Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread: Paraplegic backing for stem cell trials in New Zealand

  1. #41
    Thanks , but you could answer the question.

    keeping on

  2. #42
    Perhaps I could, however it would be more beneficial to you to learn from researching a subject rather than me spoon feeding you simple one line sentences. Sorry to have disappointed you.

  3. #43
    Grammy, yes you are a disappointment. You can say what you profess to know. It would be valuable to the cure thread. On the other hand if you don't know just say so or we will take it as such. Infact don't bother, then it might inconvience you.

    Have a great day.

  4. #44
    Keeping on,

    I apologize for not living up to your expectations.

    I've already inconvenienced myself enough to provide you with links to very important discussions and viewpoints from good knowledgable members here on carecure that have been covered. Most have far superior knowledge than I could ever hope to have. This is why I wasted my time to provide them for you.

    Your questions about our politicians assistance, NIH funding and the Dickey Amendment are all in the links to reference even though it appears you do not wish to learn anything by taking just a little bit of time to read through the information and process your thoughts or gain any knowledge from any of it.

    It's never been my intention to spoon feed you or anyone else important information, nor have I professed to have superior insights.

    Dr. Young already answered these very questions earlier in your "politics of stem cell research thread". Why keep posting the very same questions again in here and clutter redundant postings in yet another thread? He gave you excellent explanations already.
    http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=146748

    (Your total lack of interest in learning anything that's been posted here is what I find a big disappointment!)
    Last edited by GRAMMY; 01-27-2011 at 02:21 PM.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by GRAMMY View Post
    (Your total lack of interest in learning anything that's been posted here is what I find a big disappointment!)
    It's highly annoying, too.

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    17,427
    Quote Originally Posted by keeping on View Post
    Grammy, yes you are a disappointment. You can say what you profess to know. It would be valuable to the cure thread. On the other hand if you don't know just say so or we will take it as such. Infact don't bother, then it might inconvience you.

    Have a great day.
    .............
    Last edited by Leif; 01-26-2011 at 10:51 PM.

  7. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by Leif View Post
    But many thanks for you’re comments on the New Zealand work. I have a question though, -but first; you might be very right on you’re comments above, but as I understood, the trial application was rejected by a ethical committee I think it was 10 times before the Ok was given. Nothing wrong with that – it probably shows that great considerations was given hence such studies are on humans and we all like to make sure that such are safe for the subjects – but could you shed some light, if possible, why the ethical committee rejected the study the previous times it was applied for?

    Thanks upfront, and good luck on the important SCI work in New Zealand.
    Hi Leif, sorry it has taken me a while to reply. Was on bridesmaid duties, had assignments & exam, then this devastating earthquake down country has all taken it's toll & my time on here has been very limited.
    From my understanding of the ethics process the application was "rejected" for several reasons ie - changing wording (candidates to patients); asking for more information; waiting on outside review which was delayed (they refused to name those reviewers which was previously unheard of); lost minutes of previous ethics meeting; further clarification of post rehab, further clarification of data collection, patient consent forms; etc etc.
    From what I understood there was a feeling that the application wasn't declined initially due to any ethical concerns for participants but more on personal reasoning by some members. One working closely with the NZ SCS is/or was the Head of Ethics at the Otago Medical School so I guess he would know what he's talking about. Final approval was granted 10 in favour to 1 I think.
    Personally my point of view is that there was a conflict with a sitting member who failed to disclose to all that her son was injured. Whether her view would have been for or against imo she should of excused herself from the beginning as there could be no talk of a possible breach, but this did not happen & discovery of this potential conflict was made during a tv interview with said member after first rejection.
    The important thing in life is to have great aim, and the determination to attain it.

  8. #48
    KLJ, So, basically her potential conflict of interest added how much more time in slowing down the process to the second go round?

    I see where Leif posted something about rejection 10 times? Is that right? If so, were there additonal problems related to the medical aspect or political?
    Last edited by GRAMMY; 02-27-2011 at 02:43 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. New Zealand Stemcell Trials
    By manouli in forum Cure
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-01-2009, 09:55 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-18-2008, 05:35 PM
  3. Scotland: Stem cell research Kirk backing
    By Leif in forum Funding, Legislation, & Advocacy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-25-2006, 01:49 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-24-2004, 06:47 AM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-16-2003, 09:06 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
  •