 at 08:44 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-27-2008, 09:03 AM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-24-2004, 12:44 AM
  3. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-21-2003, 11:18 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
  •