Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 79

Thread: Get behind DA like me

  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    2,175
    Quote Originally Posted by Leif View Post
    Swh2007. Agree. I personally believe strongly there are ways to streamline- make more efficient, make more cost saving and more productive clinical trials, off course there are, that’s like with anything involving a human hand (brain).

    The brief brochure linked was discussing such ideas for cancer treatment clinical trials, and as we know cancer treatments have come a long way and are making progress as we speak.

    Over here one also looks at better ways to run clinical trials, for example I did attend a meeting some time ago where a British scientist government official explained how the U.K. wanted to do things where several topics like running/operating and establishing clinical trials were discussed. For example was it discussed to establish large hospitals (preferably university hospitals) in better and more focused clinical trial infrastructure systems, for example like having (trained) staff, IT services, nurses, tech. ppl and other services, -not necessarily directly connected to each ongoing trial, but they would be working basically on a day-to-day operating schedule running the facilities network infrastructure where one then could “poor into the pipe” translation research based upon solid peer research documentation and protocols for the studies, where investigators then from each clinical trial arm or study protocol would do the actual investigations and follow-up as for the different studies running at a given time. This btw is also inline with what Dr. Young has explained in some of his posts on this website, if I’m not to off, to all of us.

    The problem with SCI though, regardless how much one want to streamline processes, the infrastructure or whatever, is; there does not EXIST a running clinical trial network for SCI terapies in the Western hemisphere! Not in the USA or in Europe! There does not even exist a single operating running clinical trial for regeneration of the spinal cord, although some and especially Dr. Young is working hard for this. It’s about time that the major gross of us wake up, sober up, and face those facts. And do something about it, in a constructive way.

    -To move SCI to possible future treatments, clinical trial networks to perform multistudy studies is mandatory. These networks then will consist of our (the World’s) best scientists, researchers, neurosurgeons, radiologists and the majors in the field. Only this will kill the elephant in the room. So, the best one can do now as I personally see it, is to work for such infrastructure.

    Also, I am a firm stubborn supporter of basic research for SCI, and I have also done some thinking about that and I am 100 % convinced that such networks also will promote basic research, by gathering more young bright scientists and get more funding for basic research to our field, for basic research which really is the hidden motor in all of this. Trials and research walk hand-in-hand and should be focus # 1., for the one wanting therapies for SCI.

    And make no mistakes, to the ones that believes one just take some remedies and operate or whatever or inject by "trial and error" – to think that such a route and strategy will bring therapies faster, -just forget it. Thinking like that will only slow down the little progress the SCI discipline/field already has. For example; in the USA and Europe one will not find even one university hospital neurosurgeon that will perform a laminectomy, inject (whatever) or perform any operation on spinal cord injured ppl if it is experimental as for regenerative as such but not based upon a clinical trial study protocol, not one. Just check around and please report back to this thread if one finds just one!

    The spinal cord is not something one fools around with, just look around and se all the problems it brings to health issues and other things. One should help, help in constructive ways, and that is to work for a SCI clinical trial network aiming at cures for SCI! Regeneration or neuron replacement etc. But as for this, if one find some SCI demographic studies or other nice-to-have studies trying to enter the arena of such networks, kick them out! There are enough arenas already for such.

    Having said all that. I’m 100 % for streamlining any processes, but not for cutting corners, to give more trouble than the SCI already serves. But really folks, that is not the issue for the SCI debate these days at all since we have close to zero, -the issue is to work for the best collaborating infrastructure clinical trial network in the world, with the best scientists, researchers, doc’s and nurses – have it done – for SCI ppl at large in the World and those with SCI coming after us, which will be injured tomorrow.

    Think positive and constructive now – all of us and let’s have it done! It really does not require much of the individual of us. We all can support one way or the other. And if some can do more, fine, and some can’t due to SCI, that is more than fine, but we all have to pull our single common rope “tug of war” in the same direction, to have a little chance to win…


    I agree with this. The constructive ways to get streamlining and collboration is to seek realistic change from government (advocacy), raise money from government (advocacy) and raise enougn private funding to gain some influence in the research/scientific process as you dole out the money.

    But baseball is a great game. Except the Cubs (just kidding, I'm a Cardinals fan). So no attacking baseball.

  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    2,175
    Quote Originally Posted by DA View Post
    i dont know, but i bet it was rock solid funding.
    Well, if you want to be a leader then don't say stuff that you don't know about. Of course there was adequate (probably all private) funding for Viagra. There were tens of millions of older men who wanted to get an erection (not to mention the women who wanted to sleep with them) so there was a lot of profit potential. Plus it wasn't that hard of a problem to solve (no pun intented) so the risk wasn't that great.

    AIDS: There were tens of million of people who were scared that they or their children would get it, so there were tens of millions of people pushing the government for funding. Not surprising.

    All this means is if you find the money and direct it correctly you can get past the clinical trial obstacles one way or another.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by swh2007 View Post
    I agree with this. The constructive ways to get streamlining and collboration is to seek realistic change from government (advocacy), raise money from government (advocacy) and raise enougn private funding to gain some influence in the research/scientific process as you dole out the money.
    It is going to be people like you who get the job done.
    You will find a guide to preserving shoulder function @
    http://www.rstce.pitt.edu/RSTCE_Reso...imb_Injury.pdf

    See my personal webpage @
    http://cccforum55.freehostia.com/

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by DA View Post
    so by todays and many cc members standard, salk would be considered unethical.
    It does not matter. Debating hypotheticals, philosophy, ethics, etc. is not going to do a thing insofar as advancing sci cure research is concerned. Neither will throwing stones. My dialogue (?) with you in this Forum is over unless you decide to say or do something constructive.
    You will find a guide to preserving shoulder function @
    http://www.rstce.pitt.edu/RSTCE_Reso...imb_Injury.pdf

    See my personal webpage @
    http://cccforum55.freehostia.com/

  5. #65
    Senior Member ian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Perth West Australia
    Posts
    1,507
    Quote Originally Posted by DA View Post
    so by todays and many cc members standard, salk would be considered unethical.
    This is true, you have a good point.

  6. #66
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    beaumont tx usa
    Posts
    32,389
    Quote Originally Posted by SCIfor55yrs. View Post
    It does not matter. Debating hypotheticals, philosophy, ethics, etc. is not going to do a thing insofar as advancing sci cure research is concerned. Neither will throwing stones. My dialogue (?) with you in this Forum is over unless you decide to say or do something constructive.
    good, you were getting on my nerves anyway with that crap. nobody is stopping you from
    doing what ever you claim to do or have done. the bottom line, since people started living with sci around 1945, 65 years of nothing for the chronic complete sci. bottom line. way past time to fire the coach.

  7. #67
    Faltering Cancer Trials

    The nation’s most important system for judging the clinical effectiveness of cancer treatments is approaching “a state of crisis.” That is the disturbing verdict of experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences to review the performance of clinical trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute.
    ...
    read the whole new york times editorial here:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/op...html?th&emc=th

  8. #68
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    beaumont tx usa
    Posts
    32,389
    Quote Originally Posted by swh2007 View Post
    Well, if you want to be a leader then don't say stuff that you don't know about. Of course there was adequate (probably all private) funding for Viagra. There were tens of millions of older men who wanted to get an erection (not to mention the women who wanted to sleep with them) so there was a lot of profit potential. Plus it wasn't that hard of a problem to solve (no pun intented) so the risk wasn't that great.

    AIDS: There were tens of million of people who were scared that they or their children would get it, so there were tens of millions of people pushing the government for funding. Not surprising.

    All this means is if you find the money and direct it correctly you can get past the clinical trial obstacles one way or another.
    that was a joke... rock solid funding.

    anyway, the point was when therapies is important to people in the system, the therapy approval is fast. AND vise-versa.

  9. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    2,175
    Quote Originally Posted by DA View Post
    that was a joke... rock solid funding.

    anyway, the point was when therapies is important to people in the system, the therapy approval is fast. AND vise-versa.
    A pretty good joke. I don't disagree with your statement but it really comes down to having enough money/profit potential to overcome obstacles and keep all of the right balls in the air and moving. A hard lesson to learn. Usually requires a stiff drink. Etc.

  10. #70
    Senior Member DA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    beaumont tx usa
    Posts
    32,389
    Quote Originally Posted by swh2007 View Post
    A pretty good joke. I don't disagree with your statement but it really comes down to having enough money/profit potential to overcome obstacles and keep all of the right balls in the air and moving. A hard lesson to learn. Usually requires a stiff drink. Etc.
    the sci community will never have a big enough profit potential, unless a billionaires daughter suffer an sci. on the other side, we have a huge profit potential in non cure services.

Posting Permissions

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